Assessing the Differential Effects of Peer Tutoring for Tutors and Tutees

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulation on your work. The topic is interesting and the methodology applied is rigurous. Please, have a look a the following comments:

• The abstract is clear and well-structured.
• The introduction gather solid information so support the study.
• The methodology is detailed but I would suggest the authors to devote a specific sub-section to explain in depth regarding the procedure and analyses applied because it is not clear. In addition, it would be useful if they create another section to objectives and hypotheses.
• Results are presented according to the objectives so it is clear too. 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Congratulation on your work. The topic is interesting and the methodology applied is rigurous. Please, have a look a the following comments:

• The abstract is clear and well-structured.
• The introduction gather solid information so support the study.
• The methodology is detailed but I would suggest the authors to devote a specific sub-section to explain in depth regarding the procedure and analyses applied because it is not clear. In addition, it would be useful if they create another section to objectives and hypotheses.
• Results are presented according to the objectives so it is clear too. 

 

We thank the reviewer for their comments. We have made extensive edits to the manuscript, which we have identified using tracked changes in the resubmitted work.

 

We have made a new section on objectives, that includes references to a hypothesis to be tested:

In order to answer this research question, we developed a research programme that had the following aims and objectives:

1. To recruit a sample of pupils in schools with sufficient power to explore whether there were differentia outcomes for tutors and tutees when engaged in paired reading.
2. To use a pre/post-test randomised, controlled design to explore outcomes for tutors and tutees relative to a comparison group and test the hypothesis that tutors are likely to gain more during the tutor/tutee process.
3. To undertake a process evaluation to look at the efficacy of the use of paired reading for tutors and tutees.

We have made a new section in the methods that reads

2.10 Planned analysis: Planned analysis was to look at post-test outcomes in reading comprehension for tutors and tutees engaged in paired reading, compared to a suitable control group, on the NGRT comprehension reading test using pre-test scores as a covariant in an ANCOVA statistical test. It was calculated that if previous effects from randomised trials were replication, then to detect an effect size of +0.23, then 295 students would be required to detect differences between groups at alpha=0.05, 80% power and assuming correlation between pre to post-test being 0.7.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well done and useful contribution to the field of collaborative learning. My only suggestion is to re-read it for conciseness and clarity of sentence structure, though this isn't a huge issue in the article. (For example, on page 7, lines 295-297: the sentence begins by being phrased as a question but shifts into a statement; this can be distracting or confusing for readers.)

Author Response

This is a well done and useful contribution to the field of collaborative learning. My only suggestion is to re-read it for conciseness and clarity of sentence structure, though this isn't a huge issue in the article. (For example, on page 7, lines 295-297: the sentence begins by being phrased as a question but shifts into a statement; this can be distracting or confusing for readers.)

 

We thank the reviewer for their comments. We have made extensive edits to the manuscript, which we have identified using tracked changes in the resubmitted work.

 

It has had a careful proofread. In reference to the issue described above, the sentence has been changed to:

What were the sociological factors at play that may explain these results?

Reviewer 3 Report

The introduction provides a detailed discussion of similar studies, which is helpful and the methodology is discussed in detail. Is it worth noting (even very briefly) any ethical considerations which occurred, or ethics approvals?

The introduction finishes with the research question ; unfortunately I can't say I fully understand the research question; and revising this comment after reading the full article, I believe understand it a bit better but still am somewhat confused on various aspects.

For example the Piaget framework to explain the pedagogical principles is featured in the introduction; wouldn't Vygotsky be a more relevant theorist to explain learning through social interaction? But also, is the discussion on Piaget particularly relevant given it does not feature in the rest of the paper or in the discussion of findings?

One thing which cleared up while reading was the meaning of "tutors". I clearly had the wrong end of the stick from the start, because typically when using the term "tutors" in my professional context, it indicates a member of the teaching staff who works at a more personal level with a student. So in the title, I initially understood 'peer tutoring for tutors' as some sort of peer mentoring for teaching staff. In the abstract, there is the mention of 12 teachers (who I interpreted to be 'the tutors' of the study) and the 11-13 year old students (who I interpreted to be 'the tutees'). If it somehow could be made clearer from the start that it's about cross-age/cross-ability peer-tutoring (with little intervention from the teacher, really) that would be helpful for others who started off with an erroneous understanding of your topic.

