The effectiveness of cross-level peer involvement in the acquisition of English as a second language by Spanish-speaking migrant children (Doctoral dissertation).
Serrano, C. J. (1987). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 8723140).
-
examining30Students, grades3-5
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2017
- Grant Competition (findings for Cross-Level Peer Involvement)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test (IPT I) |
Cross-Level Peer Involvement vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
100% English language learners -
Rural
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Florida
Study Details
Setting
One school was used in this study. The school was located in Indiana River County, which is a county located in the Treasure Coast region of the state of Florida. The author described the elementary school as being from a rural community in the "heart of the citrus fruit region" (pg. 51). The students were from multiple classrooms and one teacher taught all of the students (both the intervention and comparison students).
Study sample
The authors did not provide information about the students' race or gender. All students were aged 8 - 12 in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades. In addition, all students in the intervention and comparison groups were ELL students (100%).
Intervention Group
The study lasted nearly three months, from January 1987 to the end of March 1987. Students participated in peer tutoring sessions on a daily basis for 20 minutes. A total of 37 sessions, constituting 12.3 hours of second language instruction, were provided. The tutors also received training which lasted for 20 minutes every week. Both the native-Spanish and English tutors received training, which included "explanations and demonstrations of effective second language teaching and learning procedures, including attention getting, clear presentation, modeling, prompting, questioning techniques, and managing procedures" (pg. 56).
Comparison Group
The comparison condition received business-as-usual whole-group, teacher-led education.
Support for implementation
"The researcher participated as an observer with individual dyads bimonthly after which time a Tutor Observation Checklist was completed as part of the management system" (pg. 57). In addition, the tutors received training from the teacher and a research assistant every week. No other information about implementation support was provided.
Peer Tutoring and Response Groups Intervention Report - English Language Learners
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2007
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Peer Tutoring and Response Groups.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
IDEA Oral Langugae Proficiency Test (IPT I) |
Peer Tutoring and Response Groups vs. Business as Usual |
3 Months |
Grades 3-5 with English-only tutors;
|
12.20 |
11.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test (IPT I) |
Peer Tutoring and Response Groups vs. Business as Usual |
3 Months |
Grades 3–5 with bilingual tutors;
|
14.20 |
11.30 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
100% English language learners -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Florida
-
Ethnicity Hispanic 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at one elementary school in the School District of Indian River County, Florida.
Study sample
The study included 42 English language learners in grades 3–5. (The study began with 50 students. Minor attrition occurred, with eight students moving out of the district during the implementation of the study. Of the eight students, three left the bilingual tutor group, four left the English-only tutor group, and one left the comparison group.) These students were native Spanish-speaking and were children of Mexican and Mexican-American migrant workers who seasonally reside in Florida to pick citrus fruits. English language learners were administered a pretest, the IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test I (K-6) (Ballard, Tighe, & Dalton, 1982, as cited by Serrano, 1987) and were divided into two levels of English language proficiency. Students at each level were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Overall, 12 students were assigned to the bilingual tutoring group, 13 students were assigned to the English-only tutoring group, and 17 students were assigned to the comparison group. The analytic sample for the first and second interventions is 29 and 30 students respectively.
Intervention Group
Students participated in a three-month tutoring program. Two versions of the program were examined: a tutoring group where the ELL tutee worked with a bilingual (somewhat proficient in both English and Spanish) student tutor and a tutoring group where the ELL tutee worked with an English-speaking tutor who did not speak Spanish. Students were assigned to their tutors based on age, sex, and grade level criteria. Tutoring included daily 20-minute sessions. A total of 37 sessions were implemented in the study for a total of 12.3 hours of tutoring. Tutoring focused on English language instruction and included lessons on life skills and every day tasks. For example, tutors introduced vocabulary, played a cassette tape that asked tutees to respond to directions and commands, and used a set of pictures to help ask comprehension questions. Each tutoring lesson focused on a life skill task (such as caring for a cut).
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition did not receive tutoring. The control group consisted of whole-group second language instruction led by the teacher.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome was oral language proficiency as measured by the IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test I (K-6) (Ballard, Tighe, & Dalton, 1982, as cited by Serrano, 1987). The test assesses syntax, comprehension, vocabulary, and verbal expression.
Support for implementation
Student tutors participated in a series of 20-minute training sessions before tutoring began. Training content included explanations and demonstrations of effective second language teaching, modeling instructions, prompting, asking questions, and managing time and behavior. Role-playing was also included in training where the trainer played the role of the learner to help tutors practice tutoring skills.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).