Fuchs, Lynn S.; Fuchs, Douglas; Phillips, Norris B.; Hamlett, Carol L.; Karns, Kathy (1995). School Psychology Review, v24 n4 p604-20. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ589164
Reviewed: January 2013
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-Assisted Learning Strategies.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
Reviewed: June 2012
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-Assisted Learning Strategies.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tennessee Math Operations Test |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-4;
|
17.10 |
15.35 |
No |
-- | |
|
Tennessee Math Concepts and Applications Test |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Grades 2-4;
|
15.45 |
14.10 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 34% |
The study was conducted in nine elementary schools in an urban school district in Tennessee.
The sample for this study included a total of 120 students in the second, third, and fourth grades: 40 low-performing students with learning disabilities, 40 low-performing students without learning disabilities, and 40 average-performing students. This report reviews findings for only the 40 students with learning disabilities. The study design was a randomized controlled trial conducted in nine elementary schools. Teachers who had one or more students with learning disabilities in their math class were recruited to participate in the study. The recruitment efforts resulted in a sample of 40 teachers who were randomly assigned to either PALS or comparison conditions (20 teachers per group). Each of the 40 teachers was asked to identify three students to participate in the study: one low-performing student with a learning disability (identified in accordance with state regulations), one low-performing student who did not have a learning disability, and one average-performing student. Teachers were not informed of their treatment assignment until after they had selected students to participate in the study. There was no attrition of schools, teachers, or students.
PALS was conducted twice weekly in math classes for 25- to 30-minute sessions for 23 weeks. Students were trained to be PALS tutors and tutees in five 30-minute sessions during the week prior to the start of the intervention. Pairs changed every two weeks. Any student who had not been a tutor for the past four weeks was assigned a tutoring role so that within every six-week interval, each student served as a tutor for at least two weeks.
Comparison teachers conducted math classes using their normal approach (business-as-usual).
The mathematics domain was assessed with two mathematics achievement measures at pretest and posttest. The Tennessee Mathematics Operations Test–Revised samples problems across the first through sixth grades from the Operations portion of the Tennessee state curriculum, whereas the Tennessee Mathematics Concepts and Applications Test samples problems from the Concepts/Applications portions of the curriculum. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
PALS teachers were trained at a full-day workshop at which they learned both about PALS procedures and how to train their students on PALS. At the end of the workshop, teachers were given a PALS manual that included scripted lessons to be used when conducting student training.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube