Você está na página 1de 10

Features

ClassWide Peer Tutoring


An Effective Strategy for Students With Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders
Lisa Bowman-Perrott

Keywords:  intervention; academic, emotional and behavioral disorders (E/BD); behavior, instruction; content
area, high school; students, with behavior problems; students

S tudents who experience multiple risk factors (e.g.,


poor attendance, failing grades, discipline problems)
have an increased likelihood of not completing school.
of students with E/BD across educational settings and
content areas.

Too often, students with emotional and behavior disor-


ders (E/BD) experience many of the factors that place Research on the Efficacy of
them at risk for school dropout. In addition to behavioral ClassWide Peer Tutoring
problems (Vaughn, Levy, Coleman, & Bos, 2002), stu-
dents with E/BD experience an increased risk for Effective intervention procedures are essential to
academic failure, namely, reading problems (Trout, breaking the cycle of school failure. Tobin and Sprague
Nordness, Pierce, & Epstein, 2003). Trout et al. (2003) (2000) conducted a review of strategies that have
reported that more often than not, students with E/BD shown to be effective with youth served in alternative
did not experience academic success and were found to education settings. Among those were instructional
be below grade level compared to their peers. Hence, a strategies, including tutoring. ClassWide Peer Tutoring
focus on both basic skills and content area knowledge (CWPT; Greenwood, Delquadri, & Carta, 1997) is a
are essential. With regard to long-term outcomes, stu-
dents with E/BD are typically less likely to enroll in
Author’s Note: This study was funded by a research grant program
postsecondary education (Wagner et al., 1991) and to
through Project LASER. Project LASER (H326M000002) is a
experience higher unemployment and arrest rates funded cooperative agreement of the Office of Special Education
(Blackorby & Wagner, 1996) than their peers. The No Programs, U.S. Department of Education.
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was set forth to improve
Intervention in School and Clinic, Volume 44 Number 5, May 2009 259-267
and encourage the academic achievement of all stu- DOI: 10.1177/1053451208330898 • © 2009 Hammill Institute on Disabilities
dents. Efforts need to be made to help ensure the success http://isc.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

