Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2003, 38(1), 32– 61
© Division on Developmental Disabilities
Can Students with Mental Retardation Teach their Peers?
Vicky G. Spencer
Giulia Balboni
George Mason University
University of Padua
Abstract: This review provides an updated synthesis on peer tutoring research focusing on school-age students
with mental retardation serving as tutors and/or tutees. The focus included peer tutoring implementations in
the areas of academic, social, and daily living/self-help skills. Results of the 52 studies were categorized and
discussed according to elementary or secondary level.
Use of peer tutoring with students with mental
retardation is not a new instructional approach. With the research spanning over a
period of 30 years, students with varying levels
of mental retardation have been serving as
tutors and/or tutees in order to teach their
peers a variety of academic, social, and self
help skills (Almond, Rodgers, & Krug, 1979;
Brown, Fenrick, & Klemme, 1971; Koury &
Browder, 1986; Vacc & Cannon, 1991). Research has shown that increasing student opportunities to respond, individualizing instruction, increasing time on-task and
opportunity for practice, and providing frequent and immediate feedback are all correlated with increased academic achievement
(Maheady, Harper, & Sacca, 1988). Therefore, it is not surprising that peer tutoring
continues to be an effective instructional arrangement that is used in both regular and
special education settings (Fuchs, Fuchs, &
Kazdan, 1999; Maheady et al.; Maher, 1982).
Within these settings, a variety of peer tutoring models and configurations exist. Peer
tutoring involves pairing students of similar
age or grade levels to work together, while
cross-age tutoring involves using an older or
younger student as the “expert” to provide
assistance in the tutoring dyad (Scruggs &
Osguthorpe, 1986). Reciprocal tutoring gives
both students in the dyad the opportunity to
serve as the tutor and the tutee. In classwide
peer tutoring (CWPT) all students within a
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Vicky G. Spencer, George Mason
University, Kellar Institute for Human disAbilities,
4400 University Dr., MS1F2, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444.
32
/
single class participate in tutoring and typically include a reciprocal component (Fuchs
et al., 1999; Mastropieri, Spencer, Scruggs, &
Talbott, 2000; Mortweet et al., 1999).
Effectiveness of students with disabilities
teaching their peers has been clearly documented in the literature (see Cook, Scruggs,
Mastropieri, & Casto, 1985-1986; Osguthorpe
& Scruggs, 1986 for reviews). More recently,
Mastropieri et al. (2000) examined previously
conducted research involving students with
disabilities serving as tutors and/or tutees.
Their review included school-age students
with any identified disability. Therefore, the
purpose of this review was to replicate and
extend previous reviews by providing an updated synthesis on peer tutoring research focusing on school-age students with mental retardation serving as tutors and/or tutees.
Method
Studies were included in the synthesis if the
primary purpose was to examine efficacy of
peer tutoring involving school-age students
with mental retardation as tutors and/or tutees. If the sample did not specifically identify
students with mental retardation the study was
not included (e.g., Haisley, Tell, & Andrews,
1981). Furthermore, if the primary purpose
was to examine non-handicapped tutors or
the classroom teachers and data was not provided on the students with mental retardation
the study was excluded (e.g., Brummel, 1984;
Fenrick & McDonnell, 1980; Wise, 1999).
Computer assisted searches for relevant literature were conducted in the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycInfo, and
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
Dissertation Abstracts International databases using the following descriptors: special education, peer tutoring, and students with mental
retardation. Previous peer tutoring reviews
were acquired and examined, along with the
reference lists of all obtained articles. In addition, recent issues of all major special education journals were examined for relevant articles. These procedures resulted in a pool of 50
research studies that included students with
mental retardation as tutors and/or tutees to
be reviewed.
dents with mental retardation serving as tutors
and/or tutees and 19 studies with high school
students with mental retardation serving as
tutors and/or tutees.
Research Designs
Twenty-nine studies employed single subject
methodology. Twenty-one studies used group
research designs including 11 experimentalcontrol group designs, six pre-post designs,
and two post-test only designs. Two studies
were qualitative.
Overall Characteristics of the Data Set
Fifty studies were identified during the period
from 1971 to 2001; however, one study (Lancioni, 1982b) included three experiments, so
data is reported on 52 studies. Journals included were American Educational Research Journal, Behavioral Disorders, Education and Training
in Mental Retardation, Education and Training of
the Mentally Retarded, Education and Training in
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Education and Treatment of Children, Exceptional Children, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Journal of Behavioral Education, Journal of
Learning Disabilities, Mental Retardation, Journal
of Research and Development in Education, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, Reading,
Writing, and Learning Disabilities, Remedial and
Special Education, Psychology in the Schools, School
Psychology Review, Teaching Exceptional Children,
and The Elementary School Journal, unpublished
dissertations, and one book chapter. Table 1
contains a summary of each study’s individual
characteristics.
Sample
Four hundred and thirty-nine students who
were classified with varying degrees of mental
retardation served as tutors and/or tutees
based on the studies reporting this information. Specifically, 125 students acted as tutors
while another 179 students served as tutees.
Additionally, 135 students were included in
reciprocal roles in which they participated as
tutor and tutee. Students with learning disabilities, behavioral or emotional disorders, atrisk, and average achieving students also
served as tutors and/or tutees. The sample
included 31 studies with elementary age stu-
Tutoring Configurations
Fifteen studies implemented cross-age tutoring in which older students tutored younger
students, while two studies had younger students tutor older students. Ten studies implemented same-age peer tutoring while twelve
studies implemented same-age peer tutoring
with a reciprocal component in that all students assumed roles of both tutor and tutee
during the tutoring sessions. Eleven studies
incorporated mixed ages with a wide variation
in the ages of students serving as tutor and/or
tutee. Although students with mental retardation were included in each of these studies,
their role varied depending on the study.
Content of Tutoring Sessions
A wide variety of academic, social, and daily
living/self-help skills were used during tutoring interventions. The majority of studies used
peer tutoring to teach reading (N ⫽ 13) such
as identifying sight words, reading cooking
labels, or identifying community signs. Four
studies focused on daily living skills while fifteen studies examined pre-academic and social/interaction skills. Peer tutoring was also
used to teach math (N ⫽ 5), spelling (N ⫽ 7),
social studies (N ⫽ 1), written language skills
(N ⫽ 2), sign language (N ⫽ 2), or combinations of reading, spelling, and math (N ⫽ 3).
Length, Duration, and Intensity of Tutoring
For those reporting, length, duration, and intensity of tutoring interventions data were averaged together to provide a summary of the
articles reviewed. Tutoring sessions ranged in
Students Teaching Peers
/
33
Design
Multiple Baseline
Qualitative
Multiple Baseline
Agran, Fodor-Davis,
Moore, &
Martella (1992)
Almond, Rodgers,
& Krug (1979)
Bell, Young,
Salzberg, & West
(1991)
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
Driving skills:
backing right and
proceeding
sequentially to
turning left and
passing as learner
met criterion on
the previous
maneuver
Pre-academic skills
Preparing sack
lunches
Subject
Cross-age tutoring
Tutors N ⫽ 4, reg.
ed. 17 and 18 yr.
olds
Tutees N ⫽ 4, 16 yr.
olds, (1 LD, 2 reg.
ed., 1 mild MR)
Mixed ages
Tutors N ⫽ 2, Mild
MR (14 & 15 yr. old
high school
students)
Tutees N ⫽ 3, SMR
(Two 14 yr. old
middle school
students; One 16 yr.
old high school
student)
Mixed ages
Volunteer supervisors
N ⫽ 78 nonhandicapped,
elementary K–6th N
⫽ 12, EMR,
elementary
Students supervised N
⫽ 16, autistic
students
Tutors/Tutees
Intervention lasted
daily 10-minute
sessions
Intervention lasted 9
months with at least
one daily contact w/
a student volunteer
Intervention lasted
once a day, three
days a week for 50
sessions (includes
baseline)
Duration of Intervention
Findings from Empirical Studies Involving Students with Mental Retardation and Peer Tutoring
/
Study
TABLE 1
34
Number of correct and
incorrect responses
per minute
Anecdotal records on
providing clear
directions, praise, &
helping
—Feedback slips
—Evaluation of student
supervisors
Sack lunch preparation
Self-instructions
emitted
Dependent Measures
Appeared to positively
affect the daily
attitudes of the
elementary school
community
Increase in contacts
between
handicapped & nonhandicapped
students on the
playground
Success in teaching
pre-academic skills
All learners met
criterion on the
maneuvers in the
training sessions and
passed the
classroom driver’s
education test
Two of the three
participants were
successful in
learning to make
sack lunches in the
correct sequence &
generalizing their
responding across
novel customers
Author Reported Findings
Students Teaching Peers
/
35
Multiple Baseline
Pre-post test
Brown, Fenrick, &
Klemme (1971)
Callan (1984)
Social interaction
Block building
Attitudes
Use of tutoring
techniques
Label words
Same age
tutors-tutees
Tutors N ⫽ 2
Trainable level
retarded taught
each other, 12 &
14 yr.
Tutees N ⫽ 5
Trainable level
retarded, 11–14
yr.
