EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN Vol. 39, No.

3, 2016

Assessing the Academic, Social,

and Language Production Outcomes
of English Language Learners Engaged
in Peer Tutoring: A Systematic Review
Lisa Bowman-Perrott
Sharon deMarn
Lakshmi Mahadevan
Matthew Etchells
Texas A&M University
Abstract
Peer tutoring is an instructional strategy that allows students to help one another learn content material through the repetition of key concepts. In more
than 40years of published studies, literature reviews, and meta-analyses of
peer tutoring, this quantitative synthesis of the literature is the first to examine the impact of peer tutoring on academic, social, and linguistic outcomes
for English language learner (ELL) students. A total of 363 ELLs in kindergarten through 12th grade are represented in the analyses across 17 studies;
seven studies used single-case research designs, nine used group designs,
and one was a case study. Findings suggest that ELLs benefit from peer tutoring academically, socially, and linguistically. Implications for research and
practice are discussed.
Keywords: academic outcomes, achievement, English language learners, peer
tutoring, social outcomes, systematic review

nglish language learners (ELLs) are defined as individuals who

are in the process of actively acquiring English, and whose primary language is one other than English (Bardack, 2010, p. 7).
According to the U.S. Office of English Language Acquisition, the
enrollment of ELLs inU.S. schools from prekindergarten through 12th
grade increased approximately 64% from the 19941995 school year to
the 20092010 school year (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Of the
nearly 50 million students enrolled in public elementary and secondary

Address correspondence to: Lisa Bowman-Perrott, Ph.D., associate professor,

Department of Educational Psychology, 4225 Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX. Phone: 9798623879. Email: lbperrott@tamu.edu.

Pages 359388

360

BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.

schools during the 20092010 school year, just over 5 million were
identified as ELLs (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). T
hese statistics represent a significant increase in the population of students with
second-language learning needs. Thus, classrooms are becoming increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse, including t hose within
districts that have not typically experienced such diversity (e.g., rural).
This sharp increase in enrollment makes finding ways to provide and
support quality instruction for ELLs all the more imperative. In light
of these rapidly changing demographics, teachers need to be able to
access research-based strategies that best meet the needs of ELLs.
Peer Tutoring Overview
Peer tutoring can be defined as a class of practices and strategies
that employ peers as one-on-one teachers to provide individualized
instruction, practice, repetition, and clarification of concepts (Utley &
Mortweet, 1997, p. 9). Peer tutoring is a research-based intervention
that has been used to help students learn academic content (King,
Staffieri, & Adelgais, 1998), and is beneficial for tutors and tutees
(King etal., 1998). Features of peer tutoring include frequent opportunities to respond, increased time on-task, opportunities to practice
academic content, and regular and immediate feedback. Each of these
components has been empirically linked with increased academic
achievement (Maheady, Harper, & Sacca, 1988). Peer tutoring has
been implemented across content areas including reading (Hassinger, & Via, 1969; Houghton & Bain, 1993; Oddo, Barnett, Hawkins, &
Musti-Rao, 2010), mathematics (Fantuzzo, Polite, & Grayson, 1991;
Harper, Mallette, Maheady, Bentley, & Moore, 1995; Hawkins, Musti-
Rao, Hughes, Berry, & McGuire 2009), social studies (Bell, Young, Blair,
& Nelson, 1990; Lo & Cartledge, 2004; Maheady etal., 1988), and science
(Bowman-Perrott, Greenwood, & Tapia, 2007; Kamps etal., 2008). Benefits include (a) being paired with a peer partner for one-to-one instruction, (b) opportunities for error correction, (c) increased time
spent on academic behaviors, (d) increased positive social interactions
between students, (e) a decrease in off-task and disruptive behaviors,
and (f) experiencing more success and report feeling more confident
academically (Greenwood, Terry, Arreaga-Mayer, & Finney, 1992).
Peer tutoring has proven effective for students with and without
disabilities (Okilwa & Shelby, 2010), native English-speaking students,
and (in a small number of studies) ELLs (Gersten etal., 2007; Greenwood, Arreaga-Mayer, Utley, Gavin, & Terry, 2001). It has also been
implemented across settings including general education (Lo & Cartledge, 2004), resource (Burks, 2004), self-contained (Harper etal., 1993),
alternative education (Bowman-Perrott etal., 2007), and group homes

ASSESSING THE ACADEMIC

361

(Mayfield & Vollmer, 2007). Tutoring configurations include cross-age

(Jun, Ramirez, & Cumming, 2010), small group (Maheady, Sacca, &
Harper, 1987), and class-wide dyads with students of the same age
or grade (Greenwood etal., 1992). Research conducted on the effectiveness of peer tutoring has focused primarily on its implementation in
elementary schools, with some studies focusing on middle and high
schools (Bowman-Perrott etal., 2007; Kamps etal., 2008; Neddenriep,
Skinner, Wallace, & McCallum, 2009).
Peer Tutoring Narrative Reviews and Meta-analyses
Research on peer tutoring includes 17 narrative reviews published between 1969 and2010 and9 quantitative meta-analyses published between 1982 and2014. Narrative reviews on peer tutoring have
addressed several topics including peer tutoring formats (Heron,
Welsch, & Goddard, 2003); behavioral, social, and self-concept benefits (Ginsburg-Block, Rohrbeck, & Fantuzzo, 2006); literacy (Jun etal.,
2010); and specific content areas (Robinson, Schofield, Steers-Wentzell,
2005). The majority of the studies reviewed focused primarily on
academic outcomes. Fewer studies focused on nonacademic outcomes
(e.g., on-task behaviors, social interactions), self-concept, or attitudinal
measures. Findings were conclusive: peer tutoring produced positive
gains for participating students. Thirteen of the 17 reviews focused on
students with disabilities or at risk for academic failure. Across the reviews of literature, academic gains w
ere consistently reported to be
greater than nonacademic gains (e.g., attitudes toward subject matter).
A range of tutoring formats (e.g., cross-age, class-wide, small group)
were represented across a variety of academic subjects.
Studies included in the narrative reviews investigated the use of
peer tutoring: (1) in specialized settings (e.g., physical education)
(Heron etal., 2003; Ward & Lee, 2005), (2) with students with disabilities (Mastropieri, Spencer, Scruggs, & Talbott, 2001; Okilwa & Shelby,
2010; Ryan, Reid, & Epstein, 2004; Stenhoff & Lignugaris-Kraft, 2007),
(3) with a focus on mathematics for students with disabilities (Britz,
Dixon, & McLaughlin, 1989; Kunsch, Jitendra, & Sood, 2007; Robinson
etal., 2005), and (4) with a focus on reading with students with disabilities (Mathes & Fuchs, 1994). None of the literature reviews examined outcomes for ELLs.
Two of the nine meta-analytic reviews examined outcomes for
ELLs (Cole, 2013, 2014). One meta-analysis reported an English as a
second language (ESL) classroom as the setting for one of the peer tutoring studies (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2013). However, results w
ere
not disaggregated and reported for ELLs in that study. Seven meta-
analyses included participants at the elementary and secondary

362

BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.