259
260   Intervention in School and Clinic

well-researched instructional strategy that has proven in biology classes taught by the same teacher, Mrs.
effective for students with and without disabilities and is Ramsey (pseudonym). Mrs. Ramsey was in her 2nd
an intervention that helps prevent school failure year of teaching and had occasional assistance with
(Greenwood & Delquadri, 1995). Classwide peer tutor- students from two paraprofessionals.
ing uses a reciprocal peer-tutoring format that allows When students were not participating in CWPT,
students to serve both as tutor (teacher) and tutee (stu- teacher-led instruction consisted of lecture, some class
dent) to review and learn content material. Students with discussion, and periodic review quizzes. Commercially
and without disabilities, native English-speaking stu- made science textbooks and teacher-made materials
dents, and English language learners have been partici- (including review quizzes on the overhead projector)
pants in previous CWPT studies (Arreaga-Mayer, 1998; were used during teacher-led instruction.
Fuchs et al., 1997; Madrid, Canas, & Ortega-Medina,
2007). Research conducted on the effectiveness of peer
tutoring has focused primarily on its implementation in What Is ClassWide Peer Tutoring?
elementary schools, with some studies focusing on
middle and high schools (Kamps et al., in press; Elements of CWPT in these science classes included
Maheady, Sacca, & Harper, 1987; Mastropieri et al., a review of vocabulary and content material. Facilitated
2006) and to some extent with students with E/BD by the teacher, students spent equal amounts of time
(Kamps, Kravits, Rauch, Kamps, & Chung, 2000; reviewing material from the school’s curriculum using a
Maheady, Sacca, & Harper, 1988). Most of the research timer and gave and received points based on correct
has taken place in general or special education (includ- responses. An error correction procedure was in place so
ing self-contained) settings (Harper, Mallette, Maheady, that students had repeated exposure to the content to
Bentley, & Moore, 1995). strive for mastery. A key element of CWPT is the oppor-
Data on the instructional effectiveness of CWPT show tunity to respond, which is critical to student learning.
that students retain more of what they learn and make
greater advances in social competence with CWPT com- What Are the Benefits of CWPT?
pared to traditional teacher-led instruction (Greenwood,
Maheady, & Carta, 1991; Mathes & Fuchs, 1993). As a Instructional benefits. There are several instructional
teaching strategy, CWPT has proven effective for improv- benefits to CWPT. They include the following: (a) It
ing students’ test performance (Kamps, Barbetta, provides one-on-one instruction, (b) students learn to
Leonard, & Delquadri, 1994; Mastropieri et al., 2006). teach and be taught, (c) opportunities are built in for
Short-term gains in spelling (Harper, Maheady, Mallette, error correction, (d) positive social interactions between
& Karnes, 1999) and long-term gains in spelling, read- students are encouraged that may not otherwise occur,
ing, and math have also been found with CWPT and (e) social and academic goals can be addressed
(Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1989; Harper et al., simultaneously.
1999). Mastropieri et al. (2006) also reported science
gains on both high-stakes state testing and classroom Benefits for teachers. Several aspects of CWPT make it
posttests for eighth-grade students with mild disabilities. an ideal strategy for teachers. They include the following:
This article describes part of a 1-year pilot study and (a) It can reduce the amount of work for the teacher; (b) it
discusses how CWPT was implemented in two high can be used with the teacher’s current curriculum; (c) it
school biology classrooms during the 2003-2004 school can be implemented in 30- to 40-minute blocks of time;
year in an alternative school setting. Students’ academic (d) it helps with classroom management; (e) it allows
gains and on-task behaviors were measured during teachers to share students’ results with administrators,
CWPT and teacher-led instruction. parents, and/or other teachers; and (f) it provides feedback
and allows the teacher to make necessary modifications.

Benefits for students. Students can derive several ben-


Description of Participating efits from CWPT, both academic and social/behavioral.
Science Classes They include (a) active engagement and frequent oppor-
tunities to respond are provided, which result in high
A total of 11 students identified with E/BD (5 in rates of academic responding; (b) CWPT is student-
Classroom 1 and 6 in Classroom 2) participated. focused; (c) an atmosphere of cooperative learning is
Students in both classes were 9th- through 12th-graders involved; (d) students often experience more success
Bowman-Perrott / ClassWide Peer Tutoring   261