From the start I was also confused with what was meant by 'reading'. I think the more precise term is 'reading comprehension' which is sometimes used instead ; I would propose the authors use the latter term consistently throughout their paper. It's more precise than for example the phrase 'when reading in high school' (first sentence). But then again, sometimes I feel it's more about lexical development, for example in noting that observers recorded when specific words were corrected, and then the description in 2.5 paired reading implies it's more about pronunciation?
Or perhaps even the use of the term 'reading skills' would be helpful, rather than just 'reading'. Which might also imply enjoyment, or amount of books read in a year, for example. I deducted otherwise the topic is reading fiction books, right?

 

I struggle with the discussion on why tutees don't seem to ask questions as much / at all. It is explained as if there is less cognitive demand ; which I would disagree with; and perhaps they are so focus on the learning task that they have no cognitive space to formulate questions. But also, the next paragraph indicates a reason which I believe is more probable - in that tutors enjoy a higher status and therefore there may be an implied hierarchy, where tutees are less at ease to ask questions, as the tutor is clearly taking on the leading, directing role for the situation. So Bourdieu to explain social capital benefit could equally be used to explain social disadvantage in that respect. It is also worth revisiting the training videos to see how the role of the tutor and tutee were portrayed? Were tutors actively encouraged to take on that lead questioning role? Were tutees at all encouraged to ask questions in preparation for the intervention?  This may all simply be an academic disagreement, but I'd ask you to reconsider that interpretation as fellow researcher as I find it too simplistic in its current form.

Some minor notes

'Observers made general recordings' - are these audio or video recordings? How many observers were present at any given time because surely that might have constructed quite an imposing situation on the learners?

In 2.6 a full URL is included which is unusual academic practice ; I recommend placing this in the reference list.

In 2.9 please could you also add approx duration of the intervention in view of the tutee , i.e. x many hours. There is the mention of 90-min windows of observation, was this 100% of the intervention duration observed, or only fragments of observation which captured part of the total project? Also it would be helpful to have a contextualisation : are these indicators of duration common practice, above or below average to other research intervention durations, or to the normal teaching practice?

Also in 2.9 the intervention is mentioned to have run 15 weeks but elsewhere (at least twice) it was said to run 12 weeks?

You need a one-sentence explanation of Free School Meals as an indicator of the socioeconomic status, because an international audience might not understand this significance.

 

PS. I think "Average" in the bullet scoring has a negative feel. I wouldn't tick "High" but I do feel the quality is overall 'very good' - not average.

 

Author Response

 

Reviewer 3

 

The introduction provides a detailed discussion of similar studies, which is helpful and the methodology is discussed in detail. Is it worth noting (even very briefly) any ethical considerations which occurred, or ethics approvals?

The introduction finishes with the research question ; unfortunately I can't say I fully understand the research question; and revising this comment after reading the full article, I believe understand it a bit better but still am somewhat confused on various aspects.

For example the Piaget framework to explain the pedagogical principles is featured in the introduction; wouldn't Vygotsky be a more relevant theorist to explain learning through social interaction? But also, is the discussion on Piaget particularly relevant given it does not feature in the rest of the paper or in the discussion of findings?

One thing which cleared up while reading was the meaning of "tutors". I clearly had the wrong end of the stick from the start, because typically when using the term "tutors" in my professional context, it indicates a member of the teaching staff who works at a more personal level with a student. So in the title, I initially understood 'peer tutoring for tutors' as some sort of peer mentoring for teaching staff. In the abstract, there is the mention of 12 teachers (who I interpreted to be 'the tutors' of the study) and the 11-13 year old students (who I interpreted to be 'the tutees'). If it somehow could be made clearer from the start that it's about cross-age/cross-ability peer-tutoring (with little intervention from the teacher, really) that would be helpful for others who started off with an erroneous understanding of your topic.

From the start I was also confused with what was meant by 'reading'. I think the more precise term is 'reading comprehension' which is sometimes used instead ; I would propose the authors use the latter term consistently throughout their paper. It's more precise than for example the phrase 'when reading in high school' (first sentence). But then again, sometimes I feel it's more about lexical development, for example in noting that observers recorded when specific words were corrected, and then the description in 2.5 paired reading implies it's more about pronunciation?
Or perhaps even the use of the term 'reading skills' would be helpful, rather than just 'reading'. Which might also imply enjoyment, or amount of books read in a year, for example. I deducted otherwise the topic is reading fiction books, right?