levels; findings w
ere reported across several content areas and peer
tutoring formats. Further, all nine meta-analyses reported effect size
(ES) measures that support the efficacy of peer tutoring as an intervention that positively impacts academic, social, and/or behavioral outcomes (e.g., Bowman-Perrott etal., 2013; Ginsburg-Block etal., 2006).
Seven of the nine examined student outcomes in studies using group
research designs (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Cole, 2013, 2014; Cook,
Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Casto, 1985; Ginsburg-Block etal., 2006; Jun
etal., 2010; Rohrbeck, Ginsburg-Block, Fantuzzo, & Miller, 2003); two
examined findings for single-case research studies (Bowman-Perrott,
Burke, Zhang, & Zaini, 2014; Bowman-Perrott etal., 2013).
The meta-analysis conducted by Cohen etal. (1982) examined
school tutoring programs across 65 studies that included students in
grades 1 through 12. Of the 65 studies, 52 examined the impact of peer
tutoring on tutees (ES=.40); 38 examined the effect on tutors (ES=.33)
in reading and math. Students who participated in tutoring outperformed students in control groups on content area tests, and had more
positive attitudes toward the peer tutoring subject matter. They also
found that engagement in peer tutoring for fewer weeks had a greater
effect size than engagement for a greater number of weeks.
Cook et al. (1985) included 19 studies in their meta-a nalysis
i nvolving elementary and secondary age students. Tutors were identified as students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBDs),
learning disabilities (LDs), and m
ental retardation/intellectual
disabilities (MR/IDs). The majority of students w
ere identified with
EBDs (56%) followed by students with LDs (20%) and MR/IDs (18%).
Tutors and tutees both made gains academically; however, tutors
made fewer gains (ES=.59) than tutees (ES=.65). They also found no
significant effect on self-esteem or self-concept, and concluded that
structured peer tutoring programs yielded a larger effect size than
unstructured programs. In addition, they examined the impact of the
number of weeks during which students participated in peer tutoring.
Cook and colleagues found that no clear relation between the length
of the intervention and study outcome could be determined (p.488).
Rohrbeck etal. (2003) included 90 studies of Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) interventions at the elementary school level (grades K6)
from peer-reviewed journals. They concluded that PAL interventions
were most effective with younger, urban, low-socioeconomic (SES),
and culturally diverse students. The overall effect size for academics
was .59. They also found that peer tutoring studies that used interdependent reward contingencies yielded a larger effect size. They also
examined the impact of dosage, defined as the durationthe number
of sessions per weekthe length of the peer tutoring sessions. The

ASSESSING THE ACADEMIC

363

average number of hours during which students w

ere engaged in
peer tutoring was 19. Student outcomes w
ere not different based on
whether they received fewer or more than 19 hours of peer tutoring.
The authors identified the following content areas from their analyses: math, reading and language arts, science, social studies and history, general skills, and other (p.257).
Ginsburg-Block et al. (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of 36
studies that examined the impact of PAL interventions on students
academic, social, and behavioral outcomes for students in grades 16.
The overall effect size for academic data across 26 of the 36 studies was
.48the subject areas and corresponding effects were not parsed.
Group reward contingencies were examined for their impact on be
havior, but not for academics. Duration (i.e., more or less than 15 hours)
did not make a difference in students academic outcomes. Subject areas in which peer tutoring were used w
ere not reported.
Jun etal. (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of 12 studies focused
on the impact of peer tutoring on literacy outcomes for students in
grades 612. The effect sizes were compared across types of peer tutoring (e.g., cross-age peer tutoring vs. adult tutoring). The effect size
for cross-age peer tutoring was 1.05. Yet in another meta-analysis,
Bowman-Perrott et al. (2013) examined the effects of peer tutoring
across 26 single-case research (SCR) studies for 938 students in grades
1 through 12. The TauU effect size for 195 phase contrasts was .75
(CI95=.71< >.78), indicating that moderate to large academic benefits
can be attributed to peer tutoring. Findings suggest that peer tutoring
is an effective intervention regardless of dosage, grade level, or disability status. Further, the use of rewards contributed to greater academic gains. The direct (i.e., primary) and collateral (i.e., secondary)
effects of peer tutoring on social and behavioral outcomes w
ere examined by Bowman-Perrott et al. (2014) for 128 participants in pre-K
through grade 12 across 20 single-case research designs studies. The
TauU effect size across studies was .62, indicating that a moderate effect on behavioral and social outcomes can be attributed to peer tutoring. Moderator analyses indicated that cross-
age tutoring, peer
tutoring interventions that did not use reward contingencies, and interventions that measured direct effects yielded higher effect sizes.
The direct effect of peer tutoring on behavioral and social outcomes
was moderately large (ES=.75), while the collateral effect was relatively small (ES=.43). Peer tutoring also had a greater effect on improving social skills and social interactions (ES=.69) and reducing disruptive
and off-task behaviors (ES =.60) than academic engagement (ES=.38).
Cole (2013) investigated the effect of peer-mediated learning
(peer tutoring, collaborative learning, and cooperative learning) on

364

BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.

oral and written language outcomes across 28 studies for ELLs from
elementary through high school. The impact of peer tutoring was analyzed separately from collaborative and cooperative learning, as he
stated that peer tutoring adds an instructional element typically underemphasized or completely absent in cooperative and collaborative
methods (p.149). Overall, peer tutoring was found to encourage oral
and written language gains for ELLs. Specifically, the six peer tutoring studies that focused on elementary school students outcomes
yielded an effect size of .83 for oral language and .31 for written language. The Cole (2014) meta-analysis examined literacy outcomes for
elementary-and secondary-age ELLs across 28 studies. The overall
finding was that peer-mediated interventions promote literacy gains.
Students outcomes were analyzed in light of their participation in collaborative, cooperative, or peer tutoring interventions. The three peer
tutoring studies yielded an effect size of .31, compared to collaborative (ES=.37) and cooperative (ES=.63) formats.
Purpose of This Review
The purpose of this systematic review is to further extend the
peer tutoring literature by providing the first synthesis of peer tutoring outcomes for ELLs to summarize: (a) students academic, social,
and linguistic outcomes; (b) findings for ELLs with disabilities who
are involved in peer tutoring interventions; and (c) the contribution
ofboth group design and single-case design research studies. Effect
sizes and their confidence intervals are reported for each study for
which sufficient data w
ere reported for effect size calculation. Both
confidence intervals and effect sizes are needed for the accurate interpretation of intervention effects (American Psychological Association, 2010; Cooper, 2011; Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982; Thompson,
2007). This work addresses a gap in the peer tutoring literature by
providing needed information about its efficacy for elementary-and
secondary-age ELLs with and without disabilities across three domains (i.e., academic, social, and linguistic). In addition, it contributes
to the sparse literature base on evidence-based practices for ELLs (e.g.,
Moore & Klingner, 2014).
Method
Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria
To identify relevant studies, a literature search of data-based
peer tutoring studies was conducted using the Education Full Text,

ASSESSING THE ACADEMIC

365

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), and PsycINFO databases (between 1969 and2014). In order to control for possible publication bias (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001), unpublished studies were
also sought for inclusion. As such, the Thesis/Dissertation Abstracts
database was searched to include relevant dissertation studies in the
analyses. Search terms included peer tutoring, reciprocal peer tutoring, classwide peer tutoring, peers as tutors, peer mediated
instruction, and peer assisted learning along with English language learner, ELL, and English learner. In addition, the first author contacted two experts who have published research extensively
on peer tutoring and/or issues related to ELL outcomes; no additional
studies were identified. A total of 66 studies were found. Two authors
examined each title and abstract for possible inclusion.
Selection criteria for inclusion in the systematic review w
ere
specified as studies that (a) included ELL participants in pre-K through
12th grade; (b) disaggregated and reported data for ELLs; (c) included
same-or cross-grade peers as tutors; and (d) examined students academic, social, behavioral, and/or linguistic outcomes as a result of participating in peer tutoring. Studies involving college students, parents,
or other adults as tutors, and duplicate studies w
ere excluded. A total
of 17 studies met the selection criteria and are included in this systematic review. Research design standards (e.g., What Works Clearing
house; Kratochwill etal., 2010) were not included as inclusion criteria
to allow as many studies as possible in the analyses.
Study Variable Coding and Coding for SCR Data
Study variable coding. Studies w
ere coded on 10 student variables, 13 teacher variables, and10 peer tutoring intervention variables
(see T
able1). Three of the authors trained on the coding scheme separately applied the codes to a group of studies. To determine coding
reliability, 25% of the studies were independently coded by three of
the authors across all 33 codes. Reliability was calculated using the
formula: sum of agreement/total number of agreements+disagreements100 (House, House, & Campbell, 1981). Disagreements were
resolved a fter the authors reread and discussed the articles, resulting
in 100% final agreement across all codes.
SCR data coding. Dummy coding, assigning a numerical value
for each data point in baseline and intervention phases, was conducted
by hand for the SCR studies that provided graphed data. Dummy
codes for A (baseline) and B (intervention or treatment) phases were
entered into the TauU effect size calculator (Vannest, Parker, & Gonan,
2011) to obtain TauU and its and standard error (SETau) values for
dependent variables. T
hese values were then entered into WinPepi

366

BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.
Table1
Student, Teacher, and Intervention Variables Coded for Each Study

Student Variables
Age/grade

Peer Tutoring Variables

Peer tutoring model

Ethnicity

Duration

Gender

Intensity

Language(s)

Number of sessions

Language proficiency

Use of reward

Retained in g
rade

Fidelity

Disability/at-risk status

Fidelity percentage
Interobserver agreement

Teacher Variables

Social validity

Age
Ethnicity
Gender
Language(s)
Degree earned
ESL certification or training

(Abramson, 2011) to obtain and an overall effect size and confidence

interval for each study. Average gains were calculated for studies that
reported data in bar graphs or as pre-/post-test results.
Effect Size Estimation
Group design studies. Cohens d effect sizes were calculated for
group design studies that reported means and standard deviations
(Cohen, 1988). Cohens d values, standard errors, and confidence intervals w
ere obtained from WinPepi using the functions Compare 2, Numerical observations, Normal distribution, and Mean valued entered. For
one study (Johnson, 1983), t test results were transformed to Cohens d
values using an online calculator (Becker, n.d.). For the McMaster,
Kung, Han, and Cao (2008) study, F values were transformed to d values. The standard errors for those d values w
ere calculated by hand
using the formula sed =

n1 + n2
d2
+
n1n2
2 ( n1 + n2 )

367

ASSESSING THE ACADEMIC

Wilson (2011). Results of studies that pre-/post-test results are

presented as gain scores (see T
able2).
SCR studies. A TauU effect was calculated for the SCR studies
that reported graphed data of ELLs outcomes (to allow for comparison of data points between A and B phases). TauU is an effect size
measure that serves as the index of between and within phase trend
(Parker, Vannest, Davis, & Sauber, 2011, p.8). Derived from Kendalls
Rank Correlation and the Mann-Whitney U test between groups,
TauU is a relatively new method of calculating effect size in SCR
(Parker etal., 2011). It has been used in SCR meta-analyses, including
two of the peer tutoring meta-analyses (Bowman-Perrott etal., 2014;
Bowman-Perrott etal., 2013). Statistical significance for TauU values
was determined using CI95. When determining if change is reliable,
9095% confidence interval is standard (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994),
indicating a reasonable chance of 510% likelihood of error.
Results
ELL Participant Characteristics
Of the 807 participants across studies, 363 (45%) were identified
as ELLs. Elementary-age ELLs w
ere participants in the majority of the
studies (n=12). Three studies examined outcomes for secondary ELLs;
two studies investigated outcomes for both elementary and secondary
students. ELLs across 13 studies w
ere primarily native Spanish speakers. Students whose native language was Chinese were participants in
two studies. Participants whose native language was Laotian, Yugo
slavian, Vietnamese, Indonesian, or Romanian were each represented
in one study. Two studies did not report students native language.
Regarding language proficiency, participants in seven of the studies
were identified as having limited English proficiency, and three
studies reported that participants varied in proficiency levels; seven
studies did not report this information. ELL participant gender was
reported in 11 studies, representing 495 males and205 females; six
studies did not report these data. Seven studies identified ELLs with
disabilities in the samples. A large number of students (n= 168) were
reported as having a learning disability; however, data w
ere reported
for only 47. Four students w
ere identified as having a speech/language
disability, two w
ere identified as having mental retardation/an intellectual disability, and one was identified as having an emotional or
behavioral disorder. Seventeen ELLs were identified as at risk

1.31

.95

Nonsense word fluency

Letter naming fluency

Oral reading fluency

1.00

.58

.13

LL

1.00

UL

.23

7.11 utterances

Gain

English vocabulary and

spelling

Greenwood etal. (2001)

Spelling

Greenwood etal. (1984) Study 3

.95

.09

.77

1.00

72.2%

1.43

1.72

1.46

1.31

1.27

SE (TauU)

Spelling (Language
preference)

.47

.90

.66

.52

.85

ES (TauU)

76%

.24

.21

.21

.20

.11

UL

95% CI
LL

95% CI
SE (d)

Spelling (English only)

Chavez & Arreaga-Mayer (1987)

.91

1.06

Phoneme segmentation

1.06

ES (d)

Calhoon etal. (2007)

Proportion of English

Frequency of utterances in
En
glish

August (1987) Study 11

Study

SCR

Group

Table2
ELL Peer Tutoring Outcomes

1.46

.84

LAS

CCCT

1.66

28%

3.3 per points

.31

.58

RLS

.32

.32

.64

Blending

.32

.08

.68

Segmentation

RLN

.28

McMaster etal. (2008)1,2

.54
1.21

.05

1.28

1.33

.70

.01

.05

(continued)

44%

.49

1.50

2.16

2.27

1.00

.81

.88

56.6%
.08

.18

.76

.83

.86

.77

.52

.65

Spelling (cooperative)
.10

.34

.36

.37

.21

.10

.07

.06

Spelling (competitive)

Madrid etal. (2007)

Comprehension passages

Gates-MacGinitie

Klingner & Vaughn (1996)

1.55

1.26

Words read correctly per

minute

PPVT

.66
.98

Word errors per minute

Johnson (1983)1

.77

Houghton & Bain (1993)

.22

.03

.14

Spelling

Oral reading (combined)

.84
.66
.57

.40
.58
.29

SE (TauU)

LL

UL

25%
13 wpm

Gain

1.20

.48

.27

.82

.36

Reading fluency

Saenz etal. (2005)1

Words correct

Questions correct

Maze choices correct

.09

.09

.09

.05

.19

.63

.09

.38

.54

1.00

.44

.59

1.5%

Sixth-grade maze test

Saenz (2008)

13%

Fifth-grade maze test

Pyron (2007)

22min

ES (TauU)

Oral engagement

1.90

.54

.70

.50

UL

LL

20.6%

.36

.22

.31

.31

.31

SE (d)

Comprehension

Reading rate

Spelling

Perdomo-R ivera (2002)

.10

Word attack

ES (d)

Word identification

Study

SCR
95% CI

Group
95% CI

Table2 (continued)
ELL Peer Tutoring Outcomes

2.54

.24

1.22

Negative behaviors

2.47

6.97

3.03

5.66

.53

7.33

Parallel play

Associative/cooperative play

Positive linguistic interaction

Child responds positively

Child responds negatively

Child initiates interaction

1.59

.54

1.27

.81

1.51

.73

.60

.58

.53

1.20
1.28

10.45

1.59

.53
4.21

8.15

4.62

9.93

3.90

2.56

3.17

1.44

4.01

1.04

.20

2.36

.80
.08

7.62

2.92

Note: SCR=Single-Case Research, ES=effect size, SE=standard error, CI=confidence interval, LL=lower limit, UL=upper limit, PPVT=Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test, LAS=Language Assessment Survey, CCCT=Child-Child Communication Test, RLN=Rapid Letter Naming, RLS=Rapid
Letter Sound, per points=percentile points, wpm=words per minute, min=minutes. 1Pre-to posttest gains reported. 2Posttest values only reported.
3
Gain from baseline (teacher-led instruction) to peer tutoring.

