The Effectiveness of Peer Tutoring in Further and Higher Education: A Typology and Review

of the Literature
Author(s): K. J. Topping
Source: Higher Education, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Oct., 1996), pp. 321-345
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3448075 .
Accessed: 14/01/2011 16:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Higher Education.

http://www.jstor.org
Higher Education 32: 321-345, 1996. 321
? 1996 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printedin the Netherlands.

The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher

education: A typology and review of the literature

K.J.TOPPING
Centrefor PairedLearning,PsychologyDepartment,Universityof Dundee, Dundee DDI
4HN, Scotland

Abstract. Quality,outcomesandcost-effectivenessof methodsof teachingand learningin col-

leges and universitiesare being scrutinisedmore closely. The increasinguse of peer tutoring
in this context necessitates a clear definitionand typology, which are outlined. The theoret-
ical advantagesof peer tutoringare discussed and the researchon peer tutoring in schools
brieflyconsidered.The substantialexisting researchon the effectiveness of the manydifferent
types and formatsof peer tutoringwithin colleges and universitiesis then reviewed. Much is
already known about the effectiveness of some types of peer tutoringand this merits wider
disseminationto practitioners.Directionsfor futureresearchare indicated.

Researchonteachingandlearninginfurtherandhighereducationis muchless
voluminousthanthaton teachingandlearningin schools.Whiletherehave
beena numberof booksonthetopicof adultlearning(e.g.Rogers1977,Lovell
1980,Gibbs1981,Tight1983,Brookfield1983,EntwistleandRamsden1983,
MartonHounsellandEntwistle1984,Ramsden1986,RichardsonEysenck
andPiper1987,MerriamandCaffarella1991,Laurillard1993, Sutherland
1996),boththe quantityandqualityof researchin this areais surprisingly
limited,consideringthe vastresourcesexpendedon thetertiarysector.
However,thequalityandcost-effectiveness of teachingandlearningin the
sectorare increasinglyunderthe microscope.Therehas long beenconcern
thattraditional curricula,deliveredandassessedin traditional
ways,promote
a surfaceapproachto learningratherthana deeporevena strategicapproach
(Entwistle1992).Teachingqualityassessmentexercisesconsistentlyresultin
criticismof departments forfailingtopromotethedevelopment of transferable
skillsin theirstudents(Barnett1992,Ellis 1993).At thesametime,increased
studentnumberscoupledwithreducedresourceshaveoftenresultedin larger
class sizes, thusencouraginga reversionto a traditionallecturingstyle of
deliveryanda reductionin smallgroupandtutorialcontact- in short,less
interactiveteachingandlearing.
Thedualrequirement to improveteachingqualitywhile doingmorewith
less' has recentlyincreasedinterestin peer tutoringin higherand further
education.However,it wouldbe unwiseto seize upon peer tutoringas a
universal,undifferentiated and instantpanacea.Differentformatsof peer
322

tutoringhavebeen the subjectof researchof differingquantityandquality,

withvariousoutcomes.

Definitionsand typology

Peertutoringis a veryoldpractice,traceablebackat leastas faras theancient

Greeks.Archaicdefinitionsof peer tutoringperceivedthe peer tutoras a
surrogateteacher,in a linearmodelof the transmissionof knowledge,from
teacherto tutorto tutee.Later,it wasrealisedthatthepeertutoringinteraction
was qualitativelydifferentfrom thatbetweena teacherand a student,and
involveddifferentadvantagesanddisadvantages.
At this point of development,a definitionmighthave been: 'moreable
studentshelpingless able studentsto learnin co-operativeworkingpairs
or small groupscarefullyorganisedby a professionalteacher'.However,
as developmentandresearchin differentformatsof peertutoringproceeded
apaceinmorerecentyears,itbecameclearthatpeertutoringis notnecessarily
only abouttransmissionfromthe moreable andexperienced(who already
have the knowledgeand skills) to the less able (who have yet to acquire
them).As peertutoringhasdeveloped,definingit hasbecomemoredifficult,
anda currentdefinitionseems so broadas to be ratherbland:'peoplefrom
similarsocialgroupingswhoarenotprofessionalteachershelpingeachother
to learnandlearningthemselvesby teaching'.However,thisdefinitiondoes
includereferenceto thegainsaccruingfromthetutoringprocessto thetutor
- increasingly,peertutoringprojectstargetgainsfor bothtutorsandtutees.
Peertutoringis characterised by specificroletaking:at anypointsomeone
has the job of tutorwhile the other(s)are in role as tutee(s).Peertutoring
typicallyhas highfocuson curriculum content.Projectsusuallyalso outline
quitespecificprocedures forinteraction,in whichtheparticipants
arelikelyto
havetrainingwhichis specificorgenericorboth.Inaddition,theirinteraction
may be guidedby the provisionof structuredmaterials,amongstwhicha
degreeof studentchoicemaybe available.
A typologyof peertutoringcouldincludeten dimensions:
1. Curriculum Content- whichmay be knowledgeor skills orientated,or
a combination.The scopeof peertutoringis verywideandprojectsare
reportedin the literaturein virtuallyeveryimaginablesubject.
2. ContactConstellation- some projectsoperatewith one tutorworking
witha groupof tutees,butthe size of groupcan varyfromtwoto thirty
or more. Sometimestwo tutorstake a groupof tuteestogether.Less
andmoreintensive,is peertutoringin pairs(dyads).
traditional,
3. Yearof Study- tutorsandtuteesmaybe fromthesameordifferentyears
of study.
 323
4. Ability- while manyprojectsoperateon a cross-abilitybasis (even if
they aresame-year),thereis increasinginterestin same-abilitytutoring
(wherethetutorhassuperiormasteryof only a verysmallportionof the
curriculum,or a pairareof equalabilitybutworkingtowardsa shared,
deeperandhopefullycorrectunderstanding).
5. Role Continuity- especiallyin same-abilitytutoring,the roles of tutor
andtuteeneednotbepermanent. Structured switchingof rolesatstrategic
moments(reciprocal tutoring)canhavetheadvantage of involvinggreater
noveltyanda widerboostto self-esteem,in thatall participants get to be
tutors.
6. Place- Peertutoringmayvaryenormouslyin locationof operation.
7. Time - peer tutoringmay be scheduledin regularclass contacttime,
outsideof this, or in a combinationof both,dependingon the extentto
whichit is substitutional or supplementary.
-
8. TuteeCharacteristics projectsmay be for all studentsor a targeted
subgroup,e.g. the especiallyable or gifted,thoseconsideredat risk of
under-achievement, failureor dropout,andthosefromethnic,religious
andotherminorities.
9. TutorCharacteristics - thetraditionalassumptionwas thattutorsshould
be the 'best students'(i.e. those most like the professionalteachers).
However,verylargedifferentialsin abilitycan proveunder-stimulating
forthetutor.If tutorsarestudentswhoaremerelyaverage(orevenless),
bothtutorandtuteeshouldfindsome cognitivechallengein theirjoint
activities(e.g. Fantuzzo,DimeffandFox 1989).Althoughtuteegainmay
notbe so great,theaggregategainof bothcombinedmaybegreater.Many
projectsin schoolshavedeployedstudentswithlearningandbehaviour
difficultiesas tutors,to thebenefitof the tutorsthemselves(Scruggsand
Osguthorpe1986,AshmanandElkins1990).
10. Objectives- projectsmay targetintellectualgains, formalacademic
achievement,affectiveandattitudinal gains,socialandemotionalgains,
self imageand self conceptgains,or any combination.Organisational
objectivesmightincludereducingdropout,increasingaccess,etc.