Cross-age tutoring
Phase I
Tutors N ⫽ 6, nonhandicapped, 4th
& 5th graders
Tutees N ⫽ 6,
trainable MR,
severe MR
Phase II
Tutors N ⫽ 6, nonhandicapped 4th
& 5th graders N
⫽ 6, nonhandicapped 2nd
& 4th graders
Tutees N ⫽ 6
(students
described in
Phase I)
N ⫽ 3 moderate to
severe handicaps,
(age range 18
mths.–4.8 years)
Thirty words from a
standard functional
word list
Five words from a
standard functional
word list
Tutee social interaction
with tutors
Tutee use of Leggo
blocks
Tutor attitude toward
severely handicapped
students
Tutor use of
appropriate tutoring
techniques
Intervention lasted
fifteen, 15 minute
sessions (9 school
days) to teach each
other words
Intervention lasted
ten, 15 minute
sessions for tutors to
teach 5 peers
Phase I lasted 8 weeks;
students tutored
three times a week
for 30 minutes
Phase II follow-up data
was collected the
remainder of the
school year
Positive social
interactions
between tutors and
tutees
Tutees made progress
in the use of
building block tasks
Tutors showed
positive attitudes
toward severely
handicapped
students
Trained tutors
performed at a
higher level on use
of appropriate
tutoring techniques
than untrained
tutors
The two tutors were
able to teach each
other to label words
and were able to
teach five of their
peers to label five
words
36
/
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
Design
Subject
Tutors/Tutees
Duration of Intervention
Dependent Measures
Collins, Branson, & Multiple Probe
Hall (1995)
Baseline
Reading cooking
product labels
Mixed ages
Tutors N ⫽ 26 (11th
gr. Advanced
English class)
Tutees N ⫽ 4
moderate MR
(mean age ⫽ 16.9)
Intervention lasted daily Cooking product word
with 32 trials per
sets
session on 16 target
words
Campbell, Brady, & Multiple Baseline Written
Same age tutors-tutees Intervention lasted 17– Percentage of words
Linehan (1991)
capitalization skills Tutors N ⫽ 4 LD
28 continuous days;
capitalized correctly
(mean age ⫽ 9.5)
daily 15 to 20
Tutees N ⫽ 2 LD, N
minutes; maintenance
⫽ 1 MR (mean age
probes were
⫽ 11.1) elementary
conducted for 3
students
weeks following
completion
Carlton, Litton, &
Exp. vs. Control Vocabulary
Same age tutor-tutee Intervention lasted 6
Gates-MacGinitie
Zinkgraf (1985)
N ⫽ 74, MMR
weeks; students
Reading Test
(midpoint age ⫽ 12
tutored 5 times a
yrs)
week for 20 minutes
Control group N ⫽
62
Intervention lasted 8
Relationship Rating
Cole, Vandercook, Experimental
Teaching leisure
Mixed ages
weeks; students met 2
Scales—measuring
& Rynders (1988) Peer Tutoring vs.
activities (playing Tutors N ⫽ 27, nonto 4 times a week for
interpersonal
Special Friends
with toys)
handicapped, 4th,
5th, 6th graders
15 minutes
behaviors
Tutees N ⫽ 27,
severe mental
handicaps (mean
age ⫽ 9.7)
Study
Table 1—(Continued)
Peer tutoring
interactions tended
to be lopsided with
non-handicapped
children watching,
teaching, and
rendering physical
assistance to
handicapped peers
Positive results with
some incidental
learning of cooking
definitions and
generalization across
novel materials,
persons, and settings
Positive gains in
reading for both
tutors and tutees
Positive gains on
capitalization
accuracy
Mixed results on
generalization in
sentence writing
Author Reported Findings
Students Teaching Peers
/
37
Pre-post test
Post-test
Multiple Baseline
Cooke, Heron,
Heward, & Test
(1982)
Custer &
Osguthorpe
(1983)
Donder (1986)
IEP goals
Attitudes
Social acceptance
Sight word
recognition
Reverse cross-age
Tutors N ⫽ 3, nonhandicapped, 6th
graders
Tutees N ⫽ 3,
moderate MR, jr.
high students, 13
yr. old (1) & 14
yr. old (2)
Same age
tutor-tutee
Tutor N ⫽ 1, nonhandicapped 1st
grader
Tutee N ⫽ 1, Down
syndrome, 1st
grader (age 7.7)
—CWPT in a 1st
grade classroom
with 28 students
Same age
tutor-tutee
Tutors N ⫽ 15,
mild MR, 5th–6th
graders
Tutees N ⫽ 15,
non-handicapped
6th graders
Modified Acceptance
Scale
IEP goals
Social interaction
observations
Sign language test
(delayed)
Student & parent
interviews
Intervention lasted 8
weeks, 30 minute
sessions
Intervention lasted 15
consecutive sessions
for two different
intervention periods
with tutoring
sessions lasting 20
minutes
Dolch Word List
Intervention lasted
daily for 5 months
with 89 sessions for
25–30 minutes
Increase in social
interactions between
handicapped & nonhandicapped
students
Tutors retained 94%
of the signs
Tutees retained 99%
of the signs
Positive reactions from
students & parents
regarding the peer
tutoring program
Significant results on
target behaviors
Increase in positive
attitude toward
tutees
Tutor & tutee
increased sight word
recognition
Tutee identified 77 of
140 words on
combined post-test
Tutor identified 191 of
215 words on posttest from basal
reader
38
/
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
Pre-post test
Multiple Probe
Design
Fenrick & Petersen
(1984)
Fishbach-Goodman
(1996)
Tutors/Tutees
Duration of Intervention
Dependent Measures
Reverse cross-age
Intervention lasted 34
Data were collected on:
Tutors N ⫽ 14 nondays during 30(a) interacting
handicapped, 7th
minute recess periods
appropriately w/
graders
including baseline
other handicapped
Tutees N ⫽ 3,
and maintenance
students
moderate MR, (14–
probes
(b) interacting
15 yr.)
inappropriately with
other handicapped
students
(c) interacting
appropriately w/
non-handicapped
students
(d) interacting
inappropriately w/
non-handicapped
students
Beginning language Cross-age tutoring
Intervention lasted 7
Questionnaire
Play
Tutors N ⫽ 12, nonweeks, 30 minutes 3
examining attitudes
Self-help
handicapped, 6th
times a week
toward own classmates
Functional academic
graders (N ⫽ 51
& handicapped
skills
served as non-peer
students
tutors)
Social Distance Scale
Tutees N ⫽ 6,
moderate MR (age
range 6–11)
Reading functional Cross-age tutoring
Intervention lasted 11
Correct response to
community-sign
Tutors N ⫽ 3, nonweeks
community-sign words
words
handicapped, 10, 16, Follow-up 14 weeks
in response to:
& 17 yr. olds
later
—flash cards
Tutees N ⫽ 3, multiply
—photographs
handicapped (MMR
—environment
& SMR), 11, 14, 18
—comprehension of sign
yr. olds
words in classroom &
community
Subject
Multiple Baseline Playground skills
Design
Donder &
Nietupski (1981)
Study
Table 1—(Continued)
Tutees showed positive
results in learning
community-sign
words
Demonstrations of
generalization were
inconclusive
Tutors showed positive
changes in attitudes
toward handicapped
students
Increase in appropriate
playground behavior
Follow-up showed
overall higher
percentage of
appropriate
playground behavior
and overall increase
in contact between
handicapped & nonhandicapped students
Author Reported Findings
Students Teaching Peers
/
39
Exp. vs. Control
Alternating
treatment
design
Pre-post testing
Fuchs, Fuchs, &
Kazdan (1999)
Harper, Mallette,
Maheady,
Bentley, &
Moore (1995)
Harper, Mallette,
Maheady, Parkes,
& Moore (1993)
Spelling
Math
Reading
Same-age reciprocal
CWPT
N ⫽ 8, LD, (4)
mild MR (mean
age ⫽ 9.4)
Same age reciprocal
CWPT
N ⫽ 52, LD, (2)
MMR, Remedial,
Other high
school students in
special ed. and
remedial classes
Same-age reciprocal
CWPT
N ⫽ 8, LD, ED, (3)
mild MR, 3rd–5th
graders (mean
age ⫽ 10.4)
Intervention lasted
daily for 10 weeks
Intervention lasted 10
minutes three days a
week for 10 weeks
Intervention lasted 5
times every 2 weeks
for 16 weeks
Weekly spelling test
Generalization writing
task
Sight word vocabulary
Retention spelling test
Student satisfaction
survey
Weekly math quizzes
Retention test (1 week
later; 17 days later)
Rate of accurate
responding
Student satisfaction
survey
Comprehensive
Reading Assessment
Battery
Increase in weekly
math scores
Positive results on
retention tests
Improvement in rate
of accurate
responding
Students reported
positive evaluation
of CWPT &
perceived positive
social & self-esteem
outcomes
Increase in weekly
spelling scores
Positive results on
generalization
writing task &
retention tests
Modest improvements
in sight word
recognition
Students reported
positive evaluation
of CWPT &
perceived positive
social & self-esteem
outcomes
Mixed finding
between reading
comprehension and
fluency
40
/
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
Pre-post testing
Heward, Heron, &
Cooke (1982)
Sight words
Sight words
Pre-post testing
Heron, Heward,
Cooke, & Hill
(1983)
Subject
Spelling
Design
Harper, Mallette, & AB Baseline
Moore (1991)
Study
Table 1—(Continued)