and feel more confident; (e) they are encouraged to • Started the timer for 5 minutes for vocabulary review
• Reset the timer for another 5 minutes for the peer partner
work together, which is an important life skill; (f) they • Instructed students to get out their study guide or review
have frequent opportunities for feedback and error study guides
­correction; and (g) students’ mastery of content area • Set the timer for 8 minutes for students to work on their
­material is increased. study guides
• Reset the timer for another 8 minutes for the peer partner
• Circulated among the students while they worked and
How Was It Implemented? provided help when needed
• Awarded bonus points for students who were on-task and
working well with their peer
Training. CWPT training consisted of 2 to 3 days of • Instructed students to calculate individual and team points
review and practice of CWPT procedures. Training • Instructed students to write team points on the chart
included giving students opportunities to practice CWPT • Instructed students to put away CWPT materials
in pairs after the procedures were modeled for them.
After the training, in-class supervision was provided as Student procedures. Each student had a folder with his
support and follow-up to the training. or her name on it containing the CWPT materials. The
folders were kept in a central place in the classroom (near
Procedure. Implementation was three times per week the team point chart). Students were responsible for
for 30 minutes each week in reciprocal peer tutoring
pairs. Within that time frame, the teacher set a timer for • Getting their CWPT folders
• Moving to sit with their peer partner
each of several components that included vocabulary, • Reading aloud vocabulary words and definitions or study
comprehension, and study guides. Students had an guide question (tutee)
equal amount of time during each CWPT session to • Awarding 2 points for each correct answer on the tutee’s
answer sheet (tutor)
serve as tutor (teacher) and tutee (student). Tutors read • Using the error correction procedure for each incorrect
vocabulary or study guide questions to their tutees and answer by providing the correct answer orally and visu-
awarded 2 points for correct answers. If the tutee ally and having the tutee provide the correct answer three
answered incorrectly, the tutor initiated an error correc- times (tutor)
• Awarding 1 point for a corrected answer (tutor)
tion procedure. • Assisting the tutee in finding the correct answer when
The following CWPT procedure was used: needed (tutor)
• Putting away CWPT materials
• Monday: Mrs. Ramsey gave the pretest and introduced
new material
• Tuesday: Day 1 of CWPT Tutoring pairs. Each day, students in reciprocal pairs
Vocabulary review with teacher-selected content area had a chance to be both the tutor and tutee. Tutoring
­vocabulary words (5 minutes) and study guides (8 minutes) pairs were selected based on (a) matching students’ abil-
• Wednesday: Day 2 of CWPT
Vocabulary review with teacher-selected content area ity levels (higher and lower ability), (b) how well stu-
vocabulary words (5 minutes) and comprehension ques- dents worked together, and (c) who was present that day
tions (8 minutes) (i.e., particularly because there were absences as a result
• Thursday: Day 3 of CWPT
Vocabulary review with teacher-selected content area
of students being suspended at times). The teacher
vocabulary words (5 minutes) and review study guides chose the pairs and posted students’ names on the
(8 minutes), which included a review of vocabulary and CWPT chart located in a central place in the room. In
comprehension questions general education classrooms (and some special educa-
• Friday: Mrs. Ramsey gave the posttest
tion classrooms), because class sizes are larger, students
Teacher procedures. The day before implementing have more opportunity to change tutors more frequently.
CWPT each week, Mrs. Ramsey reviewed the new mate- However, because there were few students in each class,
rial or chapter information with students. Prior to begin- student pairing was limited.
ning CWPT, she did the following:
Materials. Materials for CWPT were primarily cre-
• Made sure that students had their CWPT materials (e.g., ated from the textbook used during teacher-led instruc-
point sheets, study guides) tion. Modified materials simply had fewer items than
• Instructed students to get their CWPT folders (containing the regular ones; however, they covered the same con-
the CWPT materials)
• Instructed students to move to work with their peer tutor tent. Project staff made the majority of the CWPT
• Instructed students to get out their vocabulary lists materials to ensure consistency in the format of the
materials. Whereas some of the materials were time-
To begin and throughout CWPT, she consuming, they were very doable for teachers to
262   Intervention in School and Clinic

