4
The saying. "He who teaches others. leaches himself ," is very true, nol only because constant repetition im· presses u foct indelibly on the mind. but because the pro - cess or teaching in itsclr gives deeper insight into the subject laugh! . . . John Amos Comcnlus. The Great Didac t1 c. circa 1630 The concept of one student teaching another is not new. Mutual instruction was practiced in first- century Rome. and has existed since ancient times in Hindu schools. It was a formal teaching technique in sixteenth-century Silesia and Spain and in seven- teenth-century France. In the late eighteenth century there began an educational revolution in England called the "monitorial system" which retained its popularity and influence there and elsewhere for three decades. In nineteenth-century New England there was a serious shortage of schoolteachers; William Bentley Fowle experimented with the mono- torial system in his search for a solution to the problem.' Fowle was quick to perceive the more important advantages of student teaching student. In a lecture in 1846 he pointed out that the system had benefits fort he students themselve~he deepening of know- ledge gained by the experience of imparting it, the sense of responsibility developed by assuming roles of teacher and learner in turn. Out of practical need, the practice of student teaching student was widespread in nineteenth- and twentieth-century American one-room schools. But the concept of its validity as an instructional strategy for the tutor's learning was lost as a result of its exploitation as a needed managerial strategy for the learner's benefit. Although the idea of learning by teaching fell into disuse over the years, it was not forgotten, Jerrold R. Zacharias, in a talk given at the White House Conference on Education in 1965, said: 8 Peer-Tutoring: A Rationale Janet Callender, Antonette Port and Gerald Dykstra ... I do not know what the limits arc to . . bringing to · gclhcr youngsters in such a way that we are not quite s ure which group constitute s the learners and which group the teachers ... Teaching is somehow required or almost everyone . c-ortuinly or mothers and fathers. or late several psycho- logists hove discovered the wonderful age of learning in the years 3 lo 6. Presently they will discover the egc from O lo 3, and there will be a lot of talk about infant schools, infant learning, and infant teaching. And who is going to do this teaching? Mothers for sure; fathers too, I hope. Not all or these will hove attended colleges. So I think we should apply tho system of loaming by teaching to the high school students es teachers. And why slop here? We can also got some mileage out or students being the same age es their pupils. This is especially valuable in the communication arts of speak- ing, Jislcning, reading. and writing. We need a bold plan lo promote pen pals, typing pals, and tape pals who will write to each other. help each other, correct each other. 2 In 1958-59 a study of "differentiated instruction" was carried out in Dedham, Massachusetts. In a report on the study, Donald T. Durrell commented that "Children prefer to work in pairs and small groups in contrast to whole class study or to work- ing alone. " 3 Since then several projects have demonstrated the potential of the peer-tutoring concept. Among these is Mobilization for Youth, which in 1963 in- stituted a program wherein culturally disadvantaged high school students were trained to tutor low- achieving pupils: 1 It resulted in significant gains in reading skill for both learners and tutors. At the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, in an investigation of relationships be- tween children four to fourteen years of age. it was found that pupil interaction results in, among other things, greatly increased motivation of both student and "teacher" to learn. 5 In one California school sixth-grade children, among them "problem chil- dren" and backward learners, showed remarkable improvement in behavior and attitude toward learn- ing while effectively tutoring first-graders. 6

Peer-Tutoring: A Rationale€¦ · Peer-Tutoring: A Rationale Janet Callender, Antonette Port and Gerald Dykstra ... I do not know what the limits arc to . . bringing to· gclhcr

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    15

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Peer-Tutoring: A Rationale€¦ · Peer-Tutoring: A Rationale Janet Callender, Antonette Port and Gerald Dykstra ... I do not know what the limits arc to . . bringing to· gclhcr

The saying. "He who teaches others. leaches himself," is very true, nol only because constant repetition im· presses u foct indelibly on the mind. but because the pro­cess or teaching in itsclr gives deeper insight into the subject laugh! . . .

John Amos Comcnlus. The Great Didact1c. circa 1630

The concept of one student teaching another is not new. Mutual instruction was practiced in first­century Rome. and has existed since ancient times in Hindu schools. It was a formal teaching technique in sixteenth-century Silesia and Spain and in seven­teenth-century France. In the late eighteenth century there began an educational revolution in England called the "monitorial system" which retained its popularity and influence there and elsewhere for three decades . In nineteenth-century New England there was a serious shortage of schoolteachers; William Bentley Fowle experimented with the mono­torial system in his search for a solution to the problem.'