Same age tutor-tutee
CWPT
Tutor N ⫽ 2, nonhandicapped, 1st
graders
Tutee N ⫽ 1, LD N
⫽ 1, Down
syndrome,
elementary-age (N
⫽ 24 additional
participants in 1st
grade classroom)
Same age tutor-tutee
CWPT
Tutor N ⫽ 1 nonhandicapped, 1st
grader
Tutee N ⫽ 1, Down
syndrome
(N ⫽ 26 additional
participants in 1st
grade classroom)
Same-age reciprocal
CWPT
N ⫽ 12, mild MR,
primary-grade class
(mean age ⫽
11.76)
Tutors/Tutees
Weekly spelling tests
Opportunities to
respond
Rate of accurate
responding
Peer Tutoring
Evaluation Inventory
Dependent Measures
Intervention lasted daily Sight words from basal
for 5 months
reader
Student attitudes
Intervention lasted daily Sight words from basal
for 5 months with
reader
25–30 minute sessions Tutoring behaviors
Intervention lasted 14
weeks daily for 15
minutes including
baseline
Duration of Intervention
Increase in sight word
identification for
tutors and tutees
Students reported high
satisfaction with the
peer tutoring
program
Increase in weekly
spelling scores
Increase in academic
response rate
Students reported
positive evaluation of
CWPT & perceived
positive social
outcomes
Increase in sight word
identification for
tutors and tutees
Author Reported Findings
Students Teaching Peers
/
41
ABAB Reversal
Design
ABAB Reversal
Design
Kohl, Moses, &
Stettner-Eaton
(1983)
Kohl & StettnerEaton (1985)
Single subject
(Multiple
treatment
design, 5
experiments)
Jenkins, Mayall,
Peschka, &
Jenkins (1974)
Cafeteria skills
Attending skills
Cafeteria skills
1) word
recognition
2) spelling
3) multiplication
4) oral reading
5) multiplication
Cross-age tutoring
1) LD, EMR, ages
7–10, N ⫽ 13
2) 3rd graders, LD,
N ⫽ 4
3) 4th graders
referred to
resource room
for assistance in
multiplication, n
⫽ 5
4) EH or EMH, n
⫽ 5
3rd graders referred
for multiassistance, n ⫽ 5
Cross-age tutoring
Tutors N ⫽ 7, nonhandicapped, 5th
& 6th graders
Tutees N ⫽ 8,
severely
handicapped
students (age
range ⫽ 5.5–10.1
yrs.) (mean age
⫽ 7.9)
Cross-age tutoring
Tutors N ⫽ 4, nonhandicapped, 4th
graders
Tutees N ⫽ 3,
severely MR
(mean age ⫽
10.5)
Data collected on
tutor’s attending
behaviors
Trainer (tutor)
intervention
Data collected on
tutees performance
on the cafeteria
instructional
sequence
Intervention occurred
4 days a week
during 30 minute
lunch break for 24
sessions including
baseline
Intervention occurred
4 days a week
during 30 minute
lunch break
Sullivan Programmed
Reading
Series—number of
words read correctly
—number of spelling
words correct
—number of
multiplication
problems answered
correctly
Two 10-minute
sessions daily for 8
to 10 days
1) 4 to 8 days
2) 4 days
3) 5 days
4) 12 days of group
and then 10 days of
tutoring
not given
Tutors showed gains
in their ability to
attend appropriately
to tutees
Tutees were successful
in increasing or
maintaining their
cafeteria skills which
were taught prior to
intervention by a
teacher
Tutors were taught to
use effective
instructional
techniques
Tutees improved on
cafeteria skills
Positive feedback from
tutors regarding
tutoring program
Children made greater
gains in tutorial
condition. In
Experiment 3 and 5,
tutors gained too
(reg. ed. 6th
graders)
42
/
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
Multiple Baseline Sight words
Modified
Math
Multiple Probe
Technique
Multiple Baseline Social responses
Koury & Browder
(1986)
Lancioni (1982a)
Lancioni (1982b)
Experiment #1
Spelling
Alternating
Treatment
Design
Koury (1990)
Subject
Design
Study
Table 1—(Continued)
Mixed
ages—reciprocal
N ⫽ 9 moderately
MR, jr. high
students
N ⫽ 12, moderately
MR, sr. high
students
Cross-age tutoring
Tutors N ⫽ 5,
moderately MR,
intermediate class
(midpoint age ⫽ 10
yrs.)
Tutees N ⫽ 6,
Moderately MR,
primary class
(midpoint age ⫽
7.5 yrs.)
Mixed ages
Tutors N ⫽ 12 nonhandicapped, 3rd &
4th graders
Tutees N ⫽ 6, EMR
(mean age ⫽ 10.8)
Same age tutor-tutee
Tutors N ⫽ 12, nonhandicapped 3rd &
4th graders (mean
age ⫽ 9.3)
Tutees N ⫽ 3, EMR
Tutors/Tutees
Intervention lasted
approximately 70
days including
baseline
Four 8–12 minute
sessions four times a
day
Target responses:
Tutors were able to
—Delayed imitation (ex.
teach social responses
Hands on head)
Training effects
—Cooperative play
generalized across
—Verbalizations of
stimulus & response
“That’s good” &
conditions
“Thank you”
Skills maintained over
time w/in training
sessions
Sight words chosen
from primary
students’ reading
series
Positive results solving
simple written math
problems
Intervention lasted
approximately 10–20
minute sessions with
one session per day
and four to five
sessions per week.
Intervention lasted daily Written math problems
approximately 110
including addition,
days including
subtraction,
baseline
multiplication, and
division
Author Reported Findings
Gains on weekly
spelling quizzes
Increase on
opportunities to
respond
Teachers & students
found peer tutoring
effective
Positive gains on
identifying sight
words
Dependent Measures
Weekly spelling quizzes
Peer Tutoring
Evaluation Inventory
50 minute sessions,
daily
Duration of Intervention
Students Teaching Peers
/
43
Multiple Baseline
Multiple Baseline
Post-test
Lancioni (1982b)
Experiment #2
Lancioni (1982b)
Experiment #3
Lombardo (1975)
Picture matching
Social responses
Social responses
Mixed ages
Tutors N ⫽ 24,
non-handicapped,
4th & 5th graders
Tutees N ⫽ 3, MR
(mean age ⫽
12.1)
Mixed-cross-age &
same age
Tutors ⫽ adults &
students
N ⫽ 33, adults,
students 5 yrs.–12
yrs. (mean age ⫽
8.7)
Group I—adult
tutored MR
student
Group II—nonhandicapped
student tutored
MR student
Group III—MR
student tutored
MR student
Mixed ages
Tutors N ⫽ 15,
non-handicapped,
4th & 5th graders
Tutees N ⫽ 3, MR,
(mean age ⫽
10.2)
Intervention lasted 3
days; three 15minute sessions
Intervention lasted
approximately 100
days including
baseline
Intervention lasted
approximately 130
days including
baseline
Target responses:
—Delayed imitation
(ex. Hands on head)
—Cooperative play
—Verbalizations of
“That’s good” &
“Thank you”
Paired-associate task
(picture matching)
Target responses:
—Delayed imitation
(ex. Hands on head)
—Cooperative play
—Verbalizations of
“That’s good” &
“Thank you”
Maintenance on social
behaviors taught
continue if training
is dependent on
social contingencies
paired with edibles,
but social behaviors
do not maintain if
training is
dependent on
edibles
Direct social
contingencies have
to be repeatedly
paired with edible
reinforcement for
maintenance to
occur
Results showed
positive results for
all tutees
Three types of tutors
did not have
significantly
different effects on
the performance of
the tutees
44
/
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
Multiple Baseline Reading, language
arts, math
Maher (1984)
Reading, writing,
math
Pre-post
Maher (1982)
Social studies
Subject
Single subject
Design
Maheady, Harper,
& Sacca (1988)
Study
Table 1—(Continued)
Duration of Intervention
Same age reciprocal
Intervention lasted 20
CWPT
weeks; number of
N ⫽ 20, LD, BD,
sessions varied
EMR 9th–12th
weekly; sessions were
graders (mean age
30 minutes
⫽ 16.2)
Cross-age tutoring
Intervention lasted 10
Tutors N ⫽ 6 ED,
weeks; students
high school (mean
tutored 2 times a
age ⫽ 16.2)
week for 30 minutes
Tutees N ⫽ 6 EMR,
elementary
(midpoint age ⫽ 9)
(N ⫽ 6 tutored by
general ed.
students; N ⫽ 6
received group
counseling—not
included in coding)
Cross-age tutoring
Intervention lasted 10
Tutors N ⫽ 8, ED,
weeks; students
high school
tutored 2 times a
(midpoint age ⫽
week for 30 minutes
15.5)
Tutees N ⫽ 8 EMR,
elementary
(midpoint age ⫽ 11
yrs)
Tutors/Tutees
Positive gains in social
science and language
arts for tutors
Reduced rates of
absenteeism and
disciplinary referrals
for tutors
Positive gains on social
studies quizzes
Author Reported Findings
Percentage completion Increase for tutors and
of assignments
tutees in percentage
Percentage items correct
of completion of
on tests & quizzes
assignments and
Disciplinary referrals
items correct on tests
& quizzes
Decrease in disciplinary
referrals for both
tutors and tutees
Student’s grades
Number of disciplinary
referrals
Percentage of school
attendance
Weekly social studies
quizzes
Dependent Measures
Students Teaching Peers
/
45
Multiple probe
design across 4
participants
Marchand-Martella,
Martella, Agran,
Salzberg, Young,
& Morgan
(1992)
Exp. vs. Control
Pre-post
Mallette, Harper,
Maheady, &
Dempsey (1991)
Mastropieri et al.
