Fuchs, Lynn S.; Fuchs, Douglas; Yazdian, Laura; Powell, Sarah R. (2002). School Psychology Review, v31 n4 p569-83. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ667628
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SAT: Aligned Items |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
grade 1;
|
47.56 |
45.07 |
No |
-- | |
|
SAT: Unaligned Items |
Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Grade 1;
|
16.55 |
16.65 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 42% | |
| White | 32% |
| Hispanic | 31% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 69% |
The study took place in five elementary schools in a metropolitan public school system in the southeastern United States.
The study authors randomly assigned 20 female first-grade teachers to use either Peer- Assisted Learning Strategies or the standard math curriculum. Within each school, equal numbers of teachers were randomly assigned to each of the research conditions. The total sample included 10 teachers in each condition. The analysis sample size was 162 students in the intervention condition and 166 students in the comparison condition.
In this study, Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies supplemented the district’s core curriculum, Math Advantage. The study authors wanted to ensure that students in the intervention and comparison groups received the same amount of mathematics instruction during the 16 weeks when Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies was used with the intervention group. Therefore, the study’s implementation of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies replaced some mathematics instruction activities that intervention teachers would otherwise have used. Specifically, Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies was implemented in intervention classrooms for 30-minute sessions, three times a week, for 16 weeks. The study authors asked teachers to classify their students’ mathematics achievement at the beginning of the study. These classifications were used to pair low achieving students with high achieving students for the tutoring sessions. During the first part of each session, the stronger performing student was the coach (tutor); midway through each session, the stronger performing student switched to the tutee role. Every three weeks, teachers reassigned student pairs to increase exposure to different students and, after every third three-week cycle, teachers paired high achievers together.
Teachers assigned to the comparison condition used only Math Advantage Grade 1 in their classrooms. The curriculum includes teacher-directed lessons, student work with manipulatives, and worksheets. According to the study authors, teachers in the comparison classrooms used the Math Advantage program for at least 90% of their mathematics instruction. Peertutoring activities (like those that are a central component of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies) were rarely used in the comparison classrooms.
Student mathematics achievement was assessed using the Primary 1 and 2 levels of the SAT. The test administered included 94 of the test’s 106 total items. These 94 items were selected to reflect the Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies curriculum and the district’s larger core curriculum. The study authors divided the items into those aligned with the Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies curriculum (72 items) and those unaligned with the Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies curriculum (22 items). Results were presented separately for the aligned and unaligned portions of the test. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Teachers attended a two-hour after-school workshop where they learned about Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies and practiced implementing the program. Teachers used Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies in their classrooms within one week after the workshop. Research assistants observed all intervention sessions and delivered Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies program materials for the upcoming weeks.
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