1.38

Solitary play

Nonplay behaviors

5.27

Positive interaction

77.7%

Correct use of periods and

question marks
2.26

8.5%

Accurate word capitalization

.07

51%

Capitalize sentences

2.40

37.7%

Xu etal. (2005)

76.5%

Correct use of spelling

13.2%

Use of complete sentences

Standley (2006)

Oral language proficiency

Serrano (1997)

372

BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.

ecause of reading difficulties; one was reported to be at risk for

b
speech/language difficulties. At least 11 of the ELLs had been retained
in grade.
Teacher Participant Characteristics
A total of 70 teachers and15 paraprofessionals implemented peer
tutoring interventions across all studies. Teachers implemented peer
tutoring in 10 of the studies; researchers carried out the interventions
in four studies and the researcher was also the teacher in one study. A
reading specialist conducted the intervention in one study, and a paraprofessional was the implementer in another. The implementer was
not clearly identified in the remaining study. Only seven studies provided information about teachers ESL training. Nine teachers were
certified in ESL and four had ESL training. Additionally, five w
ere bilingual and one was described as being moderately fluent in Spanish.
One study reported that the teachers were not certified to teach special
education whereas none of the o
thers reported this information. Five
studies reported the number of teaching experience. The average
minimum number of years was 9 (range 2 to >15years).
Assessment Instruments
Ten studies reported the assessment instruments used to assess
ELLs language proficiency and English vocabulary and some used
more than one assessment. The most commonly used were the Language Assessment Scales (LAS; DeAvila & Duncan, 1977) and the Idea
Proficiency Test (IPT; Ballard, Dalton, & Tighe, 2001). Other instruments included the Picture Peabody Vocabulary Test (PPVT; Dunn &
Dunn, 2007), the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery (Woodcock,
1991), the Woodcock Munoz Language Survey (Woodcock & Muoz-
Sandoval, 1995), the James Language Dominance Test (James, 1974), and
the Brigance Assessment of Basic Skills Language Dominance (Brigance, 1984). Statewide language surveys and researcher-administered
interviews w
ere least frequently used.
Research Designs
Nine studies used group research designs (including randomly
assigning participants to treatment and control groups), seven used
SCR designs (e.g., ABAB, alternating treatments), and one was a case
study (Pyron, 2007). While most studies compared a peer tutoring
condition to a baseline or nonpeer tutoring condition, some studies
compared peer tutoring methods (e.g., peer tutoring with and without

ASSESSING THE ACADEMIC

373

consultation support for teachers; Greenwood etal., 2001), and peer

tutoring in English only vs. English or Spanish (Chavez & Arreaga-
Mayer, 1987). One study compared cooperative learning versus peer
tutoring (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996).
Peer Tutoring Interventions
Setting. Peer tutoring took place in several classroom settings.
They included general education (n=5; one with ESL pullout), bilingual
education (n=3), dual language (n=1), partial immersion (n=1), an
English-only class with 50/50 two-way bilingual instruction (TWBI)
or 90/100 TWBI (parents w
ere able to choose; n=1), a bilingual pullout program (n=1), and an ESL (n=1) classroom. Interventions also
took place in a reading lab in one study; setting was not reported in
four studies.
Peer tutoring models. Six studies used ClassWide Peer Tutoring
(CWPT; Delquadri, Greenwood, Whorton, Carta, & Hall, 1986); three
reported implementing Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS;
Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997); one used Pause, Prompt, and
Praise (Glynn, McNaughton, Robinson, & Quinn, 1979); and another
used Inter-ethnolinguistic Peer Tutoring (IEPT; Johnson, 1983). Six
studies did not identify a specific peer tutoring model, but described
the procedure used. The descriptions w
ere reverse role, modified
reciprocal, and cross-level peer tutoring with dyads. Eleven of the studies used a reciprocal peer tutoring format; six did not.
Duration, intensity, and number of sessions. Duration was defined as the number of weeks during which studies were conducted,
including peer tutoring and nonpeer tutoring condition. The average
duration was 11.5 weeks for the 12 studies that reported these data.
Fewer studies (n=11) reported the number of weeks students actually
spent engaged in peer tutoring; the average for t hose was 10 weeks
(range 1 to 21 weeks). Intensity, the number of minutes per week
students spent in peer tutoring, averaged 32 minutes (range 15 to 90
minutes) for the 16 studies that reported t hese data. The number of
sessions, the number of days per week students engaged in peer
tutoring, was four times per week as an average for the 10 studies reporting these data.
Treatment fidelity and interobserver agreement. Treatment fidelity was reported in only five studies; average fidelity was 97%
(range 96.4% to 99.8%). Checklists w
ere used to determine w
hether
teachers and students correctly implemented peer tutoring procedures. Interobserver agreement (IOA) on students outcome variables
was reported in only seven of the studies (Kratochwill etal., 2010).

374

BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.

Average IOA across these studies was 97% (range 98% to 100%). Three
studies reported the percentage of peer tutoring sessions included in
IOA calculations (Kratochwill etal., 2010). The range was 25% to 39%.
Social validity. Surveys w
ere given to teachers and students to
determine how well-received peer tutoring interventions w
ere. For
teachers, questions included how easily peer tutoring fit into their existing schedules and with their current curricula. For students, they
included asking whether peer tutoring helped them learn academic
content. Both teachers and students reported positive feedback about
participating in peer tutoring in the 10 studies that collected these
data. One study informally reported that students requested peer tutoring (during nonpeer tutoring weeks).
Intervention Effects
The following Cohens d values have been consistently used to
provide a guideline for interpreting effect size data: .20 (small effect),
.50 (medium effect), and .80 (large effect) (Cohen, 1988). TauU values
may be interpreted as follows: A .20 improvement may be considered
a small change, 0.21 to 0.60 a moderate change, 0.61 to 0.80 a large
change, and above 0.80 a large to very large change, depending on the
context (Vannest & Ninci, 2015, p.408). Intervention effects for each
dependent variable are presented in Table2.
Academic outcomes. Six studies examined ELLs reading outcomes. Klingner and Vaughn (1996) examined the efficacy of peer
tutoring versus cooperative learning for ELLs with LDs across three
measures of reading comprehension. They found that ELLs in both
groups made gains in reading comprehension. ELLs made gains of
3.3percentile points on the Gates-MacGinitie, and a 28% improvement
on correct items on comprehension passages during cross-age peer tutoring. Calhoon, Al Otaiba, Cihak, King, and Avalos (2007) investigated the impact of peer tutoring on phoneme segmentation, nonsense
word fluency, letter naming fluency, and oral reading fluency. A large
overall effect size (d=1.06, .11, CI95=.85 to 1.27) was obtained for this
study. Calhoon etal. reported that peer tutoring was more effective
for ELLs than for En
glish proficient students on nonsense word
fluency and letter naming fluency tasks on the Dynamic Indicators
of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good etal., 2004). They indicated that peer tutoring seemed to benefit ELLs in making gains on
phoneme segmentation more so than oral reading fluency. Houghton
and Bain (1993) studied word errors per minute and words read correctly per minute. The overall TauU effect size was .77 (.06, CI95=.65
to .88). They found that ELLs with LDs gained more in terms of reading