replicate. The following materials were provided in consisted of four, five, one, and three questions, respec-
each student’s CWPT folder: (a) dry erase marker, tively. A sample multiple-choice question follows:
(b) laminated point sheet (for CWPT and bonus points),
The geologic time scale is a relative time scale that measures,
(c) individual point sheet, (d) reusable wipe for ­erasing
in part, __________.
the point sheet at the end of each CWPT session, and a. the age of mountains
(e) CWPT materials. b. continental drift
At the beginning of the school year, materials con- c. the sequence of the layering of rocks
sisted of vocabulary lists (the tutor had vocabulary words d. all of the above
and definitions; tutees only had a list of words) and study
guides (short-answer and fill-in-the-blanks). Students An example of a short-answer question is, “Why are
were given CWPT satisfaction surveys at the end of the enzymes important?” A sample bonus question item is,
first semester to get their feedback. Although they enjoyed “How can polymers be broken down in living things?”
tutoring, several noted they were bored with CWPT, so Pretest and posttest data were collected two ways:
they helped choose alternate materials to review the same • Mrs. Ramsey recorded students’ pretest and posttest data
content information. For the remainder of the year, we in an Excel spreadsheet and e-mailed them to the project
used several different formats to cover the content area director
• Hard copies of the tests were collected from the teacher
material in each biology chapter. For example, we created
a concentration card game format for vocabulary review. Gains from pretest to posttest for both classrooms are
We made laminated cards with vocabulary words and provided in Figure 1.
definitions, which were then spread on the table. Students
had to match the correct word with its definition to earn Points. If a correct answer was provided, the tutor
points. Also, a science bingo game was developed for the awarded the tutee 2 points. If the tutee answered
review study guide that included vocabulary words, incorrectly, the tutor used the error correction proce-
definitions, and concepts that students had to correctly dure (i.e., having the tutee say and write the answer
match and try to get a horizontal or vertical row of correct aloud three times). One point was then given. If the
answers to win. This seemed to provide an additional answer was still incorrect after the error correction
challenge for students. Challenge materials were created procedure was used, no points were awarded. The
from resources found on the Internet related to the topics teacher awarded bonus points to tutors and tutees who
covered in each chapter (e.g., plate tectonics, population displayed appropriate tutoring behaviors (see Figure
growth). These were the only materials that did not come 2). At the end of each tutoring session, students tallied
from the students’ biology textbook. Students had to read their points and recorded them on their individual
a section on a particular topic and answer questions based point sheets (see Figure 3). Each student kept his or
on what they read. Answers were often implied rather her individual point sheets in a folder. It served as a
than explicitly stated in the reading. Several students indi- record of their progress for students to refer to, as well
cated that they enjoyed having them to choose from. as to add to the team points. Individual student points
were not displayed. Team points (by class) served as a
Tests. Pretests were given each week prior to instruc- group contingency and were recorded on the lami-
tion with each new chapter or spelling list in all three nated point sheet poster previously mentioned.
classrooms. Posttests were given at the end of the week Individual and group contingencies included students’
or unit. Posttests were alternate forms of the pretests. being able to earn tickets that could be traded for
Answer keys were provided for the teacher as well. school supplies, snacks, or computer time. The teacher
CWPT materials as well as tests were modified based on gave students bonus points for working well with their
students’ instructional level. Modifications were made to partners during CWPT, following directions, and
CWPT science materials and tests for students who awarding points correctly. Teams were formed and
needed fewer items, but the same content material was team points were calculated daily.
used. Tests were constructed based on material covered Mrs. Ramsey already had a token economy system
during CWPT sessions and included four sections: set up, in which students could earn tickets to trade in
(a) vocabulary matching, (b) multiple choice, (c) short for additional computer time. This type of system fit in
answer, and (d) bonus questions. Regular tests consisted well with CWPT’s lottery system, and incentives were
of seven vocabulary matching, seven multiple choice, six added to the computer time students could earn (e.g.,
short answer, and three bonus questions. Modified tests school supplies, snacks).
Bowman-Perrott / ClassWide Peer Tutoring   263

Classroom 1
Class Pretest Average Class Posttest Average
100
Baseline CWPT Baseline
90 CWPT Baseline

80

70
Percent Correct

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Weeks

Classroom 2
Class Pretest Average Class Posttest Average

100
Baseline
90

80

70
Percent Correct

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Weeks

Figure 1.  ClassWide Peer Tutoring (CWPT) pretest and posttest gains.

On- and Off-Task Observations task and exhibited fewer inappropriate (off-task) behav-
iors during CWPT than during teacher-led instruction
In addition to pretests and posttests, on- and off-task (see Figure 4). In fact, the rate of on-task behavior dur-
behavior observations were taken in each class during ing baseline for Classroom 1 was 77%; during CWPT it
CWPT and during regular teacher-led instruction (twice was 96%. For Classroom 2, the percentage of time on
each semester). In both classes, students were more ­on task during teacher-led instruction was 89%; it was
264   Intervention in School and Clinic

SCIENCE
Tutoring Point Sheet

Name ___________________________________

Times Through: Name _____________ Hour_____________


Regular Points

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CWPT Daily Individual Point Sheet


14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Week Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

TOTAL __________

Bonus Points

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30

TOTAL __________

Figure 2.  Sample section of the ClassWide Peer Tutoring point sheet.