Fowle was quick to perceive the more important advantages of student teaching student. In a lecture in 1846 he pointed out that the system had benefits fort he students themselve~he deepening of know­ledge gained by the experience of imparting it, the sense of responsibility developed by assuming roles of teacher and learner in turn.

Out of practical need, the practice of student teaching student was widespread in nineteenth- and twentieth-century American one-room schools. But the concept of its validity as an instructional strategy for the tutor's learning was lost as a result of its exploitation as a needed managerial strategy for the learner's benefit.

Although the idea of learning by teaching fell into disuse over the years, it was not forgotten, Jerrold R. Zacharias, in a talk given at the White House Conference on Education in 1965, said:

8

Peer-Tutoring: A Rationale

Janet Callender, Antonette Port and Gerald Dykstra

... I do not know what the limits arc to . . bringing to · gclhcr youngsters in such a way that we are not quite sure which group constitutes the learners and which group the teachers . . .

Teaching is somehow required or almost everyone. c-ortuinly or mothers and fathers. or late several psycho­logists hove discovered the wonderful age of learning in the years 3 lo 6 . Presently they will discover the egc from O lo 3, and there will be a lot of talk about infant schools, infant learning, and infant teaching. And who is going to do this teaching? Mothers for sure; fathers too, I hope. Not all or these will hove attended colleges. So I think we should apply tho system of loaming by teaching to the high school students es teachers.

And why slop here? We can also got some mileage out or students being the same age es their pupils. This is especially valuable in the communication arts of speak­ing, Jislcning, reading. and writing. We need a bold plan lo promote pen pals, typing pals, and tape pals who will write to each other. help each other, correct each other. 2

In 1958-59 a study of "differentiated instruction" was carried out in Dedham, Massachusetts. In a report on the study, Donald T. Durrell commented that "Children prefer to work in pairs and small groups in contrast to whole class study or to work-ing alone. " 3

Since then several projects have demonstrated the potential of the peer-tutoring concept. Among these is Mobilization for Youth , which in 1963 in­stituted a program wherein culturally disadvantaged high school students were trained to tutor low­achieving pupils:1 It resulted in significant gains in reading skill for both learners and tutors. At the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, in an investigation of relationships be­tween children four to fourteen years of age. it was found that pupil interaction results in, among other things, greatly increased motivation of both student and "teacher" to learn.5 In one California school sixth-grade children, among them "problem chil­dren" and backward learners, showed remarkable improvement in behavior and attitude toward learn­ing while effectively tutoring first-graders.6

Page 2: Peer-Tutoring: A Rationale€¦ · Peer-Tutoring: A Rationale Janet Callender, Antonette Port and Gerald Dykstra ... I do not know what the limits arc to . . bringing to· gclhcr

The Hawaii Curriculum Center is actively engaged in exploring ways to best develop, within its curri­culum framework of individualized instruction. the opportunities offered by peer-teaching. At nearly any time during class hours a dyad can be seen at one or more locations about the classroom. One dyad might be composed of a second-grader tutoring a kindergarten child; just as probably, two first-graders might be working together. A child taking the learner's role at one time will later be seen tutoring another.

The rationale at this time for developing the potential of peer-teaching includes the long-held assumption mentioned above-that there is no more thorough learning than that gained by communicat­ing knowledge or ability to another. It is significant that our folk wisdom includes in substance the thought "If you want to learn something, leach it." Zacharias reminds us that many physicists discover they have really understood the second law of ther­modynamics only after they have taught it to some­one else. Cloward found that although fourth- and fifth-grade students profited from being instructed by their peers. I he major impact of I he t uto ri a I experience was received by their tenth- and eleventh-grade tutors. among whom were many slow learners.