ASSESSING THE ACADEMIC

375

accuracy than their native English-

speaking peers, and that they
gained almost as much with regard to reading comprehension.
McMaster etal. (2008) examined outcomes related to phonemic
awareness, alphabetic awareness, word identification/word attack
skills, spelling, and oral reading for ELLs with and without speech/
language impairments. The overall effect size for this study was d=.38
(.11, CI95=.17 to .59). Phonemic awareness (d=.84, .23, C95=.39 to 1.29)
and alphabetic awareness (d=.57, 24, CI95=.11 to 1.04) yielded the largest effect sizes. Word identification/word attack yielded an effect size
of d=.23 (.22, CI95=.20 to .66), followed by oral reading (d=.14, .22,
C95=.29 to .57) and spelling (d=.03, .31, .CI95=58 to .66). Results w
ere
not disaggregated for the students receiving speech/language ser
vices. Saenz, Fuchs, and Fuchs (2005) studied words read correctly,
comprehension questions answered correctly, and maze questions
correctly answered with ELLs with LDs. Results show that a large effect was obtained for ELLs with LDs (d=1.31, .50, CI95=.33 to 2.29) and
small effects w
ere found for ELLs who w
ere high achieving (d=.10, .36,
CI95=.61 to .80), average achieving d=.23 (.34, CI95=.43 to .90), and
low achieving (d=.02, .03, .66 to .71). For the Saenz etal. study, overall, d=.03 (.03, CI95=1.03 to .08). Perdomo-Rivera (2002) reported gains
for ELLs with regard to words read correctly per minute and comprehension. Reading rates improved for all participants during CWPT
compared to teacher-led instruction. No differences were reported in
the number of errors made by non-English-speaking (NES), limited
English students (LES), and fluent English-speaking (FES) students.
Perdomo-Rivera (2002) examined academic engagement (e.g., writing,
reading aloud, and talking) as a broad-scope dependent measure. In
this study, NES, LES, and FES all had higher levels of academic engagement during CWPT than during teacherled instruction.
Spelling gains w
ere examined in six studies. Perdomo-Rivera
(2002) reported that NES ELLs made the greatest gains (a 17% mean
increase) during spelling from baseline (teacher-led instruction) to
CWPT. FES students made a gain of 2% during spelling; LES did not
make gains (1%). Chavez and Arreaga-Mayer (1987) focused on science
vocabulary spelling during English-Only and Bilingual/Language
Preference peer tutoring sessions. They found that while the results
were about the same, students in both peer tutoring conditions made
significant gains in spelling. Bilingual and monolingual Spanish-
speaking students benefitted more from peer tutoring than their
English-speaking peers. The average gain during the English-O nly
condition was 76% from pre-to posttest. The average gain during
Bilingual/Language Preference sessions was 72.2%. Greenwood

376

BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.

etal. (2001) studied spelling and vocabulary gains using weekly pre-
and posttests. They found that ELLs made significant gains in mastering new vocabulary and spelling words in English. A large TauU
value of .95 was found (.09, CI95=.77 to 1.00). The study conducted by
Klingner and Vaughn (1996) yielded a moderate d=.67 (.24, CI95=.20
to 1.13). Greenwood etal. (1984) measured vocabulary gains for ELLs
in the third study reported in this article. Although ELLs made
gains, the authors reported that they did not gain as much as their
native English-speaking peers. A shorter list of vocabulary words
and additional time with peer tutoring are modifications they identified that might be helpful for ELLs. Madrid, Canas, and Ortega-Medina
(2007) examined weekly pre-and posttest scores to determine w
hether
cooperative or competitive peer tutoring arrangements (compared to
teacher-led instruction) befitted ELLs more. While ELLs made notable spelling gains in both conditions, they had higher posttest means
in the cooperative peer tutoring condition. The overall TauU effect
size for the study was 1.00 (.32, C95=.38 to 1.00).
Standley (2006) investigated students use of complete sentences,
correct use of spelling, capitalization, and use of periods and question
marks. Students made the greatest gains with correctly using periods
and question marks (77% gain), followed by the use of complete sentences (76.5% gain). Their pre-to posttest gains for capitalizing sentences, accurately capitalizing words, and correct use of spelling were
51%, 8.5%, and37.7%, respectively. Two ELLs with MR/IDs, one ELL
with EBDs, and one gifted student with LDs served as tutors. Students
worked collaboratively on revising and editing text, brainstorming,
and turn taking; tutors were motivated to fulfill their role. Social gains
were noted anecdotally, and improved behaviors w
ere reported for
the student identified with EBDs.
Social outcomes. One study examined ELLs social outcomes as
a result of participating in peer tutoring. Xu, Gelfer, and Perkins (2005)
found that peer tutoring encouraged positive social interactions
among second-grade peers. The overall d was 2.40 (.07, CI95=2.26 to
2.54). Effect sizes
were also calculated for each of the be
hav
iors
examined in the study. The largest effect sizes were found for ELLs
initiating interactions with native English-speaking peers (d=7.33,
1.59), engaging in cooperative play (d=6.97, 1.51), responding positively to peers (d=5.66, 1.27), and interacting positively with peers
(d=5.27, 1.20). Smaller effects w
ere found for parallel play (d=2.47,
.73), solitary play (d=1.38, .60), and nonplay behaviors (d=1.22, .58).
Smallest effect sizes w
ere found for responding negatively to peers
(d=.53, .54) and engaging in negative behaviors (d=.24, .53).

ASSESSING THE ACADEMIC

377

Linguistic outcomes. Four studies examined ELLs linguistic

outcomes. Perdomo-Rivera (2002) measured oral language engagement
(initiating and responding aloud) for fourth-and fifth-grade ELLs
during peer tutoring, compared to teacher-led instruction. She found
that NES, LES, and FES all experienced higher levels of oral engagement (M=22 minutes more) during peer tutoring than teacher-led instruction. The ELLs in all three groups were also more likely to speak
and write in English during peer tutoring. Further, she reported that
the two ELLs (one NES and one LES) who had been identified as predominantly Spanish speaking on the Brigance (Brigance, 1984) during pretest w
ere classified as bilingual after the intervention. Serrano
(1987) examined the impact of peer tutoring on migrant ELLs En
glish language acquisition using the IPT. Same-age/grade tutoring
treatment conditions were (1) a bilingual mig rant tutor was paired
with an NES or LES student, (2) a native English-speaking tutor was
paired with an NES or LES tutee, and (3) teacher-led/whole-group instruction. Average gains reported for the two tutoring conditions
were 14.2% and12.2%, respectively, compared to 11.3% for teacher-led
instruction.
August (1987) examined elementary school ELLs frequency of
utterances in English. No statistically significant differences were
observed between ELLs in the treatment and control groups. However, ELLs in the treatment group demonstrated more frequent utterances in English and interacted with peers more than their counterparts
in the control group 13 weeks after the study ended. Another of Augusts findings worth noting was that immediately following the
treatment, there w
ere significant correlations between mean frequency of utterances in English to peers and posttest measures of
comprehension on the LAS comprehension subtest and receptive vocabulary measured by the PPVT. The same relationship existed between proportion of English to peers and language proficiency test
scores (p.730).
Johnson (1983) sought to determine w
hether participation in
peer tutoring would impact elementary-age ELLs social interactions
with their peers, and w
hether their use of English with peers would
help develop their proficiency in English. The average gain on the
PPVT for all 16 ELLs was 1.3 points, and scores on the LAS increased
an average of 5.6 points. While ELLs mean gain on the Child-Child
Communication Test (CCCT) was 12.3 points, there was no difference
between treatment and control group participants. Utterances in En
glish for LES during free time ranged from 0% to 56%. As such, most
LES spoke Spanish during f ree play. However, while they w
ere less