Theoreticaladvantagesof peer tutoring

The cognitiveprocessesinvolvedin peer tutoringhave been exploredby

variouswritersoverthe years,manyof whomemphasisedthe valueof the
inherentverbalisationandquestioning(e.g. Gartner,Kohlerand Riessman
1971, DurlingandSchick 1976,BarghandSchul 1980, Webb1982, Foot,
Shute,MorganandBarron1990,Forman1994).A neo-Piagetian interpreta-
throughthe cognitiveconflictandchallenge
tion of individualdevelopment
324
involvedin manyformsof peer assistedlearningis offeredby Doise and
Mugny(1984).However,peertutoringis morefullyunderstoodthroughthe
(or socio-culturalor socialconstructivist)
social interactionist view of cog-
nitivedevelopment.Supported(or 'scaffolded')explorationthroughsocial
andcognitiveinteractionwith a moreexperiencedpeerin relationto a task
of a level of difficultywithinthe tutee's 'zone of proximaldevelopment'
remainsa theoreticalcornerstoneof peerassistedlearning(Vygotsky1978).
This themehas beenfurtherdevelopedby BarbaraRogoff(1990)underthe
labelof 'apprenticeship in thinking'.
Peer tutoringis often promotedon the groundsthat,for the tutors,it is
'Learningby Teaching'.This view is expandedin the old saying 'to teach
is to learntwice'. Sternberg's (1985)theoryof intelligentperformance iden-
tifies componentswhichmightbe enhancedduringpeertutoring(Hartman
1990):the meta-cognitiveskills of planning,monitoringandevaluatingand
the associateduse of declarative,proceduralandcontextualknowledge;and
thecognitiveprocessesof perceiving,differentiating, selecting,storing,infer-
and
ring,applying,combining,justifying responding.Justpreparingto be a
peertutorhasbeenproposedto enhancecognitiveprocessingin thetutor- by
increasingattentionto andmotivationfor the task,andnecessitatingreview
of existingknowledgeandskills.Consequently, existingknowledgeis trans-
formedby re-organisation, involving new associationsanda newintegration.
The act of tutoringitself involvesfurthercognitivechallenge,particularly
withrespectto simplification, clarification
andexemplification.
An excellentstudyby Annis (1983) comparedthreerandomlyallocated
groupsof students:one whichmerelyreadthe materialto be studied,one
which readthe materialin the expectationof havingto teach it to a peer,
anda thirdwhichreadthe materialwith the expectationof teachingit to a
peer and then actuallycarriedthis out. On a 48 item test of both specific
andgeneralcompetence,the 'readonly' groupgainedless thanthe 'readto
teach'groupwhichin turngainedless thanthe 'readandteach'group.The
tutorsgainedmorethanthe tutees.A similarstudyby Benwareand Deci
(1984) comparedthe relativeeffectivenessof readingto learnfor a test and
readingfor learningto teach a peer.Subjectswere randomlyassignedto
conditionsandthe outcomemeasurewas a 24 itemtest of bothrotememory
and conceptualunderstanding. While both groupsperformedequallywell
on rotelearning,the 'learnto teach'groupperformedbetteron higherorder
conceptualunderstanding, andon a questionnaire regardingmotivationand
learningperceived theirexperience as more activeand interesting.
Manyotheradvantageshave been claimedfor peer tutoringand related
formsof peer assistedlearning(e.g. Greenwood,Cartaand Kamps1990).
Pedagogicaladvantagesfor the tutee includemore active, interactiveand
 325

participativelearning,immediatefeedback,swift prompting,loweredanxiety
with correspondinglyhigherself-disclosure,and greaterstudentownershipof
the learningprocess. The 'pupil/teacher'ratio is much reducedand engaged
time on task increased. Opportunitiesto respond are high, and opportuni-
ties to make errorsand be corrected similarly high. In addition to imme-
diate cognitive gains, improvedretention,greatermeta-cognitiveawareness
and better application of knowledge and skills to new situations have been
claimed. Motivationaland attitudinalgains can include greatercommitment,
self-esteem, self-confidence and empathy with others. Much of this links
with work on self-efficacy and motivatedlearning(Schunk 1987), leading to
the self-regulation of learningand performance(Schunk and Zimmermann
1994). Modelling and attributionalfeedback are importanthere - perhaps
peer tutoring can go some way towardscombating the dependency culture
associated with superficiallearning.From a social psychological viewpoint,
social isolation might be reduced,the functionalityof the subject modelled,
and aspirationsraised,while combatingany excess of individualisticcompe-
tition between students.Moust and Schmidt (1994a) found that studentsfelt
peer tutorswere betterthanstaff tutorsat understandingtheirproblems,were
more interested in their lives and personalities,and were less authoritarian,
yet more focused on assessment. Economic advantages might include the
possibility of teaching more studentsmore effectively, freeing staff time for
otherpurposes.Politically, peer tutoringdelegates the managementof learn-
ing to the learners in a democraticway, seeks to empower students rather
thande-skill them by dependencyon imitationof a masterculture,and might
reduce studentdissatisfactionand unrest.
Peer tutoringcan have disadvantages,however (Greenwood et al. 1990).
Establishing it does consume organisationaltime in designing and effecting
appropriatepeer selection and matching, and it may also necessitate some
adaptationto curriculummaterials.Certainlythe requirementsfor training
studentsin teaching and learningskills are greater,althoughit can be argued
that peer tutoringmerely serves to bringto the surface needs that traditional
teaching tends to overlook. All these may involve increased costs in the
short term, with a view to reducedcosts and/or greatereffectiveness in the
medium and long term. The quality of tutoringfrom a peer tutor may be a
good deal inferior to that from a professionalteacher (although this should
not be assumed), and the need for monitoringand quality control cannot be
overstated.This also significantlyconsumes time and resources. Likewise,
the tutor'smasteryof the contentof tutoringis likely to be less than that of a
professionalteacher,so curriculumcontentcoverage in peer tutoringmay be
much morevariable.Forthese reasons,projectco-ordinatorsmay experiment
326

initiallywithpeertutoringforconsolidation andpractice,ratherthanthefirst
learningof new material,utilisingit on a smallscalewithsuitabletopics.

Researchon peer tutoringin schools

A recentreview(Topping1992) identified28 previousreviewsand meta-

analysesof researchon peertutoring,mostlyin schools.SharpleyandSharp-
ley (1981) conducteda meta-analysisof 82 studiesin schools, reporting
substantialcognitive gains for both tutees and tutors.Same-agetutoring
appearedas effectiveas cross-agetutoring,andtrainingof tutorssignificantly
improvedeventualoutcomes.Cohen,KulikandKulik(1982)discovered500
titlesrelatingto tutoring.In 65 studieswithcontrolgroups,tutoredstudents
out-performed controlsin 45. Therewas againevidencethattutortraining
producedlargersizes of experimental effect.Highlystructured tutoringwas
that
also associatedwithlargereffectsizes.Therewasevidence peertutoring
improvedtuteeattitudesin class,as well as tuteeself-concept.In 38 control
groupstudiesmeasuringtutorachievement, tutorsout-performed controlsin
33. Improvedtutorattitudesandself-conceptwerealso reported.
Thereis thussubstantial evidencethatpeertutoringis effectivein schools.
Beyond this,relative mayalsobe considered.Levin,Glass
cost-effectiveness
and Meister(1987) conducteda cost-effectivenessanalysisof four differ-
ent interventions designedto improvereadingandmathematics in primary
schools(elementaryschools)in theUSA:computerassistedlearning,reduc-
ing class size, lengtheningthe schoolday,andcross-agepeertutoring.The
most cost-effectiveintervention(peertutoring)was four times morecost-
effectivethantheleast.Theleastcost-effectivewasreducingclasssize.While
evidenceconcerningpeertutoringin schoolscancertainlynot be automati-
callygeneralisedintohigherandfurthereducation,thereis considerable food
for thoughtin thesefindings.

Peer tutoringin higher education- previousreviews

Previousreviewsand surveysof peertutoringin higherandfurthereduca-

tion includethoseof GoldschmidandGoldschmid(1976),Cornwall(1979),
Whitman(1988), Lee (1988),Lawson(1989), Maxwell(1990) andMoore-
West,Hennessy,Meilman,andO'Donnell(1990).All of theseareinteresting,
butthe earlierpaperswerecompletedat a timewhenmostof the literature
wasdescriptivein nature.TheGoldschmids'ownempiricalwork(1976)was
well beforeits time in this respect.Cornwall(1979)offereda wideranging
overviewof the field,includingadviceon organisationandproblemsolving.
 327
In a surveyof 93 colleges,Lee (1988)madea comparative analysisof seven
differentkindsof programmes targetedon increasingretentionandreducing
studentdropout.Programmes involvingpeersas resourcesshoweduppartic-
ularly well. The most expensiveprogrammes werenot moreeffectivethan
cheaperonesandsize of institutionwasnota factorin retentionanddropout
rates.Peertutoringandpeercounsellingbothshowedgoodcost-effectiveness,
whiletraditional remedialprogrammes provedverycost-ineffective. Lawson
19 in
(1989) surveyed collegesanduniversities Canada identifiedas having
peer assistedlearningprogrammes. Peer was
tutoring found to be more com-
monthanpeercounselling.Detaileddescriptions of goals,selection,training,
logisticsandmethodsforevaluationof programmes aregiven,butlittlehard
dataon comparative effectivenessandcost-effectiveness.Peerassistedlearn-
ing programmes in United Statesmedical schools were surveyed by Moore-
Westet al. (1990).Of 127collegesin anassociation,62 replied,andof these
47 hadpeertutoringprogrammes, while40 had'advisingprogrammes' and
13 had 'peerassessmentprogrammes'.