(2000)
Multiple Baseline
Maher (1986)
Reading
First aid skills
Spelling
Reading language
arts, math
Same age reciprocal
CWPT
N ⫽ 9 MMR, N ⫽
1 non-disabled,
elementary (mean
age ⫽ 100.13)
Mixed ages
Tutors N ⫽ 2,
moderate
intellectual
disabilities,
elementary
Tutees N ⫽ 4 mild
intellectual
disabilities,
elementary
Same age reciprocal
CWPT
N ⫽ 16, LD, MMR,
7th–8th graders
Control group N ⫽
12
Cross-age tutoring
Tutors N ⫽ 16, ED,
high school
students
Tutees N ⫽ 16,
EMR, elementary
students
Intervention lasted 5
weeks; students
tutored daily for 55
minutes
Intervention lasted 3
months
Intervention lasted 12
weeks
Intervention lasted 10
weeks; twice a week
for 30 minutes
Reading
comprehension test
Attitudes toward
tutoring
Treatment of three
injuries: abrasions,
burns, and cuts
Percentage of
completion of
assignments
(tutors/tutees)
Percentage items
correct on tests &
quizzes
(tutors/tutees)
Disciplinary referrals
(tutors)
Attendance (tutors)
Reaction of tutoring
program (tutors)
Weekly Spelling tests
Student satisfaction
survey
Positive gains in
reading
Positive attitudes
toward tutoring
Peer teaching resulted
in acquisition of first
aid skills which
generalized to
home, novelsimulated injury
locations, & to new
trainers
Positive gains on
weekly spelling tests
Positive attitudes
towards CWPT
Increase for tutors and
tutees in percentage
of completion of
assignments and
items correct on
tests & quizzes
Increase in attendance
for tutors
Decrease in
disciplinary referrals
for tutors
46
/
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
Exp. vs. Control
Exp. vs. Control
McCracken (1979)
Design
Mastropieri et al.
(2001)
Study
Table 1—(Continued)
Word recognition
Reading
comprehension
World history
Subject
Intervention lasted 8
weeks; 2 or 3 times a
week for 85 minutes
(block scheduling)
Duration of Intervention
Same age tutor-tutee Intervention lasted 12
weeks; daily
Tutors N ⫽ 15
primarily LD, 9th,
10th, 11th
Tutees N ⫽ 25, LD,
BD, EMR, 9th, 10th,
11th (27 students,
LD were tutored by
teachers) 4 exp.
groups
1) peer tutoring w/o
data-based
instruction
2) peer tutoring w/
data-based
instruction
3) teacher tutor w/o
data-based
instruction
4) teacher tutor w/
data-based
instruction
Control group
N ⫽ 32, LD
Same age tutor-tutee
CWPT
N ⫽ 1 LD/ED
N ⫽ 14 LD
N ⫽ 1 MR
Tutors/Tutees
—Slosson Oral Reading
Test
—Teacher-made
contextual analysis
test based on SORT
to measure
comprehension
—Pre-post World
History tests
—Oral reading fluency
—Student satisfaction
Dependent Measures
Students in peer
tutoring class made
significant gains over
the students in
traditional class
Positive teacher &
student attitudes
regarding peer
tutoring
No significant difference
on reading fluency
Positive gains in word
recognition and
reading
comprehension when
data-based instruction
was used; same results
reported for teachers
Author Reported Findings
Students Teaching Peers
/
47
Withdrawal
treatment
design
Exp. vs. Control
Exp. vs. Control
Mortweet, Utley,
Walker, Dawson,
Delquadri,
Reddy,
Greenwood,
Hamilton, &
Ledford (1999)
Noll (1985)
Olsen (1978)
Reading (tutees)
Attitudes (tutors)
Social initiations
Attitudes
Money skills
Spelling
Social interactions
Academic behaviors
Same age tutor-tutee
(4th graders)
Tutors N ⫽ 8 nonhandicapped
students
Tutees N ⫽ 8, (4)
SED, (Mean age ⫽
9.7 yrs.) (4)
trainable MR,
(mean age ⫽
10.3)
Control group.
N ⫽ 12 nonhandicapped
students
Cross-age tutoring
Tutors N ⫽ 28 nonhandicapped, 5th
& 6th graders
Tutees N ⫽ 29,
primary-aged, mild
MR
Experimental N ⫽
28 (peer tutoring)
Control I Condition
N ⫽ 27 (teacher
helpers)
Control II Condition
N ⫽ 27 (no
treatment)
Same age reciprocal
CWPT
N ⫽ 4, EMR, 2nd &
3rd graders; N ⫽
4, non-disabled
2nd & 3rd graders
—Stanford Early School
Achievement Test
—Stanford
Achievement Test
—What You Think
About Special Ed.
Kids scale (developed
for this study)
Intervention lasted 10
weeks; sessions were
30 minutes daily
Intervention lasted 8
weeks; sessions were
20 minutes daily
—Weekly spelling tests
—Code for
Instructional
Structure and
Student Academic
Response
—Consumer
satisfaction surveys
—Behavior Observation
Scale
—Peer Attitudes
Toward Handicapped
Scale (PATHS)
—Money skills data
sheet
Intervention lasted 6
weeks in one class
and 11 weeks in the
other. Sessions were
20 minutes 4 times a
week
Results showed
significant gains in
reading for the
tutees
Tutors showed
increase in positive
attitudes toward
tutees compared
with control groups
Both experimental
and control groups
increased frequency
of social interaction.
No statistical
significance was
found on scores of
attitude measures
Increase in money
skills performance
for tutees
Students made positive
gains in spelling
performance; higher
rates of academic
engagement
48
/
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
Spelling
Social Interactions
Sideridis (1995)
Single Subject
Design
Language, social
behaviors
Scruggs,
Exp. vs. Control
Mastropieri, Veit,
& Osguthorpe
(1986)
Multiple Baseline Functional math
skills (money
cards)
Schloss, Kobza, &
Alper (1997)
Sign language
Subject
Exp. vs. Control
Design
Osguthorpe,
Eiserman, &
Shisler (1985)
Study
Table 1—(Continued)
Same age tutor-tutee
4th–6th graders
Tutors N ⫽ 17, EMR
Tutees N ⫽ 17,
average-achieving
Control group N ⫽
16
Same age reciprocal
tutoring N ⫽ 6
moderately MR
junior high, high
school (mean age
⫽ 15.7)
Same age tutor-tutee
3rd–5th graders
Tutors N ⫽ 24, BD
Tutees N ⫽ 3, SMH
Control group N ⫽
12 (3 new tutors
rotated every 5
weeks, so tutors
were also control
group)
Same age tutor-tutee
Tutors N ⫽ 3, nonhandicapped, 6th
graders (age range
⫽ 11–12)
Tutees N ⫽ 3, LD,
EMR, ADD. 6th
graders (age range
⫽ 12–13)
Tutors/Tutees
Tutoring sessions were New Code for
4 times a week for 30
Instructional Structure
minutes
and Student Academic
Response
Weekly spelling tests
Multiple Option
Observation System for
Experimental Studies
(social interaction)
Student & teacher
satisfaction surveys
Stanford Achievement
Test
Absence
Discipline
Attitude Toward School
Devereaux Behavior
Rating Scale
Teacher-made money
cards
Free Play Interaction
Form
Sign language tests
Intervention lasted 10
weeks; sessions were
15 minutes 3 times a
week
Intervention lasted
approximately 18,
15-minute sessions
Follow-up probes one
week after
completion
Intervention lasted for
20 weeks (4-five week
tutoring sessions);
students tutored 4
times a week for 20
minutes
Dependent Measures
Duration of Intervention
—Increase in spelling
accuracy for tutees
—Increased academic
responding levels
—Increase in positive
social interactions for
tutors & tutees
—High satisfaction for
students & teachers
No behavior changes
were noted
Positive gains in
teaching functional
math skills
Positive findings in
social interactions
between tutors and
tutees and sign
language
Author Reported Findings
Students Teaching Peers
/
49
Qualitative
Multiple Baseline
Single-Subject
Alternating
Treatment
Design
Smith & Pfeiffer
(1997)
Staub & Hunt
(1993)
Thomas (1998)
Spelling
Community,
transportation,
vocational, &
domestic skills
Reading
Same-age reciprocal
CWPT
N ⫽ 59 nonhandicapped,
middle school
students & N ⫽ 1
MR, 2 LD, 3 atrisk
Mixed ages
Tutors N ⫽ 8,
non-handicapped
Tutees N ⫽ 4,
severe disabilities
(Age range ⫽ 15–
20)
Cross-age tutoring
Tutors N ⫽ 6,
EMR, elementary
Tutees N ⫽ 6,
EMR, elementary
(age range ⫽ 7–
10)
Intervention (CWPT)
lasted 3 weeks;
sessions lengths
varied
Intervention lasted 30
days including
baseline
“Buddy work”
occurred daily for
one class period
Increase in:
—compatibility w/in
the classroom
—interest in reading
& language for both
tutors & tutees
—self-confidence, selfassurance, &
responsibility of
tutors
Increase in the
frequency of
initiations of
interactions from
students without
disabilities
—Frequency of the
social interactive
behaviors of the peer
tutors toward the
tutees
—Frequency of the
display of targeted
social behaviors by
tutees
Weekly spelling tests
Comparisons made
Code for Instructional
between CWPT and
Structure and
teacher adapted
Student Academic
CWPT revealed
Response—Mainstream similar finding with
Version
all resulting in
positive gains in
spelling
Anecdotal reports
50
/
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
Study #1
Sign Language
Exp. vs. Control
Attitudes
Study #2
Attitudes
No treatment was
given
Whited (1986)
Subject
Multiple Baseline Math
Design
Vacc & Cannon
(1991)
Study
Table 1—(Continued)
Intervention lasted 6
weeks for one-half
hour, 4 days a week
Duration of Intervention
Intervention lasted for 9
Cross-age tutoring
weeks; sessions were
Study #1
15 minutes 3 times a
Tutors N ⫽ 17, 4 mild
week
MR, 20 moderate
MR, 9 severe MR
(Age range 7.1 to
18.4 years)
Tutees N ⫽ 51, nonhandicapped
students, 2nd–6th
graders
Control group.