378

BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.

likely to speak English, PPVT scores revealed increased English proficiency (p.65).
Discussion
The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the impact of peer tutoring on the academic, social, and language production outcomes of elementary and secondary ELLs. Findings across the
17 group and single-case design research studies provide the first
summary of academic, social, and linguistic outcomes for ELLs engaged in peer tutoring in more than 40 years of peer tutoring research. Overall, findings suggest that peer tutoring encourages gains
for ELLs of varying levels of English proficiency. Further, ELLs appear
to gain academic and social benefits from this empirically supported
practice just as their peers who are native English speakers. ELLs were
also found to make noticeable strides in developing their English language proficiency. Cross-age and same-age peer tutoring as well as
cooperative and competitive tutoring arrangements seem to be beneficial for ELLs.
Limitations and Implications for F
uture Research
The primary limitation of this study reflects a limitation of the
body of evidence overall for examining the efficacy of peer tutoring
with ELLs. It is also the first implication for future researchthere is
a paucity of peer tutoring research focused on ELLs (Cole, 2014). As
more studies become available, more solid conclusions can be drawn
about the efficacy of peer tutoring for ELLs. In addition, a meta-analy
sis of this body of literature should be conducted as more data are
available. Meta-analytic reviews are critical to establishing the evidence base for effective interventions and practices because they allow researchers to arrive at conclusions that are more accurate and
more credible than can be presented in any one primary study or in a
non-quantitative, narrative review (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001,
p.61). Meta-analysis moves beyond the question Is peer tutoring effective for ELLs? to determining which peer tutoring components
and what ELL characteristics lead to the greatest benefits for this
growing population of students. Further, potential moderators such as
grade level, duration, the use of reward, peer tutoring model, and disability status should be examined. With regard to grade level, gaining
an understanding of content vocabulary and concepts can be challenging for students navigating second-language learning. This is especially true for secondary-age ELLs, as curricula at the m
iddle and

ASSESSING THE ACADEMIC

379

high school levels place more of a cognitive demand on students

particularly with regard to the development of cognitive academic
language proficiency (CALP).
Duration of tutoring and the use of reward have been investigated in previous meta-analyses with mixed results. Duration has
been found to have little impact on students outcomes (e.g., Cook
et al., 1985; Rohrbeck et al., 2003). However, Rohrbeck et al. (2003)
noted, It is conceivable that an examination of the number of weeks
may pit intensive, tightly controlled short-term interventions against
less intensive long-term interventions, yielding greater effects for
those short-term interventions (p.251). Cohen etal. (1982) noted that
tutoring effects were larger...in tutoring programs of shorter duration (p.243). Cook etal. (1985) reported that no clear relation could be
determined from their analyses. Perhaps a more refined index than
total duration will be required before we can accurately measure the
dosage of effect of peer tutoring. Moreover, varied findings have been
reported with regard to the impact of rewards on academic and nonacademic outcomes (Bowman-Perrott etal., 2014; Rohrbeck etal., 2003).
For example, the use of rewards has been found to encourage academic gains, but not social outcomes. Knowing how these variables
impact or fail to impact outcomes for ELLs w
ill be helpful in better
understanding the benefit ELLs receive from this widely used intervention. The type of peer tutoring model used (e.g., reciprocal, nonreciprocal) should be investigated as well, as students performance
within various models may vary (see Maheady, Mallette, & Harper,
2010 for a comparison of four models). In addition, continued investigation of outcomes for ELLs with disabilities is an urgent need in the
field, as they have been excluded as participants in many studies
(Klingner, Artiles, & Barletta, 2006). Findings from the studies reviewed provide encouraging findings that indicate that ELLs with
mild to moderate disabilities benefit from peer tutoring both in the
role of tutor and of tutee. A second limitation is that no standards w
ere
applied to determine the methodological rigor of the included studies.
Even though this decision allowed examination of a greater volume of
literature, it is important to ensure the quality of studies to help ensure
a solid evidence base for recommending and implementing empirically supported practices.
An area for future research is to conduct more studies that examine the impact of peer tutoring for ELLs across academic content
areas. This is particularly needed in science, social studies, and mathe
matics. Because ELLs face the dual challenge of learning a new language as well as content area knowledge (Bowman-Perrott, Herrera,
& Murry, 2010), they should continue to be at the forefront of upcoming

380

BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.

peer tutoring studies. Also, future peer tutoring investigations involving ELLs need to report IOA and fidelity of implementation. In light
of the importance of identifying and implementing evidence-based
practices, it is imperative that important research components be included to strengthen the internal validity of peer tutoring interventions for ELLs. Additionally, only August (1987) reported maintenance
data collected up to 13 weeks after peer tutoring ended and the ELLs
continued to make gains. Authors from two other studies mentioned
informally following up with participants, but no specific findings w
ere
provided. A final recommendation for future research is to include
more ELL with disabilities; data should be disaggregated by disability.
Implications for Practice
Teachers as well as students can benefit from peer tutoring b
ecause
it is flexible and can be used with curricula teachers are already using.
Peer tutoring can be used class-wide, with small groups of students, or
with students working in a dyad. It is easily applied in regular education, special education, bilingual, and ESL classrooms and appears to
be beneficial for ELL with and without disabilities. Further, it can simul
taneously meet the needs of ELLs and their native English-speaking
peers within the same classroom. This intervention provides multiple
opportunities for responding to and for engaging with course content
through reading, hearing, speaking, and writing (Short, Fidelman, &
Louguit, 2012). Social validity measures have shown peer tutoring interventions to be acceptable to students and teachers.
Last, pre-and in-service training should include peer tutoring.
This intervention fits well within multitiered intervention supports.
Particularly in this era of increased accountability, administrators,
teachers, and school psychologists are constantly encouraged to implement evidence-based practices; however, very few have been identified for ELLs. There is great promise for the continued use of peer
tutoring for ELLs at the elementary, middle, and high school levels.

