JOPERD 43

The number of students with disabilities attending our nation’s public school system has grown considerably over the past decade (Snyder & Dillow, 2011). Hence, more and more students with disabilities continue to be included in general education classes alongside peers

without disabilities (Kitmitto, 2011; Place & Hodge, 2001). Inclu-sion is the idea that all students, with and without disabilities, should be educated within the same environment while meeting each child’s educational and social needs (Block, 2007). Inclusion requires more than simply placing the child with a disability in the general educa-tion class; one must provide the necessary supports according to the child’s needs for an adequate educational experience.

Teachers, including general physical education (GPE) teachers, must develop ways to meet the demands of the diversity that re-sults from today’s inclusive environments. In order to address the increased challenge of meeting the individual needs in GPE, teach-ers must be able to employ strategies that can facilitate effective instruction of students of all abilities (Tripp, Rizzo, & Webbert, 2007; Webb, Webb, & Fults-McMurtery, 2011). In the past, many children with disabilities have been provided with a personal para-educator. In today’s economy many of these professionals are no longer part of the educational team or are spread thin between several children. Various types of peer-assisted learning methods, such as collaborative learning and peer tutoring, have emerged as alternative teaching approaches to include students with disabilities in general education and GPE settings (Block, 2007; Hodge, Lieber-man, & Murata, 2012; Lieberman, & Houston-Wilson, 2009). Peer tutoring is considered the most widely known peer-assisted learn-ing method in which specific role-taking is used; one peer takes on the role of tutor, and the other is the tutee (d’Arripe-Longueville, Gernigon, Huet, Cadopi, & Winnykamen, 2002; Heron, Villareal, & Yao, 2006).

In addition to concerns about proper inclusion, GPE teach-ers and schools face a number of challenges such as standardized

scores, budgetary reductions, larger class sizes, and inadequate training, among others (Decorby, Halas, Dixon, Wintrup, & Jan-zen, 2005; Hennessy, 2005). The cost-effectiveness of various in-structional strategies, along with the ever-growing importance of student-centered learning, has fueled an interest in peer-assisted learning, especially peer-tutoring in GPE and sport (Johnson & Ward, 2001; Klavina & Block, 2008; Lee & Ward, 2002; Ward & Ayvazo, 2006). Peer tutoring is essentially free, and when imple-mented correctly it is a win-win teaching approach. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to discuss the effectiveness of peer tutoring as a strategy for inclusively teaching students with disabilities in GPE. In addition, considerations for planning and implementation of a peer-tutoring program in the GPE class are discussed.

Types of Peer TutoringUnidirectional (One-on-One) Peer Tutoring. Most published work on peer tutoring has examined a unidirectional type of peer-tutor-ing method (e.g., Houston-Wilson, Dunn, van der Mars, & McCub-bin, 1997; Lieberman, Dunn, van der Mars, & McCubbin, 2000; Wiskochil, Lieberman, Houston-Wilson, Petersen, 2007). One-on-one peer tutoring occurs when only one student is trained to serve as peer tutor to a student with disability (Temple & Lynnes, 2008; Block, 2007). Utilizing the unidirectional type of tutoring in GPE allows a student with disability to receive additional support and attention from a student without disabilities. An advantage to using

Meeting the Demands of Inclusion in Physical Education Today

Peer TuToring

Carlos M. Cervantes

lauren J. lieberMan

betsy Magnesio

Julie Wood

Both tutor and tutee benefit from this partnership.

Carlos M. Cervantes (cmcervantes@htu.edu) is chair of the Kinesiology De-partment at Huston-Tillotson University, in Austin, TX. Lauren J. Lieberman (llieberm@brockport.edu) is a professor in the Department of Kinesiology, Sport Studies, and Physical Education at The College at Brockport, State University of New York, in Brockport, NY. Betsy Magnesio and Julie Wood are former graduate students in the Department of Health and Human Per-formance at Texas State University–San Marcos, in San Marcos, TX.

unidirectional peer tutoring is that both students know their role (Lieberman, 2006).

Reciprocal Peer Tutoring (RPT). Often called bidirectional, this type of peer tutoring involves two or more students who are grouped together, preferably in a pair consisting of a student with and one without disability (Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 2009; Utley & Mortweet, 1997). It follows a structured format in which each student in the pair monitors and evaluates the other, which provides a sense of equal status among participants. That is, the student with a disability has the opportunity to be tutor and tutee, exchanging roles with the peer without disability for each practiced skill or academic unit (Fantuzzo, King, & Heller, 1992; Lieberman & Houston-Wilson). Often, RPT works best with students who have mild-to-moderate disabilities and who are able to work and/or follow instructions with minimal assistance.

Cross-Age Peer Tutoring. Cross-age peer tutoring involves an older student tutoring a younger student (Temple & Lynnes, 2008). For instance, in GPE, an older student would come into the class to help a particular student with disabilities. This model is particularly popular because it allows peers to tutor and gain credit for com-munity service hours (Block, 2007). A benefit to using cross-age peer tutoring is that the older tutor is typically more experienced, reliable, and responsible than same-age peers (Block, 2007; Gumpel & Frank, 1999; Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 2009). With the cross-age tutor, the younger tutee might behave and perform better than with a same-age peer. This type of tutoring, though, could be difficult to implement due to an older student having to come from other classes or campuses (Block, 2007).