Also among the reasons for developing the poten­tial of peer-teaching al this lime is the mounting evidence that successful communicating of know­ledge can. in addition lo reinforcing and deepening learning, be a means of increasing the child's con­fidence and self-respect, and of reforming negative attitudes he mav have toward school and teachers. making school and learning more acceptable and desirable. The importance of this area is stressed in the recent Coleman studv.7

Still further reason for developing the potential of peer-teaching is seen in its relevance to language communication skills. It seems especially appropri­ate in a language skills program that there be daily opportunity to make functionul use of whatever has been learned about language communication skills, whether in the designed program or incidentally. There should be a constant return to a real world. wherein conditions are not as contrived and con­trolled as in the workbook, vet where the task is clearlv defined and the criterion for task accomp­lishm~nt is reasonably visible as well as attainable. The task is to communicate, as specified. linguistic ability or skill or knowledge to another person. The

learner's accomplishment can be readily seen. The tutor in these instances has a communicating job to do in a "real world" situation where the detail of non-predictable feedback plays an important role. This gives the language program unique and centrally important laboratory opportunities for purposeful and constant application of "school learning.''

In separate consideration. we must not overlook the learner. Our cultural heritage indicates in many ways the general belief in the superiority of individ­ual attention over grouping on the learning process. It is found in the educator's folk wisdom. as epitom­ized in the representation of Mark Hopkins on one end of the bench and the student on the other. It is abundantly found in the admonitions of generations of educators and philosophers. And it is again found more recently in our research studies. Foshay. com­missioned by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development to determine the best teacher-student ratio. determined in favor of a one­to-one ratio. Anderson of Harvard. taking into ac­count the politics and economics of the problem. found that a one-to-five ratio was next best and a one-lo-twelve ratio was a third best alternative. Be­yond that, ratio was not a significant factor whether. presumably, one-to-twenty or one-to-fifty.

When new learnings are to be presented, the prob­lem of the "match between the circumstances that a child encounters and the schemata that he has al­ready assimilated" localizes the point at which sig­nificant new learning can take place. One person

9

Page 3: Peer-Tutoring: A Rationale€¦ · Peer-Tutoring: A Rationale Janet Callender, Antonette Port and Gerald Dykstra ... I do not know what the limits arc to . . bringing to· gclhcr

rPcciving feedback from the learner is more likely lo 1.ero in on the "match" than one person receiving feedback from twenty or thirt y. or even as few as ten lt>anwrs. Usuall y the presentation of new learning to a group will be either above or below the level at which individual learners can function efficiently. On the other hand, the learning situation usually progresses well with personal intcrat tion in which an indi vidual receives feedback from another in­dividual on a one-to-one basis, at least where goals with small intervals arc clearly delineated.

Finally. the area of management strategy may be considered in our statement of rat ion ale for develop­ment of peer-teac.hing. The classroom ordinarily has a teacher. The teacher's role becomes more prof es­sional as the emphasis on individualization goes up. In a professionalized classroom with a high degree of emphasis on individualization , there may be teachers' aides, parents, interns. student teachers. older children and also peer tutor~ who fulfill some of the functions that the teacher might once have fulfilled. Peer-teaching. therefore, may also fulfill a learning management function.

10

Although it has been ascertained that kindergarten, first- and second-grade tutors do increase their own knowledge and ability by tutoring. much remains to be discovered about the nature of peer-teaching and the means of producing the best results in this re­opening field.9 One area being explored is that of the function of dyads in the framework of the curri­culum. l)o some components of language arts pro· grams lend themselves more readily than others to peer-teaching'? Another area currently being ex­amined is that of the triad. Will it be advantageous and practical to make a third child available to check the achievement of the learner, and to "consult" with the tutor'?10

Another area requiring study is that of tutor train­ing. It has been suggested that brief instructions to the tutor make for more effective tutoring and a harmonious relationship between tutor and learner.11

What kind and how much tutor training will be most efficacious and for what purposes with what type of support materials? What is the relevance of moti­vation? Is the satisfaction the child derives from tutoring in itself sufficien!'f It is probable that dif­ferent children are motivated in different ways.

Page 4: Peer-Tutoring: A Rationale€¦ · Peer-Tutoring: A Rationale Janet Callender, Antonette Port and Gerald Dykstra ... I do not know what the limits arc to . . bringing to· gclhcr

Conclusion Only a few of the possible areas for research have

been men! ioned here. In I he role of manager I he teacher will be in the most advantageous position to gather data on dyadic activity. He will be able to fulfill the role of scholar by making purposeful ob­servation of the dyadic activity continually going on in the classroom. In the role of counselor the teacher will become more skillful in guiding students along their self-paced route of learning and learning by tutoring.