References
*Articles with an asterisk represent studies that are included in this
systematic review.
Abramson, J. H. (2011). WINPEPI updated: Computer programs for
epidemiologists, and their teaching potential. Epidemiologic
Perspectives & Innovations, 8(1). http://www.epiperspectives
.com/content/8/1/1

ASSESSING THE ACADEMIC

381

American Psychological Association. (2010). The publication manual of

the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
*August,D. (1987). Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition of Mexican American children in elementary
school. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 717736.
Ballard,W.S., Dalton,E.F., & Tighe,P.L. (2001). IDEA Oral Language
Proficiency Test in English (5th ed.). Brea, CA: Ballard and
Tighe.
Bardack,S. (2010). Common ELL terms and definitions. Washington, DC:
American Institutes for Research. http://www.air.org/sites
/default/f iles/downloads/r eport/N EW_ - _Common _ELL
_TERMS_AND_DEFINITIONS_6_22_10_0.pdf
Becker, L. A. (2000). Effect size calculators. University of Colorado
website: http://www.uccs.edu/~lbecker/
Bell,K., Young,K.R., Blair,M., & Nelson,R. (1990). Facilitating mainstreaming of students with behavioral disorders using classwide peer tutoring.School Psychology Review, 19(4), 564573.
Bowman-Perrott,L., Burke,M., Zhang,N., & Zaini,S. (2014). Direct
and collateral benefits of peer tutoring on social and behavioral outcomes: A meta-analysis of single-case research. School
Psychology Review, 43(3), 260285.
Bowman-Perrott, L., Davis, H., Vannest, K. J., Williams, L., Greenwood,C.R., & Parker,R. (2013). Academic benefits of peer tutoring: A meta-analytic review of single-case research. School
Psychology Review, 42(1), 3955.
Bowman-Perrott,L.J., Greenwood,C.R., & Tapia,Y. (2007). The efficacy of peer tutoring used in secondary alternative school
classrooms with small teacher/pupil ratios and students with
emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment
of Children, 30(3), 6587.
Bowman-Perrott,L., Herrera,S.G., & Murry,K. (2010). Complexities
in learning to read and reading to learn for English language
learners. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 26, 91107.
Brigance,A. (1984). Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development.
North Billerica, MA: Curriculum Associates.
Britz,M., Dixon,J., & McLaughlin,T. (1989). The effects of peer tutoring on mathematics performance: A recent review. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 13(1), 1722.

382

BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.

Burks,M. (2004). Effects of classwide peer tutoring on the number of

words spelled correctly by students with LD.Intervention in
School and Clinic,39(5), 301304.
*Calhoon,M.B., Al Otaiba,S., Cihak,D., King,A., & Avalos,A. (2007).
Effects of peer mediated program on reading skill acquisition
for two-way bilingual first-grade classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 169184.
*Chavez,G.T., & Arreaga-Mayer,C. (1987, March). Ecobehavioral variables
within a classroom with limited English proficient students. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Association
for Bilingual Education, Denver, CO.
Cohen,J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen,P.A., Kulik,J.A., & Kulik,C.C. (1982). Educational outcomes
of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational
Research Journal, 19(2), 237248.
Cole, M. W. (2013). Rompiendo el silencio: Meta-
analy
sis of the
effectiveness of peer-mediated learning at improving l anguage
outcomes for ELLs. Bilingual Research Journal, 36, 146, 166.
Cole,M.W. (2014). Speaking to read: Meta-analysis of peer-mediated
learning for English language learners. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(3), 358382.
Cook,S.B., Scruggs,T.E., Mastropieri,M.A., & Casto,G.C. (1985).
Handicapped students as tutors.The Journal of Special Education,19(4), 483492.
Cooper,H. (2011). Reporting research in psychology: How to meet journal
article reporting standards (6th ed.). Baltimore, MD: American
Psychological Association.
DeAvila,E.A., & Duncan,S.E. (1977). Language Assessment Scales, LAS
I, for Grades K5, English/Spanish. Corte Madera, CA: Linguametrics Group.
Delquadri,J., Greenwood,C.R., Whorton,D., Carta,J.J., & Hall,R.V.
(1986). Classwide peer tutoring. Exceptional C
hildren, 52(6),
535542.
Dunn,L.M., & Dunn,D.M. (2007). The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
(4th ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
Fantuzzo,J.W., Polite,K., & Grayson,N. (1991). An evaluation of reciprocal peer tutoring across elementary school settings.Journal
of School Psychology, 28(4), 309323.

ASSESSING THE ACADEMIC

383

Fuchs,D., Fuchs,L.S., Mathes,P.G., & Simmons,D.C. (1997). Peer-

assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to academic diversity. American Educational Research
Journal, 34, 174206.
Gersten,R., Baker,S.K., Shanahan,T., Linan-Thompson,S., Collins,P., &
Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English language learners in the elementary grades: A
practice guide (NCEE 20074011). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences,U.S. Department of Education.
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee
Ginsburg-Block,M.D., Rohrbeck,C.A., & Fantuzzo,J.W. (2006). A
meta-analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral
outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psy
chology, 98(4), 732749.
Glynn,T., McNaughton,S.S., Robinson,V., & Quinn,M. (1979). Remedial reading at home: Helping you help your child. Wellington:
New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Shinn, M., Bratten, J., Shinn, M.,
Laimon,D.,...Flindt,N. (2004).Technical adequacy of DIBELS:
Results of the Early Childhood Research Institute on measuring
growth and development(Technical Report No. 7). Eugene: University of Oregon.
*Greenwood, C. R., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Utley, C., Gavin, K. M., &
Terry,B.J. (2001). ClassWide Peer Tutoring Learning Management System: Applications with elementary-
level En
glish
language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 22(1), 3447.
*Greenwood,C.R., Dinwiddie,G., Terry,B., Wade,L., Stanley,S.O.,
Thibadeau,S., & Delquadri,J.C. (1984). Teacher-versus peer-
mediated instruction: An ecobehavioral analysis of achievement outcomes. Journal of Applied Be
hav
ior Analy
sis, 17,
521538.
Greenwood, C. R., Terry, B., Arreaga-Mayer, C., & Finney, R. (1992).
The classwide peer tutoring program: Implementation factors
moderating students achievement. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 25, 101116.
Harper, G. F., Mallette, B., Maheady, L., Bentley, A. E., & Moore, J.
(1995). Retention and treatment failure in classwide peer tutoring: Implications for further research.Journal of Behavioral
Education,5(4), 399414.

384

BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.

Harper,G.F., Mallette,B., Maheady,L., Parkes,V., & Moore,J. (1993).

Retention and generalization of spelling words acquired using a peer-
mediated instructional procedure by
children
with mild handicapping conditions.Journal of Behavioral Education,3(1), 2538.
Hassinger,J., & Via,M. (1969). How much does a tutor learn through
teaching reading? Journal of Secondary Reading, 44(1), 4244.
Hawkins, R. O., Musti-Rao, S., Hughes, C., Berry, L., & McGuire, S.
(2009). Applying a randomized interdependent group contingency component to classwide peer tutoring for multiplication fact fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 300318.
Heron,T.E., Welsch,G., & Goddard,Y.L. (2003) Applications of tutoring systems in specialized subject areas: an analysis of skills,
methodologies, and results. Remedial and Special Education, 24,
288300.
*Houghton, S., & Bain, A. (1993). Peer tutoring with ESL and
below-average readers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3(2),
125142.
House, A. E., House, B. J., & Campbell, M. B. (1981). Measures of
interobserver agreement: Calculation formulas and distribution effects. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 3(1), 3757.
Hunter,J.E., Schmidt,F.L., & Jackson,G.B. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
James,P. (1974). James Language Dominance Test: English/Spanish. Austin, TX: Learning Concepts.
*Johnson,D.M. (1983). Natural language learning by design: A classroom experiment in social interaction and second language
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 17(1), 5568.
Jun,S.W., Ramirez,G., & Cumming,A. (2010). Tutoring adolescents in
literacy: A meta-analysis. McGill Journal of Education, 45(2),
219238.
Kamps,D.M., Greenwood,C., Arreaga-Mayer,C., Veerkamp,M.B.,
Utley, C., Tapia, Y.,...Bannister, H. (2008). The efficacy of
ClassWide Peer Tutoring in middle schools. Education and
Treatment of Children, 31(2), 119152.
King,A., Staffieri,A., & Adelgais,A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning.Journal of Educational Psychology,90(1), 134152.