N ⫽ 16 handicapped,
N ⫽ 51
non-handicapped
Study #2
N ⫽ 116, nonhandicapped 4th
and 7th graders
Cross-age tutoring
Tutors N ⫽ 12, nonhandicapped, 6th
graders
Tutees N ⫽ 4,
moderately
mentally
handicapped,
elementary age
Tutors/Tutees
Study #1
—Arizona Articulation
Proficiency Scale:
Revised
—Expressive One-Word
Picture Vocabulary
Test
—Miller-Yoder
Language
Comprehension Test
—Language Sample
—Attitude
Questionnaire
Study #2
—Revised Attitude
Questionnaire
Subject Attitude
Questionnaire
Tutoring Attitude
Questionnaire
Teacher Attitude
Questionnaire
Observation of Tutor
Performance
Number of correct
responses (math)
Dependent Measures
Increase in beginning
mathematics skills for
tutees
Positive attitudes for
both tutors & tutees
toward each other &
the tutoring program
Teachers evaluated the
program as a positive
learning activity for
all participants
Two-year follow-up
showed maintenance
of or improvement in
mathematics skills
varied across subjects
Study #1
No significant effects
on communication
skills for tutees. No
significant changes in
attitudes toward
handicapped students
for tutors
Study #2
Negative attitudes
toward handicapped
students in selfcontained classrooms
Author Reported Findings
length from 10 to 30 minutes with an average
of 25 minutes. One additional study had 85
minute tutoring sessions. Duration of tutoring
implementations ranged from three days to
five months with one study lasting the ninemonth school year. The average tutoring intervention was nine weeks. Number of tutoring sessions per week ranged from twice a
week to five times a week with an average of
four times a week.
Outcomes of Tutoring
Students with Mental Retardation as Tutors
Across all studies, outcomes reported by authors were generally found to be positive for
students with mental retardation serving as
tutor to their non-handicapped peers while
some studies were reciprocal in that tutor and
tutee alternated their roles. Further, some
studies involved students with other disabilities as well (e.g., Bell, Young, Salzberg, &
West, 1991; Fuchs et al., 1999). For example,
Maher (1982; 1984; 1986) implemented three
studies in which high school students with
emotional disabilities served as the tutor to
younger students with mental retardation.
In a closer examination of the studies, students with mental retardation successfully
taught pre-academic skills (Almond et al.,
1979) vocabulary, sight words, and reading
(e.g., Carlton, Litton, & Zinkgraf, 1985;
Koury, 1990); social studies (Maheady et al.,
1988) math (Harper, Mallette, Maheady,
Bentley, & Moore, 1995; Schloss, Kobza, &
Alper, 1997), spelling (e.g., Harper, Mallette,
Maheady, Parkes, & Moore, 1993; Harper,
Mallette, & Moore, 1991), and sign language
(Custer, & Osguthorpe, 1983; Osguthorpe,
Eiserman, & Shisler, 1985; Whited, 1986).
In addition, students with mental retardation also successfully assisted each other in
learning some basic daily living/self-help skills
such as preparing sack lunches (Agran, FodorDavis, Moore, & Martella, 1992) and learning
to administer first-aid (Marchand-Martella et
al., 1992). Thus, students with mental retardation are clearly able to teach their peers both
academic and daily living/self-help skills.
Non-handicapped Students as Tutors
This review also identified positive benefits for
students with varying levels of mental retardation when non-handicapped students served
as the “teacher” in the peer tutoring dyad. For
example, students with mental retardation
made positive academic gains in reading (e.g.,
Cooke, Heron, Heward, & Test, 1982; Fishback-Goodman, 1996; Olsen, 1978), math
(Lancioni, 1982a; Vacc & Cannon, 1991) and
spelling (Sideridis, 1995; Thomas, 1998) when
tutored by their non-handicapped peers.
Other successes were found within investigations that focused on various daily living/selfhelp skills such as teaching driver’s education
curriculum (Bell et al., 1991) and improving
cafeteria skills (Kohl, Moses, & Stettner-Eaton,
1983; Kohl & Stettner-Eaton, 1985).
Additionally, some studies examined effects
of non-handicapped students working with
students with mental retardation on their social skills. For example, Donder and Nietupski
(1981) focused on increasing appropriate
playground behavior while Cole, Vandercook,
and Rynders (1988) taught leisure activities
(e.g., playing with toys). Moreover, other studies focused on social and attitudinal measures
resulting in generally positive findings on outcomes that measured the number of contacts
between non-handicapped students and students with mental retardation as well as attitudes of the non-handicapped peers towards
their tutors (e.g., Almond et al., 1979;
Donder, 1986; Donder & Nietupski).
Clearly, non-handicapped students have
been very successful in teaching students with
mental retardation academics, daily living/
self-help skills, and social skills. With the recent re-certification of the Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA), this growing body of
research indicating positive results for nonhandicapped students tutoring students with
mental retardation is encouraging. Table 1
presents descriptive findings as reported by
the authors.
Students with Mental Retardation as Tutors
and/or Tutees
Although most of the studies were conducted
at either the elementary or secondary level,
some of the studies include varying ages and
Students Teaching Peers
/
51
grade levels (e.g., Maher, 1982; 1984; 1986).
These studies were identified as either elementary or secondary based on the age or
grade level of students with mental retardation that were included. For organizational
purposes, studies have been further categorized into three broad areas: academic, social,
and daily living skills in order to provide a
clearer description of the interventions.
Elementary Students with Mental
Retardation as Tutors and Tutees
Of 52 studies reviewed, 33 interventions included students at the elementary level.
Within these studies, students with varying levels of mental retardation taught academic
skills such as basic sight word recognition,
spelling, math, and sign language. Social skills
and student attitudes were also a focus of
some investigations along with daily living
skills such as cafeteria skills and first-aid. Several studies addressing academic skills, social
skills, and daily living skills are described in
detail as exemplars to demonstrate the abilities as well as the variations that have been
implemented when students with mental retardation work with their peers.
Academic Tutoring for Elementary Students
Using a cross-age peer tutoring configuration,
Maher (1984) examined the efficacy of eight
high school students classified as emotionally
disturbed tutoring eight elementary students
who were classified as educable mentally retarded. The cross-age tutors were responsible
for conducting two 30-minute tutoring sessions a week with their tutee assisting with
math, reading, and language arts assignments.
As part of the session, tutors were responsible
for discussing the knowledge or skills to be
acquired with their tutee, answering their
questions, assisting the tutee with written
work, and socially reinforcing the tutee for
discussion and work completion.
Results showed an increase for both tutors
and tutees in the completion of academic assignments and percentage of items correct on
tests and quizzes. Additionally, a decrease in
disciplinary referrals for the tutors was noted.
Furthermore, teachers of students with mental retardation reported that they considered
52
/
the program to be a valuable resource for
their students and that gains in academic performance made by students were educationally significant.
Another variation of peer tutoring implemented by Cooke et al. (1982) examined efficacy of using a classwide peer tutoring model
by integrating a student with Down syndrome
into a regular first grade classroom. The peer
tutoring program was designed to teach sight
word recognition and consisted of four parts:
tutor huddle, practice, testing, and maintenance. The classroom teacher chose a first
grade classmate to be the tutor for the student
with Down syndrome, because they “got along
well.”
At the beginning of each peer tutoring session, tutors met with three or four other tutors
for five minutes to make sure they all knew the
words on the word cards, which were taken
from the Dolch (1955) list. Next, tutors met
with their tutees and practiced the Dolch
words from the GO side of the student folder
for five minutes. If the tutee made a mistake,
the tutor was to say, “Try again.” If the tutee
still did not respond correctly, the tutor
prompted the tutee to say the correct word
(e.g., say yellow). Tutors used intermittent verbal praise to reinforce correct responses.
At the conclusion of the practice period,
tutors tested the tutees using word cards. Criterion for moving a word from the GO to the
STOP side of the folder was a correct response
during testing on three consecutive tutoring
sessions. Tutors were also taught to use a cumulative graph to record number of words
learned. After one week, students were asked
to identify the words again. If any words were
missed, they were put back into the GO side of
the folder to be re-learned.
Results indicated that the student with
Down syndrome was able to successfully participate in a classwide peer tutoring program
in the regular first grade classroom. The student’s sight word recognition increased from
4 words on the pretest to 77 words on the final
posttest. The tutor also showed significant
gains on the final posttest identifying 191 of
the 215 words.
In both studies, students with mental retardation served as the tutee; however, tutors in
the first study were students with emotional
disabilities. The second study described a
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
classwide peer tutoring model with the student with mental retardation included in the
regular first grade class and tutored by a nonhandicapped peer. Academic gains were reported for tutors and tutees.
Social Skills Training for Elementary Students
Studies that focused on social skills training
for students with mental retardation were frequently combined with an academic or preacademic skill in order to implement the peer
tutoring program. For example, Custer and
Osguthorpe (1983) conducted a study to assess effects on social acceptance by training
students with mental retardation to tutor their
non-handicapped peers in sign language. Tutors included 15 fifth and sixth grade students
with mild mental retardation while fifteen
non-handicapped sixth grade students participated as the tutees.
Prior to the tutoring intervention, students
were observed for three consecutive days during their 45-minute lunch break to record
contact time between handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Following the pre-observation period, students with mental retardation were trained as sign language tutors
four days a week. On the fifth day, tutors met
with their tutees to teach them what they had
learned. Over the eight- week period, tutors
taught the tutees the manual alphabet, numbers, conversational phrases, and two songs.
