Prater, Doris L.; Bermudez, Andrea B. (1993). Bilingual Research Journal, v17 n1-2 p99-116. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ507285
Reviewed: September 2016
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.
Reviewed: April 2014
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.
Reviewed: July 2007
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total idea units written |
Peer Tutoring and Response Groups vs. Business as Usual |
4 week interval |
Grade 4;
|
15.93 |
9.89 |
No |
-- | |
|
Total words written |
Peer Tutoring and Response Groups vs. Business as Usual |
4 week interval |
Grade 4;
|
100.22 |
70.37 |
No |
-- | |
|
Total sentences written |
Peer Tutoring and Response Groups vs. Business as Usual |
4 week interval |
Grade 4;
|
8.52 |
6.68 |
No |
-- | |
|
Composition quality |
Peer Tutoring and Response Groups vs. Business as Usual |
4 week interval |
Grade 4;
|
2.33 |
2.16 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 7% |
| Hispanic | 93% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 7% |
The study took place at two elementary schools in the Houston, Texas, metropolitan area.
The study included 46 English language learners in fourth grade who were randomly assigned to teachers and sections. Each teacher taught two sections, one randomly assigned to the peer-response intervention group and one to the comparison group. The intervention group included 27 students, of whom 25 were Hispanic, two were Asian- American, 16 were female, and 11 were male. The comparison group included 19 students, of whom 18 were Hispanic, one was Asian-American, 10 were female, and nine were male. Students ranged in age from 9 to 11 years old. All students had received English as a Second Language (ESL) or bilingual education services but were currently participating in general education fourth-grade classrooms. All students were considered by their teachers to have limited English proficiency that might put them at risk with respect to academic achievement.
Students participated in a four-week intervention that used small, mixed-ability peer response groups to provide feedback on group members’ writing compositions. The 27 participating ELL students were randomly assigned to peer response groups consisting of four or five students. Peer response groups included both the ELL students participating in the study and students from the regular classroom. Generally, one or two ELL students were in each small group. During the first week, the teacher modeled how groups would work and demonstrated how students would respond to the writing of their peers. In the groups, the student author would read his or her composition, the group members would say what they liked about it, the student author would ask for help on a particular aspect, and the group members would suggest which parts of the composition to improve. During weeks two through four, students produced one composition a week. They met to select a topic, shared their first drafts, rewrote compositions based on group feedback, brought compositions to the group for final editing, incorporated changes, and wrote a final copy. For many of the peer group meetings, students assumed specific roles, with one student looking for errors in spelling, another for incomplete sentences, and another for capitalization and punctuation errors.
Students in the comparison condition did individual composition writing (prewriting, drafting, revision, and editing) while students in the treatment condition participated in their peer response groups.
The primary outcome domain was written expression, which was assessed with a quality of composition score (holistic rubric score), total words written, total number of sentences written, and total number of idea units (single clauses) written.
Information on teacher training was not provided.
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
Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and Middle School Practice Guide