Cross-year small-group tutoring

In this review of the more recent substantiveliteratureon differentforms of

peer tutoring,the format most like surrogateprofessional teaching will be
consideredfirst.This is whereupperyear undergraduates(or post-graduates)
act as tutors to lower year undergraduates,each tutor dealing with a small
group of tutees simultaneously.The literaturesearch revealed 18 studies of
note (Bobko 1984, MeredithandSchmitz 1986, Cone 1988, Moust, De Void-
er and Nuy 1989, Button, Sims and White 1990, House and Wohlt 1990,
Lidren, Meier and Brigham 1991, Longuevanand Shoemaker 1991, Moust
and Schmidt 1992, 1994b, Johansen,Martensonand Bircher 1992, Ameman
and Prosser 1993, Johnston1993, AmericanRiverCollege 1993, McDonnell
1994, Moody and McCrae 1994, Mallatrat1994 and Schmidt, Arend, Kokx
and Boon 1994.) Many of these gatheredonly subjectivefeedback outcome
data. Of eleven studies doing this, nine reportedvery positiye outcomes, one
noted outcomes as good as those from teaching by professionalfaculty, and
one reportedless good outcomes than for professional faculty. Three stud-
ies reportedreduceddropoutin association with such tutoring.Five studies
reportedimprovedacademicachievement,anotherfour reportedacademic
achievement as good as that from professional teaching and one reported
achievementslightlybutsignificantlyworsethanthat.Muchof the research
is not of the highest quality, but good quality studies (e.g. Lidren 1991 and
American River College 1993) do clearly demonstrateimprovedacademic
achievement.
328
InBobko's(1984)study,thepeertutorshadgroupsof 25 tuteesfor12hours
perweek.Coursegradesdidnotshowa significantimprovement overprevious
but
years, previousgroupsmay not have been comparable. Interviews with
tuteesyieldedmanyreportsof increasedconfidenceandless anxiety,while
tutorsreportedimprovements in theirknowledgeandabilityto communicate.
Meredithand Schmitz(1986) reporteda studyinvolvingmanysubjective
ratings,andalthoughsomefavouredpeertutoringcomparedto facultytutor-
ing, othersindicatedthe opposite,and a greatmanywere not significantly
different.A mixedmethodprojectreportedby Cone(1988)involvedrotating
recitationandtestingbetweensame-yearpeerswithcoachingandtestingby
cross-yearpeerteachingassistants.Tutoringobjectivesand materialswere
highlystructured.Outcomesontestweremarkedly higherthannormalexpec-
tations,butthe lackof propercontrolgroupsandtheabsenceof information
aboutassignationto groupslimitsthe conclusionsthatmightbe drawn.
A comparativestudyby Moustet al. (1989)in law includedprocessmea-
sures which indicatedthat studenttutorbehaviourswere very similarto
those of professionalfaculty.Nevertheless,on outcometest scoresthe fac-
ulty tutoredstudentsscoredhigherthanthose tutoredby peers.Buttonet
al. (1990) reportedcross-yeartutoring(whichtheytermed'proctoring')in
mechanicalengineeringandcomputingin relationto specificdesignprojects.
The subjectivefeedbackfromthevastmajorityof tutorsandtuteeswas very
positive.HouseandWohlt(1990)comparedachievement outcomeson Grade
PointAveragesfor peertutoredandnon-tutored students.Malepeertutored
studentsachievedhigherGPA'sthannon-tutored, butfemaletuteesdid not.
Thesubjectswereself selectedintogroupsandtheoutcomemeasurewasvery
generalandprobablyinsensitiveto smallscaleintervention effects.Student
also
drop-out improved. A betterqualitystudyby Lidren et al. (1991) used
randomizedcontrolgroupsandcomparedoutcomesfor peertutoredgroups
of six with groupsof twenty.Both groupsperformedbetteracademically
in termsof examinationresultsand positivesubjectivefeedbackthannon-
tutoredstudents.The smallerpeer tutoredgroupsyieldedbetteroutcomes
thanthe largerones.
LonguevanandShoemaker(1991)deployedupperyearstudentsandcleri-
cal staffas volunteertutors.Thetutorswererequiredto attendthesamelec-
turesas thetuteespriorto givingtutorialassistance.Thistutoringprogramme
chargeda fee to tuteesand 10-15%of undergraduates in the institutionpar-
ticipated.Therewas someevidencethatlargeramountsof tutoringresulted
in higherGradePointAverages,althoughthe size of differencewas small
and its significancenot easy to establish.Johansenet al. (1992) reported
subjectivefeedback,with tuteesmostlysatisfiedbut tutorsratheranxious.
AmemanandProsser(1993) studiedpeertutoringin dentistryin Australia.
 329

Subjectivefeedback indicatedconfidencegains in tutorsand tutees.Johnston

(1993) deployed traineeteachersas tutorsfor economics studentsin 'micro-
learning groups' of four. Although subjective feedback was very positive,
the examinationand test resultsof participantsand non-participantswere not
very different.
American River College (1993) deployed twenty-four paid 'learning
assistants' for three hours per week with groupsof two to six tutees. Tutees'
subjective feedback was very positive, and tutors felt their own knowledge
of their subject improved.Most strikinglyhowever,althoughtutees had low-
er general Grade Point Averages than non-tutoredstudents, they scored as
well or betterthan them in tutoredsubjects. In the areaof computerscience,
McDonnell (1994) researchedtutoringby thirdyear studentsof small groups
of up to four second year students,and reportedvery positive subjectivefeed-
back.Moody and McCrae(1994) reportedon cross-yeartutoringin groupsof
six to fourteenin law. Subjectivefeedbackfromtutorswas positive.Mallatratt
(1994) targetedreduceddrop out rate for a peer tutoringproject in comput-
ing. Half the studentsutilisedthe scheme, a quarterregularly.Tuteesreported
findingthe experiencesupportiveand achievedimprovedgradescomparedto
previous cohorts of students.Seven studentsreportedthat peer tutoringhad
been the critical factorin preventingthem from leaving the course, and other
subjectivefeedback was positive.
Moust and Schmidt (1992, 1994b) found studenttutoredand staff tutored
groups gained equally in achievementduring an eight-week problem-based
law course. Schmidt et al. (1994) compared the achievement of 334 peer
tutoredand 400 faculty tutoredgroups in a problem-basedhealth sciences
course. Overall, the latterachieved slightly but significantlybetter,but peer
tutoringwas equally beneficial in the firstyear of the course.

The Personalised System of Instruction

Fred Keller is credited with the 'invention' of the Personalised System of

Instruction,which is also called the 'Keller system'. In 1968 he described
the procedure,which is based upon programmedlearningmaterial,through
which each studentproceedsattheirown pace with the goal of masteringeach
step. The peer tutor'sinvolvementis largely as a checker,testerand recorder,
to ensure tutee mastery.In 1977 Robin and Heselton comparedtrainingPSI
tutors interactively with training by a written handbook only. The direct
trainingproducedhigherqualitytutoringbehaviour,butno differencein tutee
outcomes. Davis (1978) discussed the components of the tutoring role in
PSI, and queriedwhetherthe tutorsbenefitedmore thanthe tutees. The most
substantialreview of the effectiveness of PSI was producedby Kulik, Kulik
330
andCohen(1979), who meta-analysed 75 controlledstudies.Of 61 studies
evaluatingin termsof class marks,48 foundPSIto give superiorresults.Of
20 studiesscrutinisingvariationin achievement in the targetgroup,18found
PSIwasassociatedwithreducedvariability. Sixtyonestudiesconsidered final
examinationperformance and57 of thesefoundPSItuteessuperior.
Elevenstudiesalsoconsideredstudentsubjectiveratingof teachingquality,
ten of these findingthatPSI studentsgave morefavourableratings.Eight
studiesalso measureddelayedretentionof the materiallearnt,andall found
PSI studentssuperior.PSI was foundto be effectiveacrossthe wholeability
range.It raisedthe finalexaminationscoreof a typicalstudentin a typical
class fromthe fiftiethto the seventiethpercentile.Effectswereeven more
strikingon delayedexamination andthesedifferencesweremorepronounced
on essay than on multiplechoice examinations.PSI effects were evident
in studieswith bothgood andless goodresearchdesigns.Despitethis very
convincingevidence,Sherman(1992)notedthatPSIusereacheda plateauand
speculatedthatcomputeraidedlearningmaybe currentlymorefashionable
to teachers.
becauseit is less threatening

SupplementalInstruction
Anotherwell known'brandname',Supplemental Instruction
aimsto reduce
drop-out rate and usuallytargetshigh risk courses ratherthanhighriskstu-
dents.It is often used in courseswithnew anddifficultcontent,a predomi-
nanceof lecturesandlow ratesof interactive teaching,andwhereassessment
andmonitoringarerelativelyinfrequent. It operateson a cross-agebasiswith
one 'leader'workingwithseveraltutees.Originated attheUniversityof Mis-
souriat KansasCity (UMKC)in 1975, it has come to be offeredto almost
halfof thefirstyearstudentsin its hostinstitution. Over300 institutions have
beentrainedto use SI in the USA andmorethan15 institutionsnowuse SI
or somevariantthereofin the UK.Leadersaretrainedto 'model,adviseand
facilitate'ratherthandirectlyaddresscurriculum content.Theyhavealways
previouslycompleted the same course as the tutee,andusuallyagainattend
thetutees'lectures.
MartinandArendale(1990)reporta controlledstudyof SI at UMKC.The
drop-outrate halved,the averagecoursegradewas 0.5 to 1.0 higherand
graduationoutcomeswere 12.4%higher.The NationalCentrefor Supple-
mentalInstruction (1994) reviewedevidencefortheeffectivenessof SI from
UMKCandotheruniversitiesin theUSA.In UMKCdatafrom14 successive
academicyears,involving295 coursesand 11,855SI participants, indicat-
ed statisticallysignificantdifferencesin gradesfor participants comparedto
non-participants, even when initial(pre-SI) academic performancewascon-
 331
trolled.Therewas widespreadevidenceof effectivenessacrossthe whole
abilityrange.SI participation was also associatedwithhigherre-enrolment
ratesandgraduation rates.Similardatawerereportedfrom 146 otherinsti-
tutions,involving2875coursesand298,629SI participants (see also Martin,
BlancandDeBuhr1983,MartinandArendale1992).
KenneyandKallison(1994)reporttwostudiesof SI inMathematics cours-
es, usingcomparable and
participant non-participant groups. studyfound
One
significantdifferencesfavouringthe SI group,theotherfoundno difference.
In bothstudiestherewasevidenceof low abilitystudentsresponding dispro-
portionately well to SI. and
Bridgham Scarborough (1992) used a regression
modelto predictmedicalstudents'expectedfinaloutcomesfromtheirentry
level, findinga subsequentstatisticallysignificant'over-achievement' for SI
participants. Average SI effectsize was between one thirdand one half of a
standard deviationin finaltestscores.
Researchin the UK was reportedby Rye, WallaceandBidgood(1993),
Wallace(1993), Rust(1993), Rustand Wallace(1994), Healy(1994) and
Bidgood(1994). Wallace(1993) reportedthat levels of attendanceat SI
sessions werecorrelatedwith finalcoursemarks.However,furtherdetails
werelacking.Rust(1993) reportedthatthe courseworkmarksof SI tutees
wereon average5%higherif theyhadattended2 or moresessions,although
the SI tutees were far frombeing modelstudents.This improvement was
modestandagaindetailswerelacking.
Healy(1994)reportedimproved performance inannualexamination results
of SI studentsas well as reductionsin dropoutrates,coupledwithenhanced
communication andothertransferable skillsanda deeperunderstanding of the
principles of the curriculum areain question (engineering).However, as the
groups were self selected, comparability was doubtful,and no control group
wasused.Healy(1994)notedtheneedforlongertermfollowupof SIeffects.
Morepersuasively, Bidgood(1994)reported thatend-of-yearcoursework and
examinationmarksin two successiveyearsof a computersciencecourseat
KingstonUniversitywerestatisticallysignificantlybetterfor SI participants
thanfornon-participants withequivalent entryqualificationsandstart-of-year
marks.SI studentsdidnotfigurein failureor resitlists.
It has been claimedthatSI in the UK has also demonstrated improved
gradesfor SI leaderscomparedto non-participants, as well as gainsin self
confidenceand communication skills, but detailsof the data are difficult
to find. In the USA SI leadersare usuallypaid,whereasthis is muchless
frequent in the UK. A relateddevelopment is the establishmentof faculty-
widecross-yearsmall-group'StudentSupportedLearning',withmanyof the
featuresof SI butmuchmorefocuson gainsforthetutors,whoareunpaidbut
332
receivecreditsin a courseaccreditation
transferschemefortheirparticipation
(Topping,Simpson, Thompson, and Hill 1996).

Same-yeardyadicfixed-roletutoring
Moreinnovative(andperhapseasierto organise)is tutoringbetweenpairs
(dyads)in the sameyearof study,i.e. at the samepointin the course,where
one memberretainsthe roleof tutorthroughout. Sevenstudies,someof con-
siderableage,havefocusedon achievement gainsresultingfromthispractice.
The classic studiesby Annis(1983) andBenwareandDeci (1984) referred
to earlierwereexamplesof this format.Rosen,PowellandSchubot(1977)
workedwithsamegenderpairsin whichthe tutorswereeithermore,less or
equallycompetentthanthetutees.Also,forhalfof theparticipants, roleswere
reciprocated halfwaythroughtheproject.Subjectsreceivedonly 20 minutes
of trainingand48 out 90 pairsdid not supplyfull data.Outcomemeasures
included20 item pre- andpost-testsand satisfactionquestionnaires. There
was some evidencethe changingrole from tutee to tutorwas associated
withan improvement Therewasalsoan indicationthatpair-
in achievement.
ing with someone of greater equalabilitywas associatedwith a greater
or
achievement.
FremouwandFeindler(1978) studiedthe effectivenessof dyadicsame-
year tutoringin contrastwith thatof tutorialsin groupsof nine led by a
professionalfacultymember.The peer tutorswere given some additional
contenttraining.Two controlgroupswere used, one given equalattention
of a differentsortandanothera non-participant waitinglist group.Thepeer
tutoredgroupachievedoutcomesas goodas theprofessionally tutoredgroup.
A studyin Esperantoteachingwasreportedby McKellar(1986).Tutorswere
trainedin newmaterialandstudyguideswereprovidedto supportthetutoring.
High accountabilitywas inbuilt,since post-testtutorandtuteescoreswere
combinedas a performanceindicator.The researchers foundthatthe more
tutorsgave information,the higherwas the tutorscoreandcombinedtutor
andtutee score.High scoreswerealso associatedwith the tuteeaskingfor
clarificationandaskingfor the mainpointsto recall.However,wheretutors
gave wronginformation,this was associatedwith reducedscoresfor both
tutorand tutee. The tutorsimply askingif the tuteeunderstoodwas also
associatedwithpoorerscores.
Two studiesin Edinburghare reportedby Falchikov(1990). One study
allocatedparticipants randomlyto tutor/tuteeandstudyaloneconditions,but
foundno significantdifferencesin achievementbetweenthese conditions.
Althoughsome tutorsreportedsubjectiveperceptionsthatthey hadgained
morefromtutoringthantheywouldhavedonefromindependent study,some
 333
tutees reported lacking confidence in their tutors. As in the Rosen (1977)
study, it appearsthat randomallocationcan create its own problems. In the
second study,following tutoringsome participantsbecametutees again while
some became tutors.Althoughthere was less global satisfactionat role rep-
etition, some tutees expressedmoreconfidence in theirtutors.No significant
differences in achievement were found as a function of role repetition or
non-repetition,but attritionat post-testwas high.
In summary,most of the studiesof dyadicsame-yearfixed-rolepeer tutoring
have not comparedthe procedureto an alternativeprocedure,but considered
organisationalvariationswithin the procedureand their relationshipto out-
comes. However,one study(FremouwandFeindler 1978) showed this format
of peer tutoringto be as effective as small group tutoringby a professional,
two studies that it was more effective than independentstudy, but one study
found no difference. The literaturedemonstratesthe side-effects of random
allocation to conditions and the potential problem of 'the blind leading the
blind.'

Same-yeardyadicreciprocalpeer tutoring

Although this format might be consideredeven more innovativethan same-

year dyadic fixed-role tutoring,the first relevant study dates back to 1976.
Although there is relatively little work in the area, some is of high quality.
Goldschmid and Goldschmid(1976) used dyadic reciprocalpeer tutoringin
an undergraduatepsychology course of 250 students. They compared out-
comes for three groups:one involvedin a seminarwith faculty,one pursuing
independentstudy,and the thirdinvolved in peer tutoring.The peer tutoring
groupdid the best of the threeon an unexpectedpost-testand they ratedtheir
learningexperiences more positively.
More recently,John Fantuzzoand his colleagues have reporteda series of
high quality studies of reciprocalpeer tutoring(RPT), consistently showing
that it results in greater achievement, greater satisfaction and less feeling
of stress in comparison to other treatmentand control groups. Fantuzzo,
Dimeff and Fox (1989) allocated psychology students randomly to three
conditions: reciprocalpeer tutoring,questioning only, and placebo control.
The RPT group reciprocatedroles within each session, creating tests for
each other before the session, administeringthem to each other, scoring
them, discussing the outcome and coaching their partneras necessary. The
questions only group created the tests alone but never administeredthem -
they studiedto give the test. Thisgroupalso saw the questionsgeneratedby the
RPT pairs. In the placebo condition, studentsmet and watched instructional
videos with the same curricularcontent and answered the questions on the
334
videos.Onexamination scores,allthreegroupsgained,buttheRPTgroupdid
significantlybetterthanthe othertwo groups,whichwerenot significantly
differentfromeachother.Studentsatisfactionwassignificantly improvedand
distressindicatorssignificantlyreducedfortheRPTbutnottheothergroups.
Subsequently,Fantuzzo,Riggio,ConnellyandDimeff (1989) conducted
a componentanalysisto attemptto determinewhatelementsof RPTwere
implicatedin its effectiveness.One hundredandtwentyfive studentswere
allocatedto five conditions:a dyadicpeertutoringgroupwith a structured
interactionprocess,a dyadicunstructured contactgroupinvolvinggeneral
discussionrelatedto upcomingexam topics, an independentunstructured
conditionin which individualshad to submita shortessay on up-coming
examinationtopics,an independent structuredlearningconditionsimilarto
the 'questionsonly condition'in the previousstudy,and a no treatment
controlgroup.The researchers foundthatdyadicinteractionwas associated
withgainsin achievementon pre-posttests,anda higherdegreeof structure
was also associatedwith betteroutcomes.They also foundthatstructured
methodswere associatedwith betterscores on studentstress inventories.
Theirconclusionwas thatit was not merelypairingbutstructured exchange
whichwaseffective.
Riggio, Fantuzzo,Connellyand Dimeff (1991) soughtto replicatethe
studybut with morediversestudentsin a differentsetting.The RPTgroup
showedsignificantlyhigherachievementscoresthanthe othergroups,and
therewas generallya significantmaineffect for dyadicconditions,butnot
for structure.However,structuredid yield betterscoreson two out of three
stressinventories.Satisfactionratingsfor the RPTgroupweresignificantly
higherthanthoseof the othergroups.Thuscomparedto thepreviousstudy,
dyadicfactorsshowedless impacton stressandstructure factorsless impact
on achievement.Riggio et al. (1991) note that the subjectswere from a
'commuter'college whowerenotalreadywell socialisedwitheachother.
In the UK, all 45 studentsin a year-longundergraduate calculusclass
were involvedin same-yeardyadicpeer tutoring(Topping,Watson,Jarvis
andHill 1996),the 12 one-hourpeersessionssubstituting fortraditionallec-
tures.Degreeexamination resultsin calculusweresignificantly betterforthe
experimentalgroupthanfor the previous(comparison)year,especiallyfor
studentswhowerenotmathsmajors,buttheyearcohortswerenon-equivalent
in some respects.Structured subjectivefeedbackfromthe studentssuggest-
ed thatpeer tutoringhad improvedtheirtransferable skills in a numberof
areas.Similarly,a projectwith 125 undergraduates in a year-longclass in
mathematical economicswas reportedby Topping,Hill, McKaig,Rogers,
RushiandYoung(1996).Finaldegreeassessmentresultsfortheexperimen-
tal groupwere in generalnot statisticallysignificantlydifferentfromthose
 335

of the previous (comparison)year. However, subjective feedback from the

students indicated that peer tutoringhad improved their transferableskills
in a numberof areas. Furthermore,studentswho regularlyattendedthe peer
tutoring sessions obtained significantlybetterdegree assessment outcomes,
and gave significantly better feedback about improved transferableskills,
thanthose who did not. Additionally,studentdrop-outrateswere lower in the
experimentalthan in the comparisonyear.

Dyadiccross-yearfixed-rolepeer tutoring
This formatis reportedin fourstudies,threefromAustralia.Schaffer,Wile
and Griggs (1990) analysed the exam results of a cohort of students, some
of whom had participatedin a peer tutoringprogramme.There was a pos-
itive relationshipbetween degree of participationin tutoringand examina-
tion results. However, no control groups were used and no demonstration
of causality is evident. A study by Black (1993) focuses on ethnic minority
group tutees in nursing and midwifery, and claims 'higher than expected'
pass rates, but lacks sufficientdetail to enable this to be verified.Loh (1993)
deployed paid peer tutorsin a course for Anatomyfor Nurses with a previous
high failure rate. Subsequentlythe peer tutoringparticipantfailure rate was
less than the non-participantrate,but no informationwas given aboutassign-
ment to groups. Subjective feedback was positive however,tutees reporting
feeling more confident.Quintrelland Westwood(1994) pairednewly arrived
internationalstudents with host national students,expecting twice monthly
contact during the year. Tutees showed more positive attitudesthan a com-
parison group matched for course of enrolment,but not significantlybetter
academic performance.Manyof these studiesappearto sufferfromproblems
of self-selection to groupsand consequentnon-comparability.

Same-year group tutoring

Fourstudies have consideredsame-yeargrouptutoring,often in the formatof

rotatingpresentationsby individualstudentsto the peergroup.Unfortunately,
only one of these reportedachievementoutcomes. Autonomousstudentstudy
groups were establishedby Beach (1960), who measuredachievementgains
with pre- and post-tests. Results indicatedthat extrovertsdid better in peer
tutoringthan did introverts,the introvertsgaining equally in traditionallec-
tures.The study raisedquestionsregardinginteractionsbetween teachingand
learning methodologies and studentpersonalityor learning style. Fineman
(1981) reportedon rotationalpresentationsto the peer group by members
336
of a groupof twelve studentsof organisationalbehaviour.Peerassessment
on peerbrainstormed criteriawas included.Thesubjectiveevaluationby the
was
participants positive.
Similarly,Hendelmanand Boss (1986) found rotatingpresentationsto
groupsto yield positivesubjectivefeedbackfromthe students.The tutees
reportedthatpeertutoringwas as effectiveas facultytutoring,andthetutors
thatpeertutoringwasmoreeffectivethanfacultytutoring.A coursein Com-
puterAided EngineeringDesign was the focus of a studyby Maginand
Churches(1993), occasionedin partby a lack of sufficientaccess to hard-
ware.Thosestudentswhohadhadaccessto machinestutoredthosewhohad
not hadsuchaccess,overa fourweekperiod.Subjectivefeedbackindicated
the tuteesfoundthetutoringas or moreeffectivethantutoringby faculty.

Peer assistedwriting

Withinthe traditionalhighereducationsystem,writtenoutputis oftenused

as a vehiclefor assessmentof the individual,andcollaborativewritingcan
be problematicto assess. However,in recentyearstherehas been greater
interestin writingas a devicefor improvinglearningandthinking,coupled
with the advocacyof 'writingacrossthe curriculum','writingcentres'and
'collaborative writing'(Olson1984,Gere1987).Rizzolo(1982)describedthe
useof peertutorsin a writingcentre,alsostaffedbyEnglishfaculty.Thetutors
werepaidandtrainedthroughinternship. It wasnotedthattutoringin writing
hadto be morethanmerelyproof-reading. Thetuteesratedtheirpeertutors
on
veryhighly subjective feedback.Similarly,Bell (1983)emphasised therole
of peertutorsin a writingcentrein promotingconfidenceandencouraging
new studentsto view writingmoreas a processandless as a product.More
substantialdatawereofferedby O'Donnell,Dansereau,Rocklin,Lambiotte,
HytheckerandLarson(1985),whocomparedrandomlyassignedco-operative
writingand writingalone conditions.The writingof the 36 studentswas
assessedfor communicative quality.The co-operativewritersdid betteron
the initialpost-testandon transference to a furtherindividualwritingtask.
Holladay(1989, 1990) reported the use of peer tutorsin a 'writing
on
acrossthe curriculum'programme at MonroeCommunityCollege.Seventy
six percentof tuteesfoundtheirtutorshelpfulor veryhelpful,facultyfeltthe
qualityof papersimprovedin tutoredclassesversusnon-tutored classes,and
all the tutorsfelt theirownwritinghadimprovedas a resultof tutoring.This
programmecontinuedin subsequentyearswitheven betterresults.A study
by Levine(1990) also yieldedverypositivesubjectivefeedback.Theexperi-
mentalclass improvedin meetingdeadlinesandthefailureratereducedfrom
35%to 3%.However,gradesandexamresultswereverysimilarfor exper-
 337
imentalandcomparisongroups,althoughcomparability is unclear.Students
who hadtutoringin writingfromfacultyandpeerswerecomparedby Oley
(1992) with thosewho hadtutoringfrompeersonly or facultyonly.Many
of the participants had been identifiedas weakwriters,andsome received
helpvoluntarilyandsomeon a compulsorybasis.Assignationto conditions
was random.Thosewho receivedpeertutoringsubsequently attainedhigher
grades than those who did not.
Louthand MacAllister(1990) assignedfreshmancompositionstudents
randomlyto threeconditions:somestudentswroteina traditional independent
manner,otherswrote(partially)interactively althoughproducingindividual
writtenproducts,whilea thirdgroupwrotewhollyinteractively producinga
joint product.The independent writinggroup,whichscoredhigherthanthe
othertwo groupsat pre-test,did not improveduringthe project,while both
collaborativeconditionsimprovedtheirperformance, althoughthe statistical
significanceof this was debatable.The use of mixedabilitywritinggroups
of fourstudentsin geographywasreportedby Hay(1993),who emphasised
theimportance of writingas a transferableskillwhichis vocationallyvalued.
In groups,the students reviewed theiressay assignments,readeach others'
writingandmadewrittenreviewsof eachothers'work,witha rotatingchair
person.Haynotedthatit waspossibleto do thereadingactuallyin thegroup
sessionsto avoidanypossibilityof plagiarism.Twogroupsgave subjective
feedback:in one65%werepositiveandin theother80%.Problemsincluded
thatpeerswereinsufficiently criticalandthaterrorswerenotalwaysdetected.
Ninetypercent felt thatthe writinggroupshouldcontinue.Theco-operative
writingdid not necessarilysavefacultytimeon marking,as monitoringthe
groupprocessoccupiedsometime.
In summary,of nine studieson peerassistedwriting,five give only sub-
jectivefeedback,butthisis generallyverypositive.Fourstudiesgivedataon
gainsin writingcompetenceandof these,twogoodqualitystudiesshowtutee
gains,oneshowsno statisticallysignificantdifferenceanda thirdshowssome
tuteegainsof equivocalstatus.Otherimprovements includeraiseddeadline
attainment rates,reducedfailurerates,andself reportof improvedwritingin
thetutors.

Peer assisted distance learning

In distancelearningfeedbackandsupportfromany peer groupis problematic.

Attemptsto build this in by way of occasionalsummer-schoolsare little more
than a token gesture, and the loneliness of the long-distance learner is a
widespreadphenomenon.Distance learningis also fundamentallydifficultto
research,and the quantityand qualityof evidence on the role of peer support
338
in this processlimited.Amundsenand Barnard(1989) workedwith bank
employeesstudyingaccountingandbusinessadministration. One set metin
peer supportgroups, a second had peer supportgroups and also distance
on
learning studyskills, while a thirdhad both of these and also a nominated
mentorwho was a previousgraduateof the programme. A fourthgroupwas
a controlcondition.Outcomemeasuresincludedassignmentgrades,final
examscores,finaldegreegradesandsubjectiveself-assessments. However,
the studygroupswere formedinevitablyon a geographicbasis, and were
thusself selectedandof doubtfulcomparability. Furthermore, the degreeof
conformity to the intended process was in doubt and some subjectswere
excluded from the no
analysis.Virtually significantdifferenceswerefound
betweenthe groups.However,the authorsareto be commendedfor a brave
effortin a difficultarea.
A programme foraudio-teleconferencing as a partof continuingeducation
for nurseswasdevelopedin Australiaby Hart(1990).Thetopicsvariedfrom
week to week andwere suggestedby the participants. Eachtele-conference
involvedbetween6 and 12 nurses.Themajorityof participants werewomen
andthe authordiscusseswhetherfemalesneedor seek groupsupportmore
thanmales.Subjectivefeedbackfromthe participants was reported,butthe
response rate was only 34%. This paper does include a good discussion
of practicalproblemsinvolved.In summary,althoughthereis some weak
evidencethatbuildingin peercontactis likedby someparticipants in distance
learning,there seems to be littlesatisfactoryevidence thatit increases student
achievement.However,furtherresearchin thisareais certainlyneeded.

Summaryand conclusion
Peer tutoringis alreadywidely used in furtherand highereducation,in a
varietyof differentforms.Surveyssuggestseveralhundredinstitutions deploy
this interactivemethodof teachingandlearning.Of course,the existenceof
one smallpilot projectat one timein an institutiondoes not constitutepeer
tutoringon a largescale acrossthe curriculumwhichis qualitycontrolled
andembeddedwithintheorganizational culture.Of thedifferentformatsand
methods,thePersonalisedSystemof Instruction andSupplemental Instruction
havemostnearlyapproached thelatterscenario.
A considerableamountis alreadyknownaboutthe effectivenessof peer
tutoringin furtherand highereducation.Cross-yearsmall-grouptutoring,
theformatleastdisparatefromtraditional methods,canworkwell. Studiesof
achievementgainsalmostall indicateoutcomesasgoodas orbetterthangroup
tutoringby faculty,andstudentsubjectivefeedbackis generallyverypositive.
The PersonalisedSystemof Instruction hasbeen widelyusedandevaluated
 339

in the US. Two thirds of studies found PSI involvement associated with
higherclass marksand 93% of studiesfoundPSI associatedwith higherfinal
examination performance,comparedto control groups. PSI also improved
longer term retentionof the materiallearnt.SupplementalInstructionadopts
a very differentmodel of operationand has become morepopularoutside the
USA than PSI. There is very substantialand persuasiveevidence from the
USA of impact on course grades, graduationoutcomes and drop-out rates.
Research in the UK is improvingin quality and also demonstratingpositive
outcomes.
Same-yeardyadic fixed-roletutoringhas been the subjectof severalstudies
over the years, researchof mixed quality yielding mixed results. However,
two good qualitystudiesfound improvedachievementfromthis format,while
three othersfound achievementthe same as with faculty teaching.
Five out of 6 studies of same-yeardyadic reciprocaltutoringhave demon-
stratedincreasedattainment.Therewas also evidenceof reducedstudentstress
and improvedtransferableskills. The degree of structurein the programme
was positively relatedto outcomes. Dyadic cross-yearfixed-roletutoringhas
been the subjectof threestudiesof poorquality.Same-yeargrouptutoringhas
yielded positive subjective feedback in four studies, but no harderevidence
on achievementoutcomes.
Nine studies of peer assisted writing have shown generally favourable
outcomes in termsof subjectivefeedback.Gains in writingcompetence were
shown in two or threeof the four studies examiningthis, despite the inherent
difficultyof this kind of research.There is little evidence thatpeer assistance
in distance learning improves achievementoutcomes, but this area is even
more difficultto research.
In summary,three methodsof peer tutoringin furtherand highereducation
have alreadybeen widely used, have been demonstratedto be effective, and
merit wider use in practice- these are Cross-yearSmall-groupTutoring,the
PersonalisedSystem of Instructionand SupplementalInstruction.Same-year
dyadic reciprocaltutoringhas been demonstratedto be effective, buthas been
little used, and merits much wider deployment.Same-yeardyadic fixed-role
tutoringandpeerassisted writinghave shownconsiderablebutnot necessarily
consistentpromiseand shouldbe the focus of continuingexperimentationand
more researchof betterquality.In threeareasthereare barelythe beginnings
of a satisfactory body of evaluationresearch:dyadic cross-year fixed-role
tutoring,same-yeargrouptutoringand peer assisted distance learning.
It is essential that subsequentresearchstrives to achieve adequatequality
in design and execution, preferablyincluding control groups or comparison
groupswhich are trulycomparable,and addressesissues of achievementgain
and parametersof successful course completion as well as subjective par-
340

ticipantfeedback.If achievementgainscan be demonstrated thatgo beyond

the narrowconfinesof the institutionalassessmentsystemandendurein the
longerterm,so muchthebetter.Thisimpliesthatimpactuponwidercognitive
abilitiesandtransferableskills shouldalso be measured.
However,peertutoringis usuallya relativelysmallcomponentof a wide
rangeof teachingand learningstrategiesdeployedin highereducation,so
theextentto whichit is realisticto expectassociatedgainsto be measurable,
widespread,maintained andgeneralisedis debatable.

Acknowledgement
The supportof the ScottishHigherEducationFundingCouncilis gratefully
acknowledged.

References
American River College (1993). A.R.C. Beacon Project: Student Catalyst Program - Peer
Assisted Learning; First Semester SummaryReport. SacramentoCA: American River
College (ED355995).
Amundsen, C.L. and Bernard,R.M. (1989). 'Institutionalsupportfor peer contact in distance
education:an empiricalinvestigation',Distance Education 10(1), 7-23.
Annis, L.F. (1983). 'The processes andeffects of peer tutoring',HumanLearning2(1), 39-47.
Arneman K. and Prosser M. (1993). 'The developmentof two peer tutoringprogrammesin
the Faculty of Dentistry,University of Sydney', in Proceedings of Conferenceon Peer
Tutoring at University of Auckland 19-21 August 1993. Auckland: Higher Education
ResearchOffice and Universityof Auckland.
Ashman, A.F. and Elkins, J. (1990). 'Co-operativelearningamong special students',in Foot,
H.C., Morgan,M.J. and Shute, R.H. (eds.), ChildrenHelping Children.Londonand New
York:John Wiley.
Bargh,J.A. andSchul, Y.(1980). 'On the cognitivebenefitsof teaching',Journalof Educational
Psychology 72(5), 593-604.
Barnett,R. (1992). ImprovingHigher Education.Buckingham:Open UniversityPress.
Beach, L. R. (1960). 'Sociability and academic achievement in various types of learning
situations', Journal of EducationalPsychology 51(4), 208-212.
Bell, E. (1983). 'The peer tutor:the writingcenter'smost valuableresource', TeachingEnglish
in the Two-YearCollege 9(2), 141-144.
Benware, C.A. and Deci, E.L. (1984). 'Quality of learning with an active versus passive
motivationalset', AmericanEducationalResearchJournal21(4), 755-65.
Bidgood, P. (1994). 'The success of supplementalinstruction:the statistical evidence', in
Rust, C. and Wallace,J. (eds.), Helping Studentsto LearnfromEach Other:Supplemental
Instruction.Birmingham:Staff and EducationalDevelopmentAssociation.
Black, J. (1993). 'Peer tutor support in nursing and midwifery at Otago Polytechnic', in
Proceedings of Conference on Peer Tutoringat Universityof Auckland 19-21 August
1993. Auckland:HigherEducationResearchOffice and Universityof Auckland.
Bobko, E. (1984). 'The effective use of undergraduatesas tutorsfor college science students',
Journal of College Science Teaching 14, 60-62.
Bridgham, R.G. and Scarborough,S. (1992). 'Effects of supplementalinstructionin selected
medical school science courses', AcademicMedicine 67(10), 569-571.
 341

Brookfield, S. (1983). Adult Learners,Adult Education and the Community.Buckingham:

Open UniversityPress.
Button, B.L., Sims, R. and White, L. (1990). 'Experience of proctoringover three years at
NottinghamPolytechnic',in Goodlad,S. andHirst,B. (eds.), Explorationsin Peer Tutoring.
Oxford:Blackwell.
Cohen. P.A., Kulik, J.A. and Kulik, C-L.C. (1982). 'Educationaloutcomes of tutoring: a
meta-analysisof findings',AmericanEducationalResearchJournal 19(2), 237-48.
Cone, A.L. (1988). 'Low tech/high touch criterion-basedlearning', Psychological Reports
63(1), 203-207.
Cornwall,M.G. (1979). Studentsas Teachers:Peer Teachingin HigherEducation.Amsterdam:
C.O.W.O.,Universityof Amsterdam.
Davis, C.S. (1978). 'Peertutors:theirutility and trainingin the personalisedsystem of instruc-
tion', EducationalTechnology18, 23-26.
Doise, W. and Mugny,G. (1984). TheSocial Developmentof the Intellect.Oxford:Pergamon
Press.
Durling, R. and Schick, C. (1976). 'Conceptattainmentby pairsand individualsas a function
of vocalization', Journalof EducationalPsychology 68(1), 83-91.
Ellis, R. (1993). Quality Assurancefor UniversityTeaching.Buckingham:Open University
Press.
Entwistle, N.J. and Ramsden,P. (1983). UnderstandingStudentLearning.Beckenham:Croom
Helm.
Entwistle, N. (1992). The Impactof Teachingand LearningOutcomesin Higher Education:
A LiteratureReview. Sheffield:Universitiesand Colleges Staff DevelopmentUnit, CVCP.
Falchikov, N. (1990). 'An experimentin same-age peer tutoringin higher education: some
observationsconcerningthe repeatedexperienceof tutoringor being tutored',in Goodlad,
S. and Hirst,B. (eds.), Explorationsin Peer Tutoring.Oxford:Blackwell.
Fantuzzo, J.W., Dimeff, L.A. and Fox, S.L. (1989). 'Reciprocal peer tutoring:a multimodal
assessmentof effectivenesswith college students',Teachingof Psychology 16(3), 133-135.
Fantuzzo,J.W., Riggio, R.W.,Connelly, S. and Dimeff, L. (1989). 'Effects of reciprocalpeer
tutoringon academic achievementand psychological adjustment:a componentanalysis',
Journalof EducationalPsychology 81(2), 173-177.
Fineman, S. (1981). 'Reflections on peer teaching and peer assessment: an undergraduate
experience', Assessmentand Evaluationin Higher Education6(1), 82-93.
Foot, H.C., Shute, R.H., Morgan, M.J. and Barron, A. (1990). 'Theoreticalissues in peer
tutoring',in Foot, H.C., Morgan,M.J. and Shute, R.H. (eds.), ChildrenHelping Children.
London and New York:JohnWiley.
Forman,E. (1994). 'Peercollaborationas situatedactivity:examplesfromresearchon scientific
problem solving', in Foot, H.C., Howe, C.J., Anderson, A., Tolmie, A.K. and Warden,
D.A. (eds.), Group and InteractiveLearning. Southamptonand Boston: Computational
Mechanics.
Freemouw,W.J. and Feindler,E.L. (1978). 'Peer versus professionalmodels for study skills
training',Journal of CounselingPsychology 25(6), 576-580.
Gartner,S., Kohler,M. and Riessman(1971). ChildrenTeachChildren:Learningby Teaching.
New York:Harperand Row.
Gere, A.R. (1987). WritingGroups:History,Theoryand Implications.CarbondaleIL:Southern
Illinois UniversityPress.
Gibbs, G. (1981). TeachingStudentsToLearn. Buckingham:Open UniversityPress.
Goldschmid, B. and Goldschmid,M.L. (1976). 'Peer teaching in highereducation:a review',
Higher Education5, 9-33.
Greenwood,C.R., Carta,J.J. and Kamps,D. (1990). 'Teacher-mediatedversus peer-mediated
instruction:a reviewof educationaladvantagesanddisadvantages',in Foot, H.C., Morgan,
M.J. and Shute, R.H. (eds.), ChildrenHelping Children.London and New York: John
Wiley.
342

Hart,G. (1990).'Peerlearningandsupportviaaudio-teleconferencing
in continuing
education
for nurses', Distance Education 11(2), 308-319.
H.J.(1990). 'Factorsaffectingthetutoringprocess',Journalof Educational
Hartman, Devel-
opment14(2),2-6.
Hay, I. (1993). 'Writinggroupsin geography',in Proceedingsof Conferenceon Peer Tutoring
at University of Auckland 19-21 August 1993. Auckland: Higher Education Research
OfficeandUniversityof Auckland.
instruction:
Healy,C.E. (1994). 'Supplemental a modelfor supportingstudentlearning',in
Foot,H.C.,Howe,C.J.,Anderson,A., Tolmie,A.K.andWarden,D.A. (eds.),Groupand
InteractiveLearning.SouthamptonandBoston:Computational Mechanics.
Hendelman, W.J.andBoss, M. (1986). 'Reciprocal
peerteachingby medicalstudentsin the
gross anatomy laboratory',Journal of Medical Education61(8), 674-80.
Holladay, J. (1989). Monroe County CommunityCollege WritingAcross the Curriculum:
AnnualReport1988-9. Michigan:MonroeCountyCommunity
College(ED310820).
Holladay, J. M. (1990). WritingAcross the Curriculum:Annual Report 1989-90. Michigan:
MonroeCountyCommunity College(ED326260).
House,J.D. andWohlt,V. (1990). 'Theeffectof tutoringprogramparticipation
on the per-
formanceof academicallyunderprepared collegefreshmen',Journalof CollegeStudent
Development31, 365-370.
Johansen,M.L.,Martenson, D.F.andBircher,J. (1992).'Studentsas tutorsin problem-based
learning:does it work?',MedicalEducation26(2), 163-165.
Johnston,C. (1993). 'The integrationof traineeteachersin an undergraduatepeertutoring
projectat the Universityof Melbourne',in Proceedingsof Conferenceon Peer Tutoringat
Universityof Auckland19-21 August 1993. Auckland:HigherEducationResearchOffice
andUniversityof Auckland.
Keller, F.S. (1968). 'Goodbye, teacher.. .', Journalof AppliedBehaviorAnalysis 1(1), 79-89.
Kenney,P.A.andKallison,J.M.(1994).'Research
studiesontheeffectivenessof supplemental
instruction in mathematics', New Directions for Teaching and Learning 60(4), 75-82
(specialissueon Supplemental
Instruction).
Kulik,J.A., Kulik,C.C. and Cohen,P.A. (1979). 'A meta-analysis
of outcomestudiesof
systemof instruction',
Keller'spersonalised AmericanPsychologist34(4),307-318.
D. (1993).Rethinking
Laurillard, UniversityTeaching.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.
Lawson,D. (1989). 'Peerhelpingprogramsin the collegesanduniversitiesof Quebecand
Ontario', Canadian Journalof Counselling 23(1), 41-56.
Lee, R.E. (1988). 'Assessingretentionprogramholdingpowereffectivenessacrosssmaller
community colleges', Journalof College StudentDevelopment29(3), 255-262.
Levine,J.R.(1990).'Usinga peertutorto improvewritingin a psychologyclass:one instruc-
tor's experience', Teachingof Psychology 17(1), 57-58.
Levine,H.M.,Glass,G.V.andMeister,G.R.(1987).'Acost-effectiveness
analysisof computer-
EvaluationReview11(1),50-72.
assistedinstruction',
Lidren,D.M.,Meier,S.E. andBrigham,T.A. (1991). 'Theeffectsof minimalandmaximal
peertutoringsystemson the academicperformance of collegestudents',Psychological
Record41(1), 69-77.
Loh,H. (1993).'Peerassistedstudysessionsin anatomyfornursingstudents',in Proceedings
of Conferenceon Peer Tutoringat Universityof Auckland19-21 August 1883. Auckland:
HigherFlication ResearchOfficeandUniversityof Auckland.
C. andShoemaker,
Longuevan, J.(1991).'Usingmultipleregression
toevaluatea peertutoring
programfor undergraduates',Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the California
EducationalResearch Association, San Diego CA, November 14-15 (ED341717).
Louth,R., McAllister,C. andMcAllister,H.A.(1993). 'Theeffectsof collaborative
writing
techniqueson freshmanwritingandattitudes',Journalof Experimental Fducation61(3),
215-224.
Lovell,R.B. (1980).AdultLearning.London:Routledge.
 343

McDonnell, J.T. (1994). 'Peer tutoring:a pilot scheme among computerscience undergradu-
ates', Mentoringand Tutoring2(2), 3-10.
McKellar,N.A. (1986). 'Behaviorsused in peer tutoring',Journal of ExperimentalEducation
54(3), 163-167.
Magin, D. and Churches,A. (1993). 'Studentproctoring:who learns what?', Proceedings of
Conference on Peer Tutoringat Universityof Auckland19-21 August 1993. Auckland:
Higher EducationResearchOffice and Universityof Auckland.
Mallatrat,J. (1994). 'Learningaboutthe learners- the impact of a peer tutoringscheme', in
Foot, H.C., Howe, C.J., Anderson,A., Tolmie, A.K. and Warden,D.A. (eds.), Groupand
InteractiveLearning.Southamptonand Boston: ComputationalMechanics.
Martin,D.C. and Arendale,D.R. (1990). SupplementalInstruction:ImprovingStudentPerfor-
mance, IncreasingStudentPersistence.KansasCity MO: Universityof Missouri.
Martin,D.C. and Arendale,D.R. (1992). 'Supplementalinstruction:improvingfirst-yearstu-
dent success in high-riskcourses', The FreshmanYearExperience:MonographSeries No.
7. ColumbiaSC: South CarolinaUniversity(ED354839).
Martin,D.C., Blanc, R.A. and DeBuhr,L. (1983). 'Breakingthe attritioncycle: the effects of
supplementalinstructionon undergraduateperformanceand attrition',Journal of Higher
Education54(1), 80-89.
Marton,E, Hounsell, D. and Entwistle, N. (1984). The Experienceof Learning. Edinburgh:
Scottish Academic Press.
Maxwell, M. (1990). 'Does tutoringhelp? a look at the literature',Review of Research in
DevelopmentalEducation7(4), 3-7.
Meredith, G.M. and Schmitz, E.D. (1986). 'Student-taughtand faculty-taughtseminars in
undergraduateeducation:anotherlook', Perceptualand Motor Skills 62(2), 593-594.
Merriam,R. and Caffarella,R.S. (1991). Learningin Adulthood.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Moody, S. and McCrae, J. (1994). 'Cross year peer tutoring with law undergraduates',in
Foot, H.C., Howe, C.J., Anderson,A., Tolmie, A.K. and Warden,D.A. (eds.), Groupand
InteractiveLearning. Southamptonand Boston: ComputationalMechanics.
Moore-West,M., Hennessy, A., Meilman,P.W.and O'Donnell, J.F. (1990). 'The presence of
student-basedpeer advising, peer tutoringand performanceevaluationprogramsamong
U.S. medical schools', AcademicMedicine65(10), 660-661.
Moust, J.H.C., De Volder,M.L., andNuy, H.J.P.(1989).'Peerteachingand higherlevel cogni-
tive learningoutcomes in problem-basedlearning',Higher Education 18(6), 737-742.
Moust,J.C. andSchmidt,H.G. (1992). 'Undergraduate studentsas tutors:aretheyas effective as
facultyin conductingsmall-grouptutorials?',Paperpresentedat theAmericanEducational
Research Association Symposiumon RewardingTeachingat Research Universities, San
FranciscoCA, April 23 (ED 346774).
Moust, J.H.C.and Schmidt,H.G. (1994a). 'Facilitatingsmall-grouplearning:a comparisonof
studentand staff tutors' behavior',InstructionalScience 22, 287-301.
Moust, J.H.C. and Schmidt, H.G. (1994b). 'Effects of staff and student tutors on student
achievement',Higher Education28, 471-482.
National Center for SupplementalInstruction(1994). Review of Research Concerning the
Effectivenessof SI. KansasCity MO: NCSI, Universityof Missouriat KansasCity.
O'Donnell, A.M., Dansereau,D.F., Rocklin,T., Lambiotte,J.G., Hythecker,V.I. and Larson,
C.O. (1985). 'Co-operativewriting:direct effects and transfer', WrittenCommunication
2(3), 307-315.
Oley, N. (1992). 'Extracreditandpeertutoring:impacton the qualityof writingin introductory
psychology in an OA college', Teachingof Psychology 19(2), 78-81.
Olson, G.A. (ed.) (1984). Writing Centers: Theory and Administration.Illinois: National
Council of Teachersof English.
Quintrell, N. and Westwood, M. (1994). 'The influence of a peer-pairingprogramon inter-
national students' first year experience and use of student services', Higher Education
Researchand Development13(1), 49-57.
Ramsden,P. (ed.) (1986). ImprovingLearning.London:KoganPage.
344

J.T.,Eysenck,M.W.andPiper,D.W.(eds.)(1987).StudentLearning:Research
Richardson,
in Educationand CognitivePsychology. Buckingham:Open UniversityPress.
Riggio,R.E.,Fantuzzo,J.W.,Connelly,S. andDimeff,L.A.(1991).'Reciprocal
peertutoring:
a classroomstrategyfor promotingacademicand social integrationin undergraduate
students', Journal of Social Behavior and Personality6(2), 387-396.
Rizzolo,P.(1982).'Peertutorsmakegoodteachers:a successfulwritingprogram',Improving
College and UniversityTeaching30(3), 115-119.
Robin,A.L. andHeselton,P. (1977). 'Proctortraining:the effectsof a manualversusdirect
training',Journal of Personalised Instruction2, 19-24.
Rogers,J. (1977).AdultsLearning(secondedition).Buckingham:
OpenUniversityPress.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeshipin Thinking:Cognitive Developmentin Social Context.
OxfordandNew York:OxfordUniversityPress.
Rosen,S., Powell,E.R.andSchubot,D.B.(1977).'Peer-tutoring
outcomesasinfluenced
bythe
equityandtypeof roleassignment', Journalof Educational
Psychology69(3),244-252.
Rust,C. (1993).'Supplemental atOxfordBrookesUniversity',
instruction Papergivenat Peer
TutoringConsortiumConference,Universityof Glamorgan,23 June 1993.
Rust, C. and Wallace, J. (eds.) (1994). Helping Studentsto Learnfrom Each Other: Supple-
mentalInstruction.Birmingham:StaffandEducational Development Association.
Rye, P.D., J.
Wallace, and P. (1993). 'Instruction
Bidgood, in learningskills:an integrated
approach',Medical Education27, 470-473.
Schaffer,J.L., Wile, M.Z. andGriggs,R.C. (1990). 'Studentsteachingstudents:a medical
schoolpeertutorialprogramme', MedicalEducation24(4),336-343.
Schmidt,H., Arend,A.V.D.,Kokx,I. and Boon, L. (1994). 'Peerversusstaff tutoringin
problem-based learning',Instructional
Science22, 279-285.
Schunk,D.H. (1987). 'Self-efficacyandmotivatedlearning',in Hastings,N. andSchwieso,
J. (eds.), New Directions in Educational Psychology: Behaviour and Motivationin the
Classroom.LondonandNew York:FalmerPress.
Schunk, D.H. and Zimmermann,B.J. (eds.) (1994). Self-Regulationof Learning and Perfor-
mance.New York:LawrenceErlbaum.
Scruggs,T.E.andOsguthorpe, R.T.(1986). 'Tutoringinterventions
withinspecialeducation
settings:a comparisonof cross-ageandpeertutoring',Psychologyin theSchools23(2),
187-193.
Sharpley,A.M.andSharpley, C.F.(1981).'Peertutoring:a reviewof theliterature',
Collected
Original Resources in Education5(3), 7-C11 (fiche 7 and 8).
Sherman,J.G.(1992). 'Reflectionson PSI:goodnewsandbad',Journalof AppliedBehavior
Analysis 25(1), 59-64.
Stemberg,R.J.(1985).BeyondI.Q.Cambridge andNew York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
P.(ed.)(1996).AdultLearning:A Reader.London:KoganPage(in press).
Sutherland,
Tight, M. (ed.) (1983). Adult Learningand Education.London:Routledge.
Topping,K.J.(1992).'Co-operativelearningandpeertutoring: anoverview',ThePsychologist
5, 151-161.
Topping,K.J., Hill, S., McKaig,A., Rogers,C., Rushi,N. andYoung,D. (1996). 'Paired
reciprocalpeertutoringin undergraduateeconomics',(submitted forpublication).
Topping,K.J.,Simpson,G., Thompson,L. andHill, S. (1996). 'Evaluation of faculty-wide
studentsupportedlearningat theUniversityof CentralLancashire', (submitted forpubli-
cation).
Topping,K.J.,Watson,G.A.,Jarvis,R.J.andHill,S. (1996).'Same-year pairedpeertutoring
in undergraduate mathematics',(submittedforpublication).
Vygotsky,L.S.(1978).'Mindin society:thedevelopment of higherpsychologicalprocesses',
(editedby Cole, M., John-Steiner,V.,Scribner,S. andSouberman, E.). Cambridge MA:
MITPress.
Wallace,J. (1993). 'Supplementalinstructionat KingstonUniversity',Papergivenat Peer
TutoringConsortiumConference,Universityof Glamorgan,23 June 1993.
 345

Webb, N.M. (1982). 'Peer interactionand learningin co-operativesmall groups', Journal of

Educational Psychology 5(74), 642-655.
Whitman, N.A. (1988). Peer Teaching:To Teach Is To Learn Twice (ASHE-ERIC Higher
EducationReport).WashingtonDC: ERICClearinghouseon Higher Education.