At the end of the eight week period, postobservations were made during the 45-minute
lunch break to assess student interactions between tutors and tutees. In addition, students
and parents were interviewed and a delayed
sign-language test was administered. Results
showed a mean percentage increase of interaction time between non-handicapped and
handicapped students from 5% pre-observation to 46% post-observation. Non-handicapped students expressed that making
friends with their tutor was easy and that tutors were “fun to be with.” Parents’ perceptions of the program were also positive. They
felt that not only had they observed an increase in their child’s self-confidence, but also
their own confidence in their child’s ability to
learn had increased. Results of the delayed
sign language test showed that tutors retained
an average of 94% of signs they had learned
during the project.
In another study examining social interactions between students with and without disabilities, Cole et al. (1988) implemented a
peer tutoring program and a special friends
program to facilitate the social integration of
non-handicapped fourth, fifth, and sixth
grade students and students with severe or
profound mental retardation. Fifty-three dyads consisting of one non-handicapped student and one student with severe or profound
retardation participated. Twenty-six of the dyads were in the Special Friends program and
27 dyads were in the peer tutoring program.
Students met with their partner two to four
times per week over an eight-week period, for
15-minute sessions. During the Special
Friends sessions, peers signed in, greeted their
partner and jointly chose a toy or an activity to
play with during the session. During peer tutoring sessions, tutors reviewed a task analysis
of the leisure activity they were teaching,
greeted the tutee, taught steps of the leisure
activity until all steps were taught, and used
verbal reinforcement, modeling, and physical
assistance to assist the tutee in following the
steps.
Data were collected using a traditional timesampling technique in order to code interactions of the peers. Behaviors included appropriate and cooperative play; watching (peer)
play; requesting, offering, and rejecting toys;
assisting/teaching peer; tolerating and rejecting assistance from peer; care-taking; and expressing positive and negative emotions.
Results indicated that interactions occurring during peer tutoring and Special Friends
varied greatly. In the peer tutoring dyads, tutors exhibited less appropriate and cooperative play and more play watching and assisting.
Conversely, the non-handicapped partner in
the Special Friends dyad exhibited more appropriate play and toy requesting and offered
less assistance to the tutee. In other words,
peer tutors were teaching and Special Friends
were playing. The authors suggested that although peer tutoring is not competitive in
nature, the tutor and tutee clearly lacked
equal status. The tutor’s job was to teach and
the tutee’s job was to learn. With the unequal
status of these roles, peer tutoring may not
lead to lasting relationships. The authors were
Students Teaching Peers
/
53
cautious in suggesting that the Special Friends
relationships might outlast relationships that
emerge from peer tutoring programs.
Daily Living Skills/Self-Help Skills for Elementary
Students
With movement toward more integrative and
age-appropriate classrooms and schools, the
practice of using peer trainers to assist students with severe disabilities is becoming
more of a reality (Certo, Haring, & York,
1984). For example, Kohl and Stettner-Eaton
(1985) was interested in knowing if non-handicapped students could be trained to attend
appropriately to students with severe disabilities and teach them cafeteria skills. Four nonhandicapped fourth grade students were
trained to assist the tutees through the cafeteria line, to eat their lunch, and to cleanup.
Data were collected on appropriate attending
by the tutor which was defined as reinforcing
the student for a correct response, correcting
inappropriate social behavior, requiring the
student to use his/her communication book,
conversing with the student, or observing the
student in anticipation of a correct or incorrect response. Inappropriate attending consisted of any behavior that did not directly
involve the student with disabilities. Additional data were collected on the performance
of the tutee.
Results of the study indicated that the tutors
were taught to attend appropriately to the
tutees while performing cafeteria skills. Although findings revealed that severely handicapped students either maintained or increased their performance of cafeteria skills
when the fourth graders monitored and reinforced their behavior, most students had acquired a majority of the cafeteria skills prior to
intervention.
Another essential daily living skill for students with disabilities is first aid training.
Marchand-Martella et al. (1992) examined the
effects of having four students with mild intellectual disabilities teach first aid skills to four
students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Data were collected on the participants’
treatment of three injuries: abrasions, burns,
and cuts. Training sessions were conducted in
a kitchen area of a building near the school.
Tutors had been previously trained to treat
54
/
these three injuries. Peer instruction consisted
of modeling, participant practice with corrective feedback and praise, and a retest. First,
the tutor told the participant that he or she
was injured and was going to take care of it
(e.g., “I scraped myself. I will show you how to
take care of it”). The peer tutor modeled each
treatment step on his own injury. Next, the
tutor provided the instructional care (e.g.,
“You scraped yourself. Show me how to take
care of it”) and the student practiced the skill
on his or her own injury. The tutor provided
corrective feedback and praise and then practiced again without tutor feedback.
After tutees reached 100% correct performance on three re-tests, skills were tested in
the kitchen or bathroom of the tutee’s home
to check for generalization. Results suggested
that students were able to learn first aid skills
and the skills generalized to the home, to
novel simulated-injury locations, and to different tutors.
Summary
These six research studies provided an overview of different peer tutoring configurations
used with elementary-age students with mental retardation as well as different academic
and social areas in which peer tutoring has
been implemented. Students with mental retardation served as tutors to non-handicapped
students to teach sign language while nonhandicapped students taught cafeteria skills.
Students with mental retardation also taught
each other first-aid and high school students
with emotional disabilities worked with elementary-age students with mental retardation
on math, reading, and language arts. Further,
Cooke et al. (1982) provided an example of
an inclusive setting with a student with Down
syndrome while Cole et al. (1988) provided
programs to facilitate social integration of
non-handicapped students with their handicapped peers.
Overall, the review identified 35 studies implementing peer tutoring at the elementary
level involving students with varying levels of
mental retardation. These students served successfully as tutors and/or tutees in teaching or
learning academic, social, and daily living
skills. For those reporting, the average length
of the peer tutoring sessions was 20 minutes
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
with a range of 10 to 30 minutes. Tutoring
sessions occurred an average of four times per
week with a range of two to five session per
week. Average duration of interventions was
12 weeks with duration of implementations
ranging from two to 23 weeks.
Results of the thirty-five studies suggest that
peer tutoring can be an effective strategy for
elementary-age students with mental retardation to use with their non-handicapped and
handicapped peers. It has not only been effective in one-to-one settings but also in small
groups and inclusive settings. Thus, peer tutoring is a strategy that can be used to successfully address the academic and social needs of
a diverse population of students.
Secondary Students with Mental Retardation
as Tutors and Tutees
Of the 52 studies reviewed, 17 interventions
included students at the secondary level.
Within these studies, students with varying levels of mental retardation taught academic
skills such as spelling, social studies, reading,
writing, and math. Social skills and student
attitudes were also a focus of some investigations along with daily living skills such as making sack lunches and reading cooking labels
and functional community signs. Several studies addressing each of these areas are described in detail in order to demonstrate the
abilities as well as the variations that have been
implemented when secondary students with
mental retardation participate in peer tutoring programs.
the aide recorded the error and modeled the
correct response. The student was asked to
repeat the word a second time, and the aide
reinforced the correct response with verbal
praise. At the end of the twenty-three 25minute sessions, both students had learned 10
words from the functional word list.
Next, the instructional aide trained the two
students to teach each other to label the different words they had learned. The same procedures were followed as in the individual
sessions; however, the two students sat across
from each other at a small table with the aide
at one end. The aide alternated between the
two students to teach the first two words on
their list. On the third word, each student was
asked to teach the other student the remaining 10 words. Fifteen 15-minute sessions were
necessary for the students to teach each other
to correctly label 10 words.
The next step had the two students teach
five of the words they had learned to five other
students with moderate mental retardation using the same training procedures. In ten 15minute sessions, two students learned to consistently label all five words correctly, and
three students learned to label at least four
and sometimes five correctly. In addition,
these students were also taught to hold review
sessions with their classmates to maintain their
skills.
Positive gains were noted for all students
involved. Not only did students learn the word
labels and the teaching technique, but also
they were able to teach their peers. The authors suggest that this may be a strategy that
can be used to provide students with some
minor yet relevant teaching responsibilities.
Academic Tutoring for Secondary Students
In one of the earliest studies, Brown et al.
(1971) investigated the ability of students with
moderate mental retardation to teach each
other to label functional words. Initially, two
students with moderate mental retardation
were each taught 10 different words from a
functional word list during individual training
sessions with the instructional aide. The aide
presented the first word and asked, “What
does this word say?” If the student responded
correctly, the aide recorded the response and
offered verbal praise such as, “Great!” or
“Good!” If the student responded incorrectly,
Social Skills Training for Secondary Students
In examining studies that evaluated effects of
peer tutoring on social skills training, two
studies were identified at the secondary level.
In the first study, Donder and Nietupski
(1981) evaluated appropriate playground behavior and percentage of contacts between
middle school students with moderate mental
retardation and their non-handicapped peers.
In this study, 14 non-handicapped students
whose lunch period coincided with three of
the students with moderate retardation were
selected as student volunteers. Next, the spe-
Students Teaching Peers
/
55
cial education classroom teacher trained student volunteers to use instructional techniques such as modeling, shaping, chaining,
and positive reinforcement while playing selected activities chosen by the volunteers (i.e.,
kickball, baseball, catch, frisbee). Volunteers
were then given opportunities to role-play the
instructional techniques with the teacher for
demonstration and feedback purposes. As a
follow-up, the teacher observed the volunteers
on the playground during the first five days of
the program to provide them with suggestions
for improving their instruction.
Data were collected using a time-sampling
procedure. Since the recess period lasted 30
minutes, student behaviors were recorded
once a minute for 30 minutes. At each oneminute mark, the recorder noted whether the
designated student was (a) interacting appropriately with other students with disabilities;
(b) interacting inappropriately with other students with disabilities; (c) interacting appropriate with non-handicapped students; or (d)
interacting inappropriately with non-handicapped students.
