Developing peer tutor relationships within heterogeneous ability groups
Contrary to popular belief, it is not low-ability students who are most likely to suffer from learning in heterogeneous ability groups, in fact, research has shown that it is the average-ability students who may suffer most from such an approach (Saleh et al., 2005 and Webb, 1991), which is of particular concern when we consider that average-ability students typically account for 50% of the class (Webb, 1991). There are three broad levels of ability amongst students - high, average and low. When all three levels of ability are present in a group, this tends to promote interaction between the high and low-ability students, with high-ability students adopting a teacher role and providing explanations to their low-ability peers. This interaction strengthens the knowledge base for low-ability students, but in the process excludes those average-ability students, whilst high-ability students tend to acquire knowledge at the same rate regardless of group ability (Lou et al., 1996 and Saleh et al., 2005). This does not mean that heterogeneous grouping should be abandoned, rather, there are ways in which this peer tutoring can be incorporated into group discussion through teacher facilitation.
Saleh, Lazonder and de Jong (2007) suggest the best way to ensure that average-ability students benefit from heterogeneous group discussions is to raise their awareness of how to give and receive help and explanations, thus prompting a peer-tutor relationship whether they are with high or low ability peers. Various techniques have been outlined to support this process, including the importance of asking precise and thought-provoking questions (King, 1998), and providing explanations in a timely manner which elaborate and respond to the needs of the student (Webb, Troper, and Falls, 1995).
Saleh, Lazonder and de Jong’s study (2011) of 164 school children in Kuwait employed structured methods to support a peer-tutor relationship in the form of ground rules for helping behaviour. Children were given cue cards which either prompted them to recognise when they needed help or advised them how to provide help, by giving them examples of questions to use in order to satisfy their own or others’ learning needs, such as “What does… mean?” or “Always try to help a student who asks for help”, respectively. Pupils were given relevant cue cards depending on their ability, with average-ability students encouraged to ask questions. The results revealed that, when compared with an unstructured control group, these average-ability pupils made significantly more contributions when in structured lessons, voicing more statements, arguments and questions, and perhaps more importantly, they also demonstrated higher tests scores following the lessons. This study highlights the benefits of encouraging a peer-tutor relationship within the learning environment, ensuring that the majority of the class are progressing in their learning regardless of the ability-mix within their discussion groups.
References King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (1), 57–74. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulson, C., Chambers, B. & ’d Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458. Saleh, M. Lazonder, A. W. De Jong, T. (2005). Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement and motivation. Instructional Science, 33, 105–119.
Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W. & de Jong, T. (2007). Structuring collaboration in mixed-ability groups to promote verbal interaction, learning, and motivation of average-ability students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 314-331.
Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366–389. Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D. & Falls, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not low-ability students who are most likely to suffer from learning in heterogeneous ability groups, in fact, research has shown that it is the average-ability students who may suffer most from such an approach (Saleh et al., 2005 and Webb, 1991), which is of particular concern when we consider that average-ability students typically account for 50% of the class (Webb, 1991). There are three broad levels of ability amongst students - high, average and low. When all three levels of ability are present in a group, this tends to promote interaction between the high and low-ability students, with high-ability students adopting a teacher role and providing explanations to their low-ability peers. This interaction strengthens the knowledge base for low-ability students, but in the process excludes those average-ability students, whilst high-ability students tend to acquire knowledge at the same rate regardless of group ability (Lou et al., 1996 and Saleh et al., 2005). This does not mean that heterogeneous grouping should be abandoned, rather, there are ways in which this peer tutoring can be incorporated into group discussion through teacher facilitation.
Saleh, Lazonder and de Jong (2007) suggest the best way to ensure that average-ability students benefit from heterogeneous group discussions is to raise their awareness of how to give and receive help and explanations, thus prompting a peer-tutor relationship whether they are with high or low ability peers. Various techniques have been outlined to support this process, including the importance of asking precise and thought-provoking questions (King, 1998), and providing explanations in a timely manner which elaborate and respond to the needs of the student (Webb, Troper, and Falls, 1995).
Saleh, Lazonder and de Jong’s study (2011) of 164 school children in Kuwait employed structured methods to support a peer-tutor relationship in the form of ground rules for helping behaviour. Children were given cue cards which either prompted them to recognise when they needed help or advised them how to provide help, by giving them examples of questions to use in order to satisfy their own or others’ learning needs, such as “What does… mean?” or “Always try to help a student who asks for help”, respectively. Pupils were given relevant cue cards depending on their ability, with average-ability students encouraged to ask questions. The results revealed that, when compared with an unstructured control group, these average-ability pupils made significantly more contributions when in structured lessons, voicing more statements, arguments and questions, and perhaps more importantly, they also demonstrated higher tests scores following the lessons. This study highlights the benefits of encouraging a peer-tutor relationship within the learning environment, ensuring that the majority of the class are progressing in their learning regardless of the ability-mix within their discussion groups.
References
King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (1), 57–74.
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulson, C., Chambers, B. & ’d Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.
Saleh, M. Lazonder, A. W. De Jong, T. (2005). Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement and motivation. Instructional Science, 33, 105–119.
Saleh, M., Lazonder, A. W. & de Jong, T. (2007). Structuring collaboration in mixed-ability groups to promote verbal interaction, learning, and motivation of average-ability students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 314-331.
Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366–389.Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D. & Falls, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406–423.