 

I struggle with the discussion on why tutees don't seem to ask questions as much / at all. It is explained as if there is less cognitive demand ; which I would disagree with; and perhaps they are so focus on the learning task that they have no cognitive space to formulate questions. But also, the next paragraph indicates a reason which I believe is more probable - in that tutors enjoy a higher status and therefore there may be an implied hierarchy, where tutees are less at ease to ask questions, as the tutor is clearly taking on the leading, directing role for the situation. So Bourdieu to explain social capital benefit could equally be used to explain social disadvantage in that respect. It is also worth revisiting the training videos to see how the role of the tutor and tutee were portrayed? Were tutors actively encouraged to take on that lead questioning role? Were tutees at all encouraged to ask questions in preparation for the intervention?  This may all simply be an academic disagreement, but I'd ask you to reconsider that interpretation as fellow researcher as I find it too simplistic in its current form.

Some minor notes

'Observers made general recordings' - are these audio or video recordings? How many observers were present at any given time because surely that might have constructed quite an imposing situation on the learners?

In 2.6 a full URL is included which is unusual academic practice ; I recommend placing this in the reference list.

In 2.9 please could you also add approx duration of the intervention in view of the tutee , i.e. x many hours. There is the mention of 90-min windows of observation, was this 100% of the intervention duration observed, or only fragments of observation which captured part of the total project? Also it would be helpful to have a contextualisation : are these indicators of duration common practice, above or below average to other research intervention durations, or to the normal teaching practice?

Also in 2.9 the intervention is mentioned to have run 15 weeks but elsewhere (at least twice) it was said to run 12 weeks?

You need a one-sentence explanation of Free School Meals as an indicator of the socioeconomic status, because an international audience might not understand this significance.

 

1. I think "Average" in the bullet scoring has a negative feel. I wouldn't tick "High" but I do feel the quality is overall 'very good' - not average.

We thank the reviewer for their comments. We have made extensive edits to the manuscript, which we have identified using tracked changes in the resubmitted work.

 

We have added in the ethics section (which was not included to blind the manuscript) as follows:

2.11 Ethics: The study was approached with equipoise underpinning expected outcomes. Although a randomised trial in younger children had previously been undertaken, no previous randomised control trial with children of the age in this study had been undertaken. Students in the control group were in a wait-treatment group. This meant that at after we established if positive outcomes accrued for those undertaking paired reading, the resources and training would be available to those students and staff who wanted to avail of them. The research was approved by the School of Education Ethics Committee at Queen’s University Belfast, but also had to receive individual ethical approval from every individual headteachers (as in the jurisdiction that this work was undertaken, any research undertaken in the schools, must be ethically approved by the school headteacher). Opt-out consent was used at the individual student level, where students, or their parents, could opt-out of having their data used for research purposes.

 

In terms of the research question we have revised the previous paragraph, and the research question to read:

Paired reading focuses the contact and feedback from tutor to tutee on error correction [14]. For optimal success in paired reading, it is reported that there needs to be an attainment differential between tutors and tutees [13]. Without the appropriate gap, both tutor and tutee can be under stimulated [16]. Paired reading has previously been reported to have a beneficial effect on student reading attainment {3}. However, whether it is tutors or tutees who actually get the most gain, is generally not reported. This is because results are reported as an overall effect for both tutors and tutees. This led to the development of the following research question:

 

What are the differential effects on reading development, for tutors and tutees, when engaged in peer learning?

 

In terms of clarifying the meaning of tutoring we redrafted the opening paragraph of the manuscript to clarify this point, and the role of the teacher. It now reads:

 

Peer tutoring (often referred to as ‘tutoring’) is a structured form of peer learning. It involves two students working together in a structured manner. Paired reading is a form of peer tutoring that has been the subject of historical and recent research endeavor. Paired reading is generally implemented as a cross age/cross ability intervention, where the teacher manages the overall classroom, but has little individual interaction with pairs during the tutoring process. The research used a quasi-experimental design to study whether tutors or tutees gain greatest benefit when undertaking cooperative peer learning (in the form of paired reading)  in dyads when reading in high school.

 

We have adapted the theoretical frames to include both Piagetian and Vygotskian elements and added the following text:

 

Three interlinked theoretical perspectives are appropriate to consider when thinking about peer tutoring. Piaget [4] proposed that understanding developed in children through the processes of assimilation and accommodation. Piagetian based peer tutoring can provide the right balance between the disequilibrium caused through cognitive challenge and social exchanges between peers for effective learning to take place [5]. In the following process of paired reading this process may be thought to be in action when students correct reading errors of peers to improve Lexicon. The second theoretical frame at play in paired reading are Vygotsky’s theories around supported performance and the Zone of Proximal Development [8, 34]. This process will be evident in paired reading as the peer tutee is asked to pick a challenging book, that is just beyond their independent readability level. The third theoretical perspective that is relevant here is Social Interdependence Theory. This combines elements of individual and group performance.

 

We have reflected on comments regarding reasons for the gains only accruing in tutors and adapted text in the discussion to reflect the views of the reviewer:

 

The hope is that the work would take place in the Zone of Proximal Development of the tutee, where they developed their Lexicon and their understanding of what they were reading. On reflection, had the tutees being challenged to ask questions of their tutors during reading, this may have helped them develop a more complex understanding of the text, as to ask a question the reader must have a metacognitive understanding of what is being read. The asking of questions by tutors only, may account for why gains tend to accrue for tutors, rather than tutees. Educators might wish to examine how to increase cognitive demand for tutees during the paired reading process (e.g. is there a role for tutees to ask questions also).

 

Previous studies had predicted greatest gains using this cooperative learning technique for tutors in high poverty areas [23, 24]. However, these reports were anecdotal. This study establishes in a scientific study that these benefits do accrue in that way for the sample of high school students from this background (the mean Free School Meal rate for this sample was 33.56%, compared to the national average of 28.8%). In this study it was tutors who showed the only significant gains. The level of cognitive demand on those acting as tutors is high. Inherent within the classroom organization of peer tutoring dyads there is often an embedded message about the status of students. Tutors are perceived as higher status than tutees [25]. Enhanced satisfaction with learning and achievement were reported in a sample of 104, twelve-year-old students in a reciprocal peer tutoring study. However, these gains were only evident when students were acting in the role of tutor [26]. This is why reciprocal tutoring has often been reported to be beneficial to use in schools [27]. It may also be a more plausible reason as to why gains mainly accrued for the tutor in the peer learning process.

 

We also note the comment regarding the tutees asking questions. We have expanded the description of the paired reading technique to make it clear that only tutors were required to ask questions. This was the form of peer tutoring that had been developed by Topping et at in Fife and represented the recommended version of the technique at the time of the research. We amended the text to read as follows:

 

The tutor was also asked to formulate questions to ask the tutee as reading progressed. In the form of paired reading employed the asking of questions was reserved for the role of tutor (as it had been in earlier iterations of the technique). The last important role for the tutor was to praise the tutee’s reading. There was a set number of times to use praise which included after mistakes were corrected, when switching to reading alone, when reading difficult sections of text and during reading alone by the tutee.

 

In terms of the comments around reading, we have changed to ‘reading comprehension’ throughout to avoid misunderstanding. We have also made it clear in the description of paired reading that tutees could select any genre of book (whether fiction, non-fiction, comic, magazine, newspaper).

 

Section 2.6-URL moved to a reference.

 

Section 2.9 has been amended as requested to read:

 

2.9 Length and duration of intervention: The intervention took place for 20/30 minutes, once per week, over a period of 12 school weeks This spanned a period from February to July in one school year (given that both half-term and Easter holidays fell within this period). This gave a total minimum and maximum duration of between 4 and 6 hours.

 

Free School Melas

We have added the following explanation as suggested:

Free School Meals are a measure of social deprivation often used in the United Kingdom. Children are entitled to Free School Meals if they received certain government benefits paid to families who have low incomes. The

 

Observations

We have amended text to clarify the fact that no video or sound recordings were made and that only one person made observations. Text now reads:

 

2.2 Observations: Researchers visited all 6 intervention classes to undertake classroom observations. These were conducted using standardized validated observation templates [3]. Observations were conducted by one member of the research team. All data was recorded in written format, in real time. Firstly the observer made general written notes regarding the classroom atmosphere and structure for cooperative learning. In addition, a random sub-sample of five pairs were selected for observation from each class. Behaviors were observed and recorded in real time during a series of three, one-minute observation windows. During observations, the researcher observed and recorded behaviors during the error correction process and recorded the number of times the paired reading duo talked about the book, made mistakes, corrected mistakes and repeated corrected words. They also observed and recorded the number of questions asked about the book, about the author, about predicting what happened next in a text, about the meaning of the text, about enjoyment or about links to other learning and/or life experiences.