Appropriate interactions included participation in organized games or activities, observation of organized games or activities, and
conversation. Inappropriate interactions included behaviors such as, yelling, fighting,
chasing, body rocking, or staring at the
ground or sky for prolonged periods of time.
Following the intervention, all three students exhibited high percentages of appropriate behavior and low percentages of inappropriate behavior. Additionally, a considerable
increase in appropriate contact with nonhandicapped students was noted. In two follow-up probes conducted one and two weeks
after the program ended, appropriate behavior and percentage of contacts with the nonhandicapped students was lower than during
the formal intervention program; however all
three students maintained higher overall percentages than during the baseline periods.
In the second study, Staub and Hunt (1993)
examined effects of social interaction training
when eight secondary students without disabilities served as peer tutors to four classmates
with severe disabilities. The tutees were working on community, transportation, vocational,
and domestic skills at the high school as well
as integrated settings.
56
/
The social interaction training focused on
teaching students without disabilities general
information and appropriate vocabulary to
describe people with disabilities, ways in which
people with disabilities are alike and unlike
themselves, new and old terms used to describe people with disabilities, recognizing
that people with disabilities are people first
and disabled second, and issues dealing with
communication abilities.
The two dependent measures in this study
focused on frequency of the social interactive
behaviors of peer tutors toward the tutees and
frequency of the display of targeted social behaviors by students with disabilities when initiations were made (e.g., visually and physically attending, responding with a head nod
or a question). During seventeen-minute observations periods, the observer charted peer
interactions during 25-second intervals.
Results of statistical analysis showed that
training increased frequency of initiations of
interactions from students without disabilities
toward the tutees. Additionally, a significant
increase in targeted social behaviors was observed for students with severe disabilities.
The authors concluded that training and
planned opportunities for social interactions
between students with and without disabilities
may be necessary in order to increase the
interactions.
In both studies, non-handicapped students
served as tutors primarily to increase the frequency of interactions between themselves
and students with mental retardation.
Delquadri, Greenwood, Whorton, Carta, and
Hall (1986) suggest that interactions between
students with and without disabilities may
have positive benefits for social and communication abilities for students with disabilities.
Furthermore, research suggests that integration with peers with severe disabilities may also
benefit the social development of students
without disabilities and enhance their sensitivity toward other people’s differences in general (Biklen, Corrigan, & Quick, 1989). Nevertheless, Staub and Hunt (1993) recommend
continued research in examining planned opportunities for social interactions and the benefits these interactions offer students with and
without disabilities.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
Daily Living Skills/Self-Help Skills for Secondary
Students
Using a multiple baseline design, Bell et al.
(1991) investigated the application of direct
instruction and precision teaching by peer tutors to teach the written maneuvers portion of
the driver education curriculum to four students who had scored the lowest on their written driver’s test. During the last 10-minutes of
the daily driver education class, four nonhandicapped high school students used the
direct instruction format of model, test, and
retest to teach four high school peers, including one with intellectual disabilities and one
with learning disabilities, three driving maneuvers.
Maneuvers included both narrative and diagram sections. Materials included a teaching
master and a corresponding student response
sheet. Because verbal responses provided
more opportunities to respond than written
responses, the tutees stated the maneuver before writing it. For example, the tutor would
say, “The first step is proper lane 1/2 block”
(model). “What is the first step?” (test). The
learner should say, “Proper lane 1/2 block.”
Correct responses were followed by a verbal
praise. Incorrect responses or failure to respond were corrected by “Stop,” and the tutor
would model the statement again. The drawing section of the maneuver was taught by
asking the tutee to draw one car at a time in
the sequence that a car would follow in actual
driving. Next, the tutee was asked to connect
the cars and add the lines. Then, the teaching
master was removed, and the tutee was asked
to draw the maneuver without the master. To
encourage automatic responding, tutees were
timed for one minute to see how quickly they
could respond to the direction.
Results of the driver education tests showed
that all four students passed. In addition, a
consumer satisfaction survey revealed that all
tutors and tutees indicated that they should
continue the program and they would recommend it to others.
Agran et al. (1992) examined effects of peer
delivered self-instructional training on the
work performance of three students with moderate to severe disabilities. Two students with
mild mental retardation were trained to teach
three students with severe mental retardation
to prepare sack lunches using task-specific verbalizations prior to and during the preparation of a sack lunch. Training involved two
phases. First, peer tutors were trained to complete the sack lunch preparation using the
verbalized self-instructions. This involved
learning the order in which the sack lunches
were made and what to say to the customer for
each task. Next, peer tutors were provided
instructions on how to teach the task and the
verbalizations to the tutees. They were directed to model each task in sequence using
the self-verbalizations. Further, tutors were
taught to correct mistakes by remodeling a
specific task and to provide verbal praise as
each step was completed.
Results indicated that two of the three tutees learned to make sack lunches in the correct sequence and were also able to generalize
their responses across novel customers. However, one participant needed additional training involving picture cues before generalization occurred in response to novel customers.
Nevertheless, the authors concluded that
peer-delivered instruction was effective in
teaching a relatively complex, multi-step task.
Summary
These five research studies provided an overview of the different peer tutoring configurations used with secondary students with mental retardation as well as the different
academic and social areas in which peer tutoring has been implemented. Students with
mental retardation served as tutors to other
students with mental retardation to teach
functional words and to make sack lunches.
Non-handicapped students assisted students
with mental retardation in driver’s education
class and social skills training on the playground and in integrated settings within the
community.
Overall, the review included 17 studies implemented at the secondary level involving
students with varying levels of mental retardation. These students served successfully as tutors and/or tutees in a variety of peer tutoring
configurations. Academic, social, and daily living skills were all addressed as well as student
attitudes. For those reporting, average length
of the peer tutoring sessions was 30 minutes
with a range of 10 to 55 minutes; however, one
Students Teaching Peers
/
57
study implemented peer tutoring during the
85-minute block-scheduling classes. Tutoring
sessions were held an average of five times per
week. Average duration of the peer tutoring
implementations was nine weeks with a range
of two to twenty weeks.
Results of the 17 secondary studies suggests
that even as students with mental retardation
advance through the educational system, peer
tutoring continues to provide benefits for students with mental retardation. Compared to
studies involving elementary-age students,
these studies included a larger number of students with moderate or severe levels of mental
retardation as well as settings that moved beyond the classroom not only into simulated
settings but also into the actual community.
Conclusively, peer tutoring has been shown to
be an effective strategy to use with secondary
students with mental retardation in academic,
social, and daily living skills.
Summary and Conclusions
This review provided an updated synthesis on
peer tutoring research focusing on school-age
students with mental retardation serving as
tutors and/or tutees. Studies were included in
this synthesis if the primary purpose was to
examine the efficacy of peer tutoring involving school-age students with mental retardation as tutors and/or tutees. Fifty studies were
identified during the period from 1971 to
2001 with one study including three experiments. Thirty-five studies were implemented
at the elementary level while 17 studies were
implemented at the secondary level. Tutoring
configurations included cross-age tutoring in
which older students tutored younger students or younger students tutored older students, same-age peer tutoring with and without a reciprocal component, and mixed ages
with a wide variation in the ages of students
serving as tutor and/or tutee. Although students with mental retardation were included
in each of these studies, their role varied depending on the study.
On average, peer tutoring was implemented
three weeks longer at the elementary level
with peer tutoring sessions occurring twenty
minutes four times a week. However, average
sessions for the secondary studies were thirty
minutes five times a week. Thus, the addi-
58
/
tional day each week with longer sessions for
secondary students makes length, duration,
and intensity of the peer tutoring implementations about the same for elementary-age and
secondary studies.
The large number of studies identified suggests that peer tutoring has been effective in
increasing time on-task while providing individualized instruction, opportunity for practice and providing students with frequent and
immediate feedback in a variety of academic,
simulated, and community-based settings.
Thus, it seems both practical and reasonable
that peer tutoring continues to be an effective
instructional arrangement that is used in both
regular and special education settings.
References
Agran, M., Fodor-Davis, J., Moore, S. C., & Martella,
R. C. (1992). Effects of peer-delivered self-instructional training on a lunch-making work task for
students with severe disabilities. Education and
Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 230-240.
Almond, P., Rodgers, S., & Krug, D. (1979). A
model for including elementary students in the
severely handicapped classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 11, 135-139.
Bell, K. E., Young, R., Salzberg, C. L., & West, R. P.
(1991). High school driver education using peer
tutors, direct instruction, and precision teaching.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 45-51.
Biklen, D., Corrigan, C., & Quick, D. (1989). Beyond obligation: Students’relations with each
other in integrated classes. In D. Lipsky & A.
Gartner (Eds.), Beyond separate education: Quality
education for all (pp. 207-221). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Brown, L., Fenrick, N., & Klemme, H. (1971). Trainable pupils learn to teach each other. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 4, 18-24.
Brummel, C. (1984). Changes in non-handicapped
children’s attitudes toward trainable retarded
children using two methods: Buddy interacting
and peer tutoring. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(5A), 1338.
Callan, D. A. (1984). An implementation evaluation
of a peer tutoring program with elementary-aged
severely mentally handicapped students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(04A), 0947.
Campbell, B. J., Brady, M. P., & Linehan, S. (1991).
Effects of peer-mediated instruction on the acquisition and generalization of written capitalization
skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 6-14.
Carlton, M. B., Litton, F. W., & Zinkgraf, S. A.
(1985). The effects of an intraclass peer tutoring
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
program on the sight-word recognition ability of
students who are mildly mentally retarded. Mental
Retardation, 23, 74-78.
Certo, N. J., Haring, N., & York R. (Eds.). (1984).
Public school integration of the severely handicapped:
Rational issues and progressive alternatives. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Cole, D. A., Vandercook, T., & Rynders, J. (1988).
Comparison of two peer interaction programs:
Children with and without severe disabilities.
American Educational Research Journal, 25, 415-439.
Collins, B. C., Branson, T. A., & Hall, M. (1995).
Teaching generalized reading of cooking product
labels to adolescents with mental disabilities
through the use of key words taught by peer
tutors. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 65-75.
Cook, S. B., Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., &
Casto, G. C. (1985/86). Handicapped students as
tutors. The Journal of Special Education, 19, 483-492.
Cooke, N. L., Heron, T. E., Heward, W. L., & Test,
D. W. (1982). Integrating a Down’s syndrome
child in a classwide peer tutoring system: A case
report. Mental Retardation, 20, 22-25.
Custer, J. D., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (1983). Improving social acceptance by training handicapped
students to tutor their non-handicapped peers.
Exceptional Children, 50, 173-174.
Delquadri, J. C., Greenwood, C. R., Whorton, D.,
Carta, J. J., & Hall, R. V. (1986). Classwide peer
tutoring. Exceptional Children, 52, 535-542.
Donder, D. J. (1986). Non-handicapped peer tutors
with students with moderate mental retardation:
Examination of changes in both tutors and tutees.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(07A), 2540.
Donder, D., & Nietupski, J. (1981). Non-handicapped adolescents teaching playground skills to
their mentally retarded peers: Toward a less restrictive middle school environment. Education
and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 16, 270-276.
Fenrick, N. J., & McDonnell, J. (1980). Junior high
school students as teachers of the severely retarded: Training and generalization. Education
and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 15, 187-194.
Fenrick, N. J., & Petersen, T. K. (1984). Developing
positive changes in attitudes towards moderately/
severely handicapped students through a peer
tutoring program. Education & Training of the
Mentally Retarded, 19, 83-90.
Fishbach-Goodman, E. A. (1996). Training peer tutors to teach functional reading to students with
multiple handicaps using constant time delay. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(10A), 4258.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Kazdan, S. (1999). Effects
of peer-assisted learning strategies on high school
students with serious reading problems. Remedial
and Special Education, 20, 309-318.
Haisley, F. B., Tell, C. A., & Andrews, J. A. (1981).
Peers as tutors in the mainstream: Trained “teachers” of handicapped adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 224-226.
Harper, G. F., Mallette, B., Maheady, L., Bently, A.,
& Moore, J. (1995). Retention and treatment failure in classwide peer tutoring: Implications for
further research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5,
399-414.
Harper, G. F., Mallette, B., Maheady, L., Parkes, B.,
& Moore, J. (1993). Retention and generalization
of spelling words acquired using a peer-mediated
instructional procedure by children with mild
handicapping conditions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 25-38.
Harper, G. F., Mallette, B., & Moore, J. (1991).
Peer-mediated instruction: Teaching spelling to
primary school children with mild disabilities.
Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 7, 137151.
Heron, T. E., Heward, W. L., Cooke, N. L., & Hill,
D. S. (1983). Evaluation of a classwide peer tutoring system: First graders teach each other sight
words. Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 137152.
Heward, W. L., Heron, T. E., & Cooke, N. L. (1982).
Tutor huddle: Key element in a classwide peer
tutoring system. The Elementary School Journal, 83,
115-123.
Jenkins, J. R., Mayhall, W. F., Peschka, C. M., &
Jenkins, L. M. (1974). Comparing small group
and tutorial instruction in resource rooms. Exceptional Children, 40, 245-250.
Kohl, F. L., Moses, L. G., & Stettner-Eaton, B. A.
(1983). The results of teaching fifth and sixth
graders to be instructional trainers with severely
handicapped students. Journal of the Association of
the Severely Handicapped, 8, 32-40.
Kohl, F. L., & Stettner-Eaton, B. A. (1985). Fourth
graders as trainers of cafeteria skills to severely
handicapped students. Education and Training of
the Mentally Retarded, 20, 60-68.
Koury, M. A. (1990). Effects of a cooperative learning approach with students with moderate retardation: Peer-tutoring tournaments. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 51(06A), 1986.
Koury, M., & Browder, D. M. (1986). The use of
delay to teach sight words by peer tutors classified
as moderately mentally retarded. Education and
Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 252-258.
Lancioni, G. E. (1982a). Employment of normal
third and fourth graders for training retarded
children to solve problems dealing with quantity.
Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 17,
93-102.
Lancioni, G. E. (1982b). Normal children as tutors
to teach social responses to withdrawn mentally
retarded schoolmates: Training, maintenance,
Students Teaching Peers
/
59
and generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 15, 17-40.
Lombardo, V. S. (1975). The effectiveness of retarded and nonretarded tutors for educable mentally retarded children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37(04A), 2113.
Maheady, L., Harper, G. F., & Sacca, M. K. (1988).
A classwide peer tutoring system in a secondary,
resource room program for the mildly handicapped. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21, 76-83.
Maher, C. A. (1982). Behavioral effects of using
conduct problem adolescents as cross-age tutors.
Psychology in the Schools, 19, 360-364.
Maher, C. A. (1984). Handicapped adolescents as
cross-age tutors: Program description and evaluation. Exceptional Children, 51, 56-63.
Maher, C. A. (1986). Direct replication of a crossage tutoring program involving handicapped adolescents and children. School Psychology Review,
15, 100-118.
Mallette, B., Harper, G. F., Maheady, L., & Dempsey, M. (1991). Retention of spelling words acquired using a peer-mediated instructional procedure. Education and Training in Mental Retardation,
26, 156-164.
Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., Agran,
M., Salzberg, C. L., Young K. R., & Morgan, D.
(1992). Generalized effects of peer-delivered first
aid to students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 841-851.
Mastropieri, M. A., Boon, R. T., Spencer, V. G.,
Scruggs, T. E., Miller, M., Fontana, J., & Magana,
M. (2001, April). Can high school students with disabilities learn world history if they tutor each other? A
preliminary investigation. Paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association, Seattle, Washington.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Mohler, L.,
Baranek, M., Spencer, V. G., Boon, R. T., & Talbott, E. (2001). Can middle school students with
serious reading difficulties help each other and
learn anything? Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 16, 18-27.
Mastropieri, M. A., Spencer, V. G., Scruggs, T. E., &
Talbott, E. (2000). Students with disabilities as
tutors: An updated research synthesis. In T. E.
Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in
learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 14, pp. 247279). Stamford: JAI Press Inc.
McCracken, S. J. (1979). The effect of a peer tutoring program utilizing data-based instruction on
the word recognition and reading comprehension skills of secondary age level handicapped
students. Dissertation Abstracts International,
4(08A), 4516.
Mortweet, S. L., Utley, C. A., Walker, D., Dawson,
H. L., Delquadri, J. C., Reddy, S. S., Greenwood,
60
/
C. R., Hamilton, S., & Ledford, D. (1999). Classwide peer tutoring: Teaching students with mild
mental retardation in inclusive classrooms. Exceptional Children, 65, 524-536.
Noll, M. E. (1985). The effects of a peer tutoring
program on the attitude and behavior on nonhandicapped students toward their severely handicapped peers. Dissertation Abstracts International,
47(1A), 149.
Olsen, D. H. (1978). The effects of a cross-age tutoring program on the reading achievement of
mildly retarded student tutees and on the attitudes of normal fifth and sixth grade elementary
school students tutors toward retarded children.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 39(3A), 1442.
Osguthorpe, R. T., Eiserman, W. D., & Shisler, L.
(1985). Increasing social acceptance: Mentally retarded students tutoring regular class peers. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 20,
235-240.
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Scruggs, T. E. (1986). Special
education students as tutors: A review and analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 7(4), 15-25.
Schloss, P. J., Kobza, S. A., & Alper, S. (1997). The
use of peer tutoring for the acquisition of functional math skills among students with moderate
retardation. Education and Treatment of Children,
20, 189-208.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M., Veit, D. T., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (1986). Behaviorally disordered
students as tutors: Effects on social behavior. Behavioral Disorders, 12, 36-43.
Scruggs, T. E., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (1986). Tutoring interventions with special education settings:
A comparison of cross-age and peer tutoring. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 187-193.
Sideridis, G. D. (1995). Classwide peer tutoring: Effects
on the spelling performance and social interactions of
students with mild disabilities and their typical peers in
an integrated instructional setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.
Smith, L. M., & Pfeiffer, I. L. (1977). Cross-age
helping for the EMR child. Education and Training
of the Mentally Retarded, 12, 32-35.
Staub, D., & Hunt, P. (1993). The effects of social
interaction training on high school peer tutors of
schoolmates with severe disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 60, 41-57.
Thomas, D. D. (1998). Teacher adapted classwide
peer tutoring: Effects on the spelling performance and academic engagement of students
with and without disabilities in an integrated instructional setting. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(02A), 0338.
Vacc, N. N., & Cannon, S. J. (1991). Cross-age tutoring in mathematics: Sixth graders helping students who are moderately handicapped. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 89-97.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2003
Whited, S. G. (1986). Mentally handicapped children as tutors: The effects of manual communication reverse-role tutoring on communication
skills of retarded tutors and on attitudes of regular class tutees. Dissertation Abstracts International,
47(10A), 3734.
Wise, I. B. (1999). The effects of monitoring tutors
on the achievement of tutees with mild intellectual disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International,
60(04A), 1084.
Received: 24 January 2002
Initial Acceptance: 20 March 2002
Final Acceptance: 1 August 2002
Students Teaching Peers
/
61