Collaborative Learning:

1. Collaborative Learning: A case study of the efficacy of a Peer Tutoring Programme By Chong-Ng Swee Kuan

2. Introduction A mixed-method approach was undertaken to determine how Year 6 students who volunteered to be peer tutors and their respective peer tutees perceived the variables that determined the efficacy of the Economics peer tutoring programme.

3. Phase 1

4. Quantitative findings Both peer tutors and tutees completed survey questionaires that served to capture information of their • performance for internal school examinations • perceptions on attributes of a successful tutor • ratings on specific features of the programme • ratings on the reasons why peer tutees were weak in the subject • the tutors’ perceptions of self-efficacy as a tutor

5. Phase 2

6. Qualitative findings 5 successful peer tutors whose tutees showed the highest effect size were identified to participate in a guided focus group interview. This examined • how the learning strategies used by successful tutors helped both peer tutors and their peer tutees remained on task, • the contributing factors to a high level of engagement in learning for the successful peer tutors and their peer tutees and • the self-efficacy beliefs of the peer tutors.

7. Literature Review As early as 1984, Bloom’s article on The 2 Sigma Problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. This study reported how tutorial instruction based on one-to-one tutoring compared to conventional and mastery learning.

8. Observable outcomes: • students who “learned the subject matter with a good tutor for each student (or for two or three students simultaneously)” produced effect sizes of the order of 2 standard deviations above the control group who received conventional instruction in “a class with 30 students per teacher”. • Those who were taught using Mastery Learning performed at one deviation above the control group (Bloom, 1984, p. 4).

9. One measure of peer tutoring effect Effect Size (ES) was defined as “the difference between the means of two groups divided by the standard deviation of the control group” (Glass, 1976 in Cohen et al., 1982, p. 240).

10. Effects of instructional program A Swing and Peterson study (1982) showed that with just “two sessions of instructional program” for both fifth grade peer tutors and peer tutees (for Maths), there were increased frequency in exchanges of explanations (between peer tutors and tutees) and they also performed more checks on each other than the control groups.

11. Effects of interactive mediated rehearsal routine Another research study by Fuchs, Fuchs, Bentz, Phillips & Hamlett (1994) showed how an “interactive, mediated verbal rehearsal routine” had positive effect resulting in enhanced interactions between tutors and tutees. • In this case, the peer-tutors in the experimental group were taught the routine to ask “a series of questions that tutee could learn and use to guide himself or herself to the problem’s solution” (Fuchs et al., 1994, p. 81).

12. Effects of peer tutor’s ability on the quality of explanations • Fuchs, Fuchs, Karns, Hamlett, Dutka and Katzaroff (1996) examined the quality and effectiveness of peer tutors’ explanations by analysing how Higher Achievement peer tutors and Average Achievement peer tutors differed.

13. High Achievement peer tutors were more likely to rephrase problems with explanations that bridge procedural to conceptual explanation.

14. Is there a role for an interactive mediated rehearsal routine to improve the efficacy of peer tutors? The guided focus group interview also seek to confirm if successful tutors have identified a routine for checking how well their tutees have learnt new content matter.

15. Zone of proximity development • Vygotsky defined the zone of proximity development as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Goldstein, 2000, p. 649).

16. Scenario 1 Teacher successfully request students to elaborate on their ideas, redirect discussion and rework the students’ contributions so that they are integrated into the discussion. • Scenario 2 The able peer tutor emulates the above process and helps the tutee moves towards his potential development by providing collaboration as a more capable peer.

17. Scaffolding… Pata et al., (2006) investigated the effect of scaffolding. Helpful scaffolding provides support and external structure just sufficient enough to enable students’ productive participation. Content scaffolding hinting, prompting, summarizing. Process scaffolding tutor’s/student’s instructions and tutor’s feedback

18. How peer tutors learn from their effort • Roscoe and Chi (2007) identified six studies that combined peer tutor learning data and process data. • All six of them were for same-age, fixed-role peer tutors ranging from elementary schools all the way to undergraduate peer tutoring (Roscoe & Chi, 2007, p. 543). • All six studies showed that effective peer tutoring could be traced to effective use of explaining, questioning, assessment and feedback.

19. The peer tutor needs to comprehend and synthesize the material in order to generate accurate explanation. • The higher the level of preparation, the more peer tutors will recognize any possible knowledge gaps and misconceptions the peer tutee has.

20. In programmes where keeping a journal or log has been mandatory, the peer tutors have gained from keeping a record of explanations generated for self and for peer tutee. • A possible scaffolding dialogue for peer tutor to guide a discussion. • sequential procedure tutor asks a question, tutee answers the question, tutor gives feedback, tutor and tutee elaborate upon the tutee’s answer, followed by tutor’s evaluation of the revised answer.

21. Self-efficacy beliefs of peer tutors • Attribution theory emphasised the inter-personal context between peer tutor and a peer tutee such that the successful peer tutor is then ‘a significant other’. • Peer tutor’s self-regulation and self-management becomes a positive influence on the peer tutee. Gundlach, et al. 2003

22. Tutors high in self efficacy would generate and test alternative courses of action when they do not meet with initial success. • The concept of self-efficacy is the peer tutor’s notion of his/her belief in his/her capacity to achieve a desired outcome.