100% during CWPT. A 30-second time-sampling proce-


dure was used, with the average length of observation Figure 3.  Sample ClassWide Peer Tutoring (CWPT) individual
being 26 minutes. Because the classes were so small, point sheet.
each student was observed every 30 seconds for on- and
off-task behaviors. A “+” was coded for on-task behav- typically have difficulty with positive social interactions,
iors, and a “–” was coded for off-task behaviors. On-task (b) students were able to practice working cooperatively
behaviors included behaviors related to students being and accept being corrected by their peer teacher, (c) stu-
actively engaged academically and behaviors such as dents had frequent opportunities to respond and be
paying attention, taking out their materials when directed actively engaged with academic content, (d) low-ability
by the teacher, and working well with peers. Off-task students were encouraged because they learned the mate-
behaviors included talking to a classmate when students rial, (e) high-ability students challenged themselves to
were to be working, engaging in name-calling, or refus- exceed their score from the previous day/week, (f) there
ing to work. was a reduction in off-task and inappropriate behaviors,
(g) support from district and school administrators, and
(h) students generalized praise and positive peer feedback
Fidelity of CWPT Implementation
to other portions of the school day outside of CWPT.
Fidelity of implementation for CWPT was observed
using a fidelity checklist (see Figure 5 for sample checklist Challenges
items). Fidelity checks were conducted in each classroom
to ensure that teachers and students were using CWPT Challenges included changes in school schedules
procedures correctly so that students gained maximum (e.g., snow days, standardized testing dates), students
benefit from the intervention. In addition, to help ensure transferring to another school, and student absences
the accuracy of the on- and off-task behaviors, reliability because of illness, suspensions, or truancy. When CWPT
percentages were obtained from the number of agreements is implemented in larger classrooms (e.g., more than 20
of behaviors noted by two separate observers. students), students have the opportunity to work with
different partners during peer tutoring. This provides
Successes students with options to work with different partners
each week or month. A challenge of implementing
As indicated by previous research (Greenwood & CWPT in alternative school classrooms was that there
Delquadri, 1995; Maheady, Sacca, & Harper, 1987), was such a small number of students. Thus, students
CWPT produced positive results. Successes of this worked with the same peers throughout the course of the
­strategy included (a) the use of praise between peers who school year. Tutoring pairs were systematically changed
Bowman-Perrott / ClassWide Peer Tutoring   265

Classroom 1

Class Baseline Average Class CWPT Average


60

# Intervals Off-Task 50

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4
# of Observations
Classroom 2
Class Baseline Average Class CWPT Average
60

50
# Intervals Off-Task

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4
# of Observations

Figure 4.  On-task/off-task behaviors.


Note: CWPT = ClassWide Peer Tutoring.

to provide students an opportunity to work with differ- her classrooms, (d) CWPT procedures helped students
ent peers. However, unplanned changes in peer partners stay on-task and get involved in instruction, and (e) the
sometimes occurred because of absences. Despite these time for CWPT was easy to plan into their regular daily
changes, because of the small class sizes, at least one schedules. She moderately agreed that the CWPT proce-
student commented on having to work with the same dures were academically helpful for students of average or
students on a regular basis. above average ability in their classrooms.

Teacher Feedback Student Feedback

A teacher satisfaction questionnaire was given to Mrs. Students agreed that CWPT helped them learn
Ramsey at the end of peer tutoring for the year. She agreed b­ iology. In fact, one student asked if he could do CWPT
or strongly agreed that (a) the training sessions provided during a week when they were learning challenging
enough information to independently carry out the pro- content. He indicated that it really helped him learn the
gram effectively, (b) the materials used with CWPT were material. Results from the student satisfaction ques­
beneficial for students, (c) CWPT procedures were aca- tionnaire indicated that most of them did not think their
demically helpful for students of below average ability in peers were nicer to them, or that their peers thought they
266   Intervention in School and Clinic

Teacher: _____________ Grade: ___ Date: _______ School: ______________


Observer :_________________ Reliability Observer: _____________________

*N.A. = Not Applicable or that the entry was optional for that day. Do not calculate N.A.s in the total score.

MATERIALS IN EVIDENCE OR POSTED


YES NO N.A.*
1. Move/Stay Chart ___ ___ ___
2. Team Point Chart(s) ___ ___ ___
3. All tutoring pairs have materials ___ ___ ___
4. All tutoring pairs have point sheets ___ ___ ___

SUBTOTAL: ___/___ = ____%

TEACHER PROCEDURES
YES NO N.A.*
1. Teacher spends time introducing new content ___ ___ ___
2. Teacher instructs students to get materials or students
get materials on their own ___ ___ ___
3. Teacher sets timer for 10 minutes for spelling ___ ___ ___
4. Teacher re-sets timer for second session of spelling ___ ___ ___
5. Teacher circulates among students during tutoring ___ ___ ___
6. Teacher awards bonus points for tutoring correctly ___ ___ ___
7. Teacher helps pairs when needed, avoiding delays ___ ___ ___

SUBTOTAL: ___/___ = ____%

STUDENT PROCEDURES

YES NO N.A.*
1. Tutor awards 2 points for each correct response ___ ___ ___
2. Tutor conducts the correction procedure ___ ___ ___
a. Tutor stops tutee ___ ___ ___
b. Tutor provides correct spelling (orally/visually) ___ ___ ___
3. Tutor awards 1 point for correct answer (after error correction) ___ ___ ___
4. Students report points on Daily Individual Point Sheets ___ ___ ___
5. Students report points on CWPT Point Sheets

OVERALL TOTAL: _________________________% (Add all % subtotals and divide by 3)

Figure 5.  Sample fidelity of implementation/procedural checklist items.

were smarter as a result of CWPT. However, students majority reported that they would like to do CWPT the
who sometimes did not get along (e.g., argued or fought) next school year.
did a good job working together during CWPT more
often than not. This was noted by the teacher and prin-
cipal on several occasions. In fact, students often tried to Conclusion
outpraise each other by competing over which tutor
gave their tutee the most positive feedback (e.g., “Good It is important for all students to experience success
job!” “Great!”) during tutoring. Most reported that they in school. This is particularly true of students with E/BD,
enjoyed the bonus points and prizes. In addition, the who too often do not enjoy academic and behavioral
Bowman-Perrott / ClassWide Peer Tutoring   267