 

The format of each observation was as follows: Pair 1 was observed for a one-minute window and behaviors recorded. Next pair 2 was observed, then pair 3, 4 and 5. After the cycle was completed then observation again cycled to pair 1, pair 2, pair 3, pair 4 and finally pair 5 for the second window. This sequence was repeated for the third observation window. This meant that there were 90 observation windows spread evenly throughout the 6 classrooms. Behaviours were recorded as they were observed. So for instance if a pair was reading alone, made a mistake, the mistake was corrected by the tutor,  praise was given, the pairs started to read together, then the tutee signalled to read alone, each of these behaviours would be tallied each time they occurred. Total behaviours were tallied for each pair. The same person conducted all observations. Reliability trials were conducted at the start and the end of the observations to measure intra-rater reliability during the observation timeframe and reported mean alpha=0.93.

Reviewer 4 Report

This article presents an interesting study, however the first part of the paper needs far more attention to correct English grammar and expression. The later sections are better, but still have some errors that may have been missed due to insufficient editing.

There were many very old studies used  and I feel that this should be acknowledged. For example, there could be a paragraph or two on historical research. Then there should be a major focus on findings from current research from the past 10 years. In other words it would be best to separate the old from the newer studies.

Some of the English errors that need to be corrected are as follows:

L5: replace the words 'it remains unreported' with ' little previous research has been reported' as the first wording is inaccurate.

L19: insert the word 'an': with  an indicative

L24: delete the comma and insert the word 'that': training for teachers that focused

L54: insert the word 'a': using a metacognitive strategy

L57: replace the word 'structures' with 'understandings'. Changes in cognitive structures suggests neuroscience  and brain plasticity, which is not the focus of this research.

L59 and L63: Insert 'a' and change 'high' to 'strong': with a strong focus

L68: insert 'the': the number of words read and the number of questions

L69: replace 'passes' with 'passages'.

I stopped editing the English at this stage and focused on the content. 

However in the Conclusion the first line is repetitive: In conclusion we might conclude.

There are a number of other such errors that must be fixed prior to publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

 

This article presents an interesting study, however the first part of the paper needs far more attention to correct English grammar and expression. The later sections are better, but still have some errors that may have been missed due to insufficient editing.

There were many very old studies used  and I feel that this should be acknowledged. For example, there could be a paragraph or two on historical research. Then there should be a major focus on findings from current research from the past 10 years. In other words it would be best to separate the old from the newer studies.

Some of the English errors that need to be corrected are as follows:

L5: replace the words 'it remains unreported' with ' little previous research has been reported' as the first wording is inaccurate.

L19: insert the word 'an': with  an indicative

L24: delete the comma and insert the word 'that': training for teachers that focused

L54: insert the word 'a': using a metacognitive strategy

L57: replace the word 'structures' with 'understandings'. Changes in cognitive structures suggests neuroscience  and brain plasticity, which is not the focus of this research.

L59 and L63: Insert 'a' and change 'high' to 'strong': with a strong focus

L68: insert 'the': the number of words read and the number of questions

L69: replace 'passes' with 'passages'.

I stopped editing the English at this stage and focused on the content. 

However in the Conclusion the first line is repetitive: In conclusion we might conclude.

There are a number of other such errors that must be fixed prior to publication.

 

We thank the reviewer for their comments. We have made extensive edits to the manuscript, which we have identified using tracked changes in the resubmitted work.

 

We thank the reviewer for the comment regarding the age of some references. However, we have decided not to reorganise the order or use other references to support the work. The main reason for this is lineage of the technique. The studies cited all provide a lineage from the technique’s original development by Fuchs et al., to its more widespread use by Topping et al., to its eventual use by the authors. There are many variants of paired reading available, but not all work in the same way. We have tried to select a series of studies that have a similar pedagogical base and technique. We have tried to make this point in the review. The authors are involved in researching other form of cooperative learning in reading, and this literature although similar, often has fundamental differences to the literature around this form of paired reading.

 

We have made the corrections as indicated, plus more.