ASSESSING THE ACADEMIC

385

Klingner,J.K., Artiles,A.J., & Barletta,L.M. (2006). English language

learners who struggle with reading language acquisition or
LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities,39(2), 108128.
*Klingner,J.K., & Vaughn,S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading
comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary
School Journal, 96(3), 275293.
Kratochwill,T.R., Hitchcock,J., Horner,R.H., Levin,J.R., Odom,S.L.,
Rindskopf,D.M., & Shadish,W.R. (2010). Single-case designs
technical documentation. What Works Clearinghouse website:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf
Kunsch,C.A., Jitendra,A.K., & Sood,S. (2007). The effects of peer-
mediated instruction in mathematics for students with learning prob
lems: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice,22(1), 112.
Lo,Y., & Cartledge,G. (2004). Total class peer tutoring and interdependent group oriented contingency: Improving the academic
and task related behaviors of fourth-grade urban students.
Education and Treatment of Children, 27(3), 235262.
*Madrid,D., Canas,M., & Ortega-Medina,D. (2007). A comparative
study of effective instructional strategies with low-achieving
Hispanic bilingual c hildren. Research for Educational Reform,
8(3), 2537.
Maheady,L., Harper,G.F., & Sacca,M.K. (1988). Peer-mediated instruction: A promising approach to meeting the diverse needs of
LD adolescents. Learning Disability Quarterly,11(2), 108113.
Maheady,L., Mallette,B., & Harper,G.F. (2010). Four classwide peer
tutoring models: Similarities, differences, and implications for
research and practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 6589.
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), 107121.
Mastropieri,M.A., Spencer,V., Scruggs,T.E., & Talbott,E. (2001). Students with disabilities as tutors: An updated research synthesis. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 15, 247279.
Mathes,P.G., & Fuchs,L.S. (1994). The efficacy of peer tutoring in
reading for students with mild disabilities: A best-evidence
synthesis.School Psychology Review, 23(1), 5980.

386

BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.

Mayfield,K.H., & Vollmer,T.R. (2007). Teaching math skills to at-risk

students using home-based peer tutoring. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 40, 223237.
*McMaster, K. L., Kung, S., Han, I., & Cao, M. (2008). Peer-assisted
learning strategies: A tier 1 approach to promoting English
learners response to intervention. Exceptional C
hildren, 74(2),
194214.
Moore,B.A., & Klingner,J.K. (2014). Considering the needs of English
language learner populations: An examination of the population validity of reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(5), 391408.
Neddenriep, C. E., Skinner, C. H., Wallace, M. A., & McCallum, E.
(2009). Classwide peer tutoring: Two experiments investigating
the generalized relationship between increased oral reading
fluency and reading comprehension. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 25(3), 244269.
Nunnally,J.C., & Bernstein,I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.).
New York: McGraw Hill.
Oddo,M., Barnett,D.W., Hawkins,R.O., & Musti-Rao,S. (2010). Reciprocal peer tutoring and repeated reading: Increasing practicality using student groups. Psychology in the Schools, 47,
842858. doi: 10.1002/pits.20508
Okilwa,N.S.A., & Shelby,L. (2010). The effects of peer tutoring on academic performance of students with disabilities in grades 6
through 12: A synthesis of the literature. Remedial and Special
Education, 31(6), 450463.
Parker,R.I., Vannest,K.J., Davis,J.L., & Sauber,S.B. (2011). Combining non-overlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Be
havior Therapy, 35, 202322.
*Perdomo-Rivera,C. (2002). The effects of Classwide Peer Tutoring on the
literacy achievement and language production of English language
learners in an elementary school setting (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence.
*Pyron,M. (2007). I hear you, but I dont understand you: The effects of
peer tutoring for helping secondary ESL students achieve academic
success (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge.
Robinson,D.R., Schofield,J.W., & Steers-Wentzell,K.L. (2005). Peer
and cross-age tutoring in math: Outcomes and their design
implications.Educational Psychology Review,17(4), 327362.

ASSESSING THE ACADEMIC

387

Rohrbeck,C.A., Ginsburg-Block,M.D., Fantuzzo,J.W., & Miller,T.R.

(2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary
school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 240257.
Rosenthal,R., & DiMatteo,M.R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for lit
er
a
t ure reviews.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 5982.
Ryan,J.B., Reid,R., & Epstein,M.H. (2004). Peer-mediated intervention studies on academic achievement for students with EBD:
A review.Remedial and Special Education,25(6), 330341.
*Saenz,S. (2008). The effects of a comprehensive tutor-assisted oral reading
program on at-risk Hispanic elementary students (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Houston, Houston, TX.
*Saenz,L.M., Fuchs,L.S., & Fuchs,D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning
strategies for English language learners with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 231247.
*Serrano,C.J. (1987). The effectiveness of cross-level peer involvement in
the acquisition of English as second language by Spanish-speaking
migrant children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Short,D.J., Fidelman,C.G., & Louguit,M. (2012). Developing academic
language in English language learners through sheltered instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 334361.
*Standley, L. (1996). Cross-age peer-tutoring effects on the English literacy
development and academic motivation of English language learners
identified and referred for mild and moderate disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque.
Stenhoff,D.M., & Lignugaris-Kraft,B. (2007). A review of the effects
of peer tutoring on students with mild disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 74(1), 830.
Thompson, B. (2007). Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and confidence intervals for effect sizes. Psychology in the Schools, 44,
423432.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instructional Programs. (2011). The growing
numbers of English language learner students. http://www.ncela
.us/files/uploads/9/growing_EL_0910.pdf.

388

BOWMAN-PERROTT et al.

Utley,C.A., & Mortweet,S.L. (1997). Peer-mediated instruction and

interventions. Focus on Exceptional C
hildren, 29(5), 123.
Vannest, K. J., & Ninci, J. (2015). Intervention effects in single-case
research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93,
403411.
Vannest,K.J., Parker,R.I., & Gonan,O. (2011). Single case research:
Web based calculators for SCR analysis (Version 1.0) [Web-
based application]. College Station: Texas A&M University.
www.singlecaseresearch.org
Ward,P., & Lee,M. (2005). Peer-assisted learning in physical education: A review of theory and research. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 24(3), 205.
Wilson,D.B. (2011). Calculating effect sizes. www.campbellcollaboration
.org
Woodcock,R.W. (1991). Woodcock Language Proficiency BatteryRevised:
En
glish and Spanish forms: Examiners manual. Itasca, IL:
Riverside.
Woodcock,R.W., & Muoz-Sandoval,A.F. (1995). Woodcock Language
Proficiency BatteryRevised: Spanish form: Supplemental manual.
Itasca, IL: Riverside.
*Xu,Y., Gelfer,J., & Perkins,P. (2005). Using peer tutoring to increase
social interactions in early schooling. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1),
83106.

Copyright of Education & Treatment of Children is the property of West Virginia University
Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.