The results of experimentation to date have been most heartening; successful dyadic communication has been observed, and dyadic learning has more than fulfilled expectations. With the cooperation of teache rs in the Laboratorv School. Field Schools and Pilot Schools , the Hawaii Curriculum Center will continue with experimentation in this field, for there is every reason to believe that, despite the great progress and promise, only surface phenomena have been observed-that most of the area of research in peer-teaching remains to be conceived and that the potential practical application of research find ­ings and theory is unlimited.

Footnotes 1. Wright, Benjamin. "Should Children Tcad1?" The £Jc.

rnenlol)" School Journal, 1960. LX. 1. 35 J . JS7 2. "Learning by Teaching." ES/ Quarterly Ri·porl . 1960,

Spring/Summer. 5-B. J . Durrell. Donald D. "Adapt ing Instruction lo thc Learning

Needs of Children in the Intermediate Grades: A Sum­mary." Boston Univcrsil)' Journal of Educolion, 1059, CXLII. 2. 2.

4. Cloward. Roherl D. "Studies in Tutoring." The Journal of Experimental Education, 1967, XXXVI, 1.

5. Lippill. Peggy and John E. Lohman. ··cro!>)-Agc Rclalion­ships-An Education Resource." Children, l!l65, XII, 3,7 113·117.

6. U.S. Office of Educnlion. "Pinl-Si:r.e Tutors Ll!Brn b\' Tent.h­ing." Am,:rican Educolion, 1!)67, April. 20 and 29·30.

7. Colemon, Jomes S. In Equo/ily of Educolionol Opporlun1I)' (Washington, D.C.J Coleman shows a high r.orrclotion between students· ocodemic accomplishment ond ol­titudes, sclr-concept, sense or control over own fale, interest in school. etc.

8. Hunt, J. McV. Intelligence and Experience. New Yorl. Ronald Press. 1961. 267-288.

9 . Owens . Thomas. "A Preliminary Study of Cognitive Effects of Peer-Teaching Upon the Tulor in on Individ· uolized Program in Language Skills." Unpublished re­port for HCC. May, 1969.

10. D, kstra, Gerald. Anloncltc Port nnd Richard l'orl. "Dyads. Triads-Why'!" Unpublis lwd rnporl for HCC, April. 191i7.

11 . Porl. Anlnncltc oncl Richard l'orl. ·· ,\ Brief Summon· of" the Initial Trial Plrnse of Dvads und Trilllls, Mardi lo June. 1!lll7." Unpublished re iiort fo r IICC.

Gcrold D.,·kstro is Prof11ssor of Speech-Communication, Uni­' ersitr of Hawaii. Dr. Dykstra hos sen •ed as Chief Consullonl lo the English Project staff members in the development of on fndi\'iduolized Language Skills Curriculum. HI' n·us for1111•rl)· Director of a U.S. Office of Education proj,•ct in /onguogi• malt•riols dm dopmcnt jointly co-sponsored by the Council for Public Srhools and Tnochers College, Columbia Unfrersily . I\ here he served as Profnssor of Linguistics for 12 years.

Janel Calfoncfor is lnstruclor, English Language lnslilulo. Uni­versily of Hawaii. Receiving her B.A. In L,lflralure from lhe lnlcrno!ional Universil}' of the Sacred Hearl. Tokyo, and her M.A. in Teaching English as a Second Language from the Universi!)' of Hnwaii. Miss Callender hos laugh! English as a Foreign Language of various univers ities in Japan. among them Woseda, Yokohama Nalionol and Scijo Gukaen.

Anlonel!e Porl 1s Curriculum Speciolisl, Curriculum D11vel· opmenl and Techmqucs Branch. Dcporlmenl of Edacalion, Slate of Hawaii. Receiving her B.A. from Boston College and M.A. from Teachers College, Columbia Unh•erisl}', Miss Port hos taught al the rnrly primary, secondary and aniversily levels in tl1e Uniled Slates, Ghana and Nigcno. She hos olso served as Consultant and Teacher Trainer for the Peace Corps in se,•erol California school districts.

11