success. CWPT is a well-researched strategy with a Greenwood, C. R., & Delquadri J. (1995). ClassWide Peer Tutoring
proven record of promoting student gains, both aca- and the prevention of school failure. Preventing School Failure,
39(4), 21–25.
demically and socially, and is a beneficial intervention Greenwood, C., Delquadri, J., & Carta, J. (1997). Together we can!
for students with E/BD in alternative education settings. ClassWide Peer Tutoring to improve basic academic skills.
A primary benefit of CWPT is an increase in the amount Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
of time students spend actively engaged in academic Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal
content, which is critical. Also important is learning the effects of ClassWide Peer Tutoring. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 81, 371–383.
valuable lifelong skill of cooperative learning and work-
Greenwood, C. R., Maheady, L., & Carta, J. J. (1991). Peer tutoring
ing with peers. Students who used the CWPT strategy programs in the regular classroom. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, &
benefited socially as evidenced by their increased H. M. Walker (Eds.), Intervention for achievement and behavior
amount of time on-task during CWPT. problems (pp. 179–200). Washington, DC: National Association
The use of effective strategies for secondary students for School Psychologists (NASP).
in core content areas, in particular, is also critical. Harper, G. F., Maheady, L., Mallette, B., & Karnes, M. (1999). Peer
tutoring and the minority child with disabilities. Preventing
Teachers can implement CWPT in a variety of content School Failure, 43(2), 45–52.
areas and monitor students’ progress to determine Harper, G. F., Mallette, B., Maheady, L., Bentley, A., & Moore, J.
whether they are mastering the content with weekly (1995). Retention and treatment failure in classwide peer tutor-
pretests and posttests. Mrs. Ramsey noted that CWPT ing: Implications for further research. Journal of Behavioral
was particularly easy to implement and that it fit easily Education, 5, 399–414.
Kamps, D., Barbetta, P. M., Leonard, B. R., & Delquadri, J. (1994).
into her daily instructional routine. Students’ overall
ClassWide Peer Tutoring: An integration strategy to improve
feedback about CWPT was that it helped them learn reading skills and promote peer interactions among students with
core content subject material and that they would be autism and general education peers. Journal of Applied Behavior
somewhat or very likely to want to participate in CWPT Analysis, 27, 49–61.
again. It is true that some students may be a bit frus- Kamps, D. M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Veerkamp, M. B.,
trated with pretests because the information is new and Utley, C., Tapia, Y., et al. (in press). The efficacy of ClassWide Peer
Tutoring in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children.
they often do not do well. One way to address that is to Kamps, D., Kravits, T., Rauch, J., Kamps, J. L., & Chung, N. (2000).
explain to them that your expectation is that they do A prevention program for students with or at risk for ED: Moderating
their best, not that they get all of the answers right. You effects of variation in treatment and classroom structure. Journal of
will also get valuable information once you have col- Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(3), 141–154.
lected posttest data, as that will be a good indication of Madrid, L. D., Canas, M., & Ortega-Medina, M. (2007). Effects of
team competition versus team cooperation in ClassWide Peer
what they understood and areas in which they need
Tutoring. Journal of Educational Research, 100(3), 155–160.
more instruction or review. Maheady, L., Sacca, M. K., & Harper, G. F. (1987). Classwide peer
tutoring teams: Effects on the academic performance of second-
ary students. Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 107–121.
About the Author Maheady, L., Sacca, M. K., & Harper, G. F. (1988). ClassWide Peer
Tutoring with mildly handicapped high school students.
Lisa Bowman-Perrott, PhD, is an assistant professor in educational psychol- Exceptional Children, 55(1), 52–59.
ogy at Texas A&M University. Her research interests include interventions Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Norland, J. J., Berkeley, S.,
for students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders and aca- McDuffie, K., Tornquist, E. H., et al. (2006). Differentiated cur-
demic and behavioral outcomes for English language learners. riculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: Effects
on classroom and high-stakes tests. Journal of Special Education,
40(3), 130–137.
Mathes, P. G., & Fuchs, L. S. (1993). Peer-mediated reading instruc-
References tion in special education resource rooms. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 8, 233-243.
Arreaga-Mayer, C. (1998). Increasing active student responding and Tobin, T., & Sprague, J. (2000). Alternative education strategies:
improving academic performance through class-wide peer tutor- Reducing violence in school and the community. Journal of
ing. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(2), 89–94. Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(3), 177–186.
Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes Trout, A. L., Nordness, P. D., Pierce, C. D., & Epstein, M. H. (2003).
of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Research on the academic status of children with emotional and
Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399–413. behavioral disorders: A review of the literature from 1961 to 2000.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., Karns, K., & Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11(4), 198–211.
Dutka, S. (1997). Enhancing students’ helping behavior during Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. S. (2002). Reading
peer-mediated instruction with conceptual mathematical explana- instruction for students with LD and E/BD: A synthesis of obser-
tions. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 223–229. vation studies. Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 2–14.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Você também pode gostar