23. A successful peer tutor achieves • substantive connectivensss by getting the core subject matter across to the tutee • interpersonal connectiveness by influencing the tutee relationally as a good role model • instructional connectiveness by choosing the appropriate instruction for the learning need

24. Participants and Setting • After Block Test 1 peer tutoring programme was implemented to help weaker students. • Peer tutors were students who had done well for BT1 and had volunteered their time for the role as peer tutors on a weekly basis. • A ten week period from mid March to end of May 2009 Criterion for this study • At least 50% attendance over the period • Valid survey responses: 9 peer tutors and their 9 peer tutees

25. Determining the experimental-control • The experimental control is another student in the same class as the peer tutee who scored the same raw score at Block Test 1. • If this is a non-occurrence, then the search would be extended to another class taught by the same economics tutor. (Hence subject tutor would remain a constant)

26. Measurement of effect size for peer tutee Effect Size of each peer tutee = Score of peer tutee for Block Test 2 – Score of experimental-control for Block Test 2

27. Measurement of Effect Size for peer tutoring programme Effect Size for the peer tutoring programme = (mean score for peer tutees at Block Test 2 –Mean score for experimental control group for Block Test 2) / standard deviation of experimental control group at Block Test 1

28. Effect size for top 9 tutees in this case study Effect size of the peer programme based on top 9 tutees=1.22 standard deviation

29. Effect size for top 5 tutees in this case study Effect size of the peer tutoring programme based on top 5 tutees =2.49 standard deviation

30. Phase 1 Quantitative Method using survey questionaires to collect data

31. Research Qn 1 What are the attributes of a successful peer tutor as perceived by a) peer tutors? b) peer tutees?

32. i) A successful peer tutors builds on what a tutee has learnt/done in the previous session __________ None Some Most All the time Peer tutors - 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Peer tutees 11.1% 33.3% 55.6% -

33. ii) A successful peer tutor is able to explain the relevant concepts clearly ________ Peer tutors - 11.1% 44.4% 44.4% Peer tutees - 11.1% 77.8% 11.1% None Some Most All the time

34. iii) When a tutee appears to be struggling over a problem in the assignment, a successful peer tutor prompts his/her tutee _______ Peer tutors - 44.4% 33.3% 22.2% Peer tutees 11.1% 22.2% 55.6% 11.1% None Some Most All the time

35. iv) A successful peer tutor takes the trouble to prepare for each session _______ Peer tutors - - 55.6% 44.4% Peer tutees - 22.2% 77.8% - None Some Most All the time

36. v) A successful peer tutor takes the opportunity to acknowledge that he/she has learnt something new whenever it happened _____ Peer tutors - 11.1% 66.7% 22.2% Peer tutees 11.1% 11.1% 77.8% - None Some Most All the time

37. Accounting for high tutee learning High High Low High High High • sequencing ii) clear iii) prompting explanation Tutee learning and Effect size iv) Tutor v) Tutor preparation learning

38. Research Qn 2 Rating the importance of specific features in enhancing efficacy of peer tutoring programme in general by a) peer tutors? b) peer tutees?

39. Ratings by peer tutors and peer tutees Ratings by peer tutorspeer tutees i) No. of tutee per tutor 4th 4th tied ii) Venue for peer tutoring 5th 4th iii) Frequency of sessions 2nd 3rd iv) Duration of session 3rd 2nd v) Specific learning objectives as decided by peer tutor and tutee 1st 1st

40. Enhancing efficacy of the programme Ideal number of tutee/s per tutor 1.4 1.7 Ideal number of session per week 1.0 1.4 Ideal duration in hour/s per session 1.7 1.5 Answers from peer tutorspeer tutees

41. Research Qn 3 Perceived reasons why tutees are weak in the subject as rated by a) peer tutors? b) peer tutees?

42. Items Ratings by tutorsby tutees Reasons why peer tutee is weak in Economics Lack of foundation knowledge 2nd 1st Lack of discipline to focus 4th 3rd Lack of interest in subject 5th 4th Lack of confidence to tackle subject independently 1st 4th Poor time management in general 3rd 2nd

43. Research Qn 4 What are the tutors’ perceptions of self-efficacy as a tutor?

44. i) I have confidence in my ability to do my job as a peer tutor _______ None Some Most All the time - 22.2% 55.6% 22.2%

45. ii) There are some tasks required of a peer tutor that I cannot do well ________. None Some Most All the time - 100% - -

46. iii) I perform badly as a peer tutor, due to my lack of ability _______ None Some Most All the time 33.3% 66.7% - -

47. None Some Most All the time - 22.2% 66.7% 11.1% iv) I have all the skills needed to perform my task as a peer tutor very well __________

48. v) I am an expert in my role as a peer tutor _______ None Some Most All the time 11.1% 44.4% 44.4% -

49. Phase 2 Qualitative Method using a thematic approach to review the findings from the focus group interview

50. Research Qn 5 How the learning strategies used by the five top peer tutors helped both peer tutors and their peer tutees remained engaged on task?