Class-Wide Peer Tutoring. Class-wide peer tutoring (CWPT) has been shown to be an innovative way to maximize classroom resources and promote a more effective and dynamic experience for all students (Johnson & Ward, 2001). It is a bidirectional tech-nique that breaks the entire class into pairs or small groups of four to six students (Temple & Lynnes, 2008; Ward & Ayvazo, 2006). As the tutee performs each task, the tutor provides feedback and records the number of correct per-formances (Block, 2007; Ward & Ayvazo, 2006). Each student in the pair or group is involved in the re-ciprocal roles of tutor and tutee. This strategy provides a way for all students to be partnered with one another. Instruction is not assigned, and students are able to switch from one partner to the next, or the whole class can be cued to support students needing extra assistance, at any time throughout the lesson. It is suggested that CWPT is most successful when a differentiated instructional approach is used instead of assuming that all students are capable of perform-ing the same task (Ward & Ayvazo, 2006). With such an approach, tutors and tutees could move from a low-level task to a more advanced task as they improved. Class-wide peer tutoring allows more practice time and increased opportunities to per-form desired skills accurately, there-fore promoting the success of CWPT as an inclusive strategy. Class-wide

peer tutoring can potentially solve the challenges of inclusion and heterogeneous grouping of students (Block, Oberweiser, & Bain, 1995; Ward & Ayvazo, 2006).

Effects of Peer TutoringThere is evidence to support the benefits of peer tutoring in GPE for students with and without disabilities. Such benefits include in-creased academic learning time in physical education (ALT-PE; De-Paepe, 1985; Klavina & Block, 2008; Webster, 1987; Wiskochil et al., 2007), increased moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [MVPA] levels (Lieberman et al., 2000; Temple & Stanish, 2011), enhanced motor performance (Ayvazo & Ward, 2009; Ward & Ayvazo, 2006; Houston-Wilson et al., 1997; Johnson & Ward, 2001), improved social interaction and social skills development (Block et al., 1995; Klavina, 2011; Temple & Stanish); and motivation, self-efficacy and performance (d’Arripe-Longueville et al., 2002; Ensergueix & La-font, 2010; Legrain, d’Arripe-Longueville, & Gernigon, 2003).

Designing and Implementing Peer Tutoring in GPEBefore implementing a peer-tutoring program, goals and objec-tives should be determined. It is important that the peer-tutoring program goals are consistent with the individualized education program (IEP) goals and objectives of the student with disabil-ity (Block, 2007). Once goals and objectives are established, the GPE teacher should develop a peer-tutor training program. Re-gardless of the peer-tutoring method to be used (unidirectional, RPT, CWPT, or cross-age), there are some general steps to fol-low for proper implementation. Lieberman and Houston-Wil-son (2009) suggest that GPE teachers start out small—moving from simple to complex when implementing peer tutoring. Se-lect a small group of students or a single class to pilot the pro-gram (Houston-Wilson, Lieberman, Horton, & Kasser, 1997).

In cross-age peer tutoring, an older peer without disability tutors a younger student with a disability.

44 VOlumE 84 NumbER 3 maRch 2013

JOPERD 45

Table 1. Ten Steps for Training and Implementing Peer Tutors

Steps What to Do When to Do ItBefore Training1. Obtain permission from parents of

tutor and tutee as well as from the administration.

Permission should be received from parents and administration before starting the program.

Preferably at the beginning of the school year

2. Develop an application procedure. Create an application and give it to eligible students. Only accept students who want to be tutors and who show characteristics of a good tutor. Peer tutoring is a privilege and an honor.

Preferably at the beginning of the chool year

Peer-Tutor Training3. Conduct disability

awareness activities.The training should include different types of disability awareness to ensure that the peer tutor understands the disability. Be sure to include the child with disability in all of the training if possible.

This should be done at the beginning of the peer-tutor training program.

4. Develop communication techniques. Communication during a lesson or activity is extremely important. Terminology as well as how to communicate (e.g., using sign language, PECS communication symbols, an iPad) should be taught during the training.

This should be taught during the peer-tutor training program, and it is disability specific.

5. Teach instructional techniques. Techniques such as explanation, demonstration, and physical assistance should be taught, as well as positive general, positive specific, and corrective feedback and when to use each.

This should be embedded in the peer-tutor training and should be practiced in scenarios of upcoming lessons. Again, this would be realistic if the child with disability were in the training.

6. Use scenarios. Utilize upcoming units of instruction as well as real life examples: You are tutoring for a swimming unit, and your student shows signs of a seizure. What will you do? You are teaching volleyball, and your student uses a wheelchair. What modifications will you make?

These scenarios should be embedded throughout the lesson.

7. Use behavior management programs (if necessary).

If a student requires behavior management, then it is important to teach the techniques that work for that child to the peer tutor.

Embed these techniques throughout the training.

8. Test for understanding. Give each peer tutor a test on what you taught and ensure that they get a score of at least 90 percent.

This should be done at the end of the training.

Implement Trained Peer Tutors9. Ensure that social interaction is

happening.Use a system to ensure that the children with disabilities are having increased social interactions with their peers.

This should happen as soon as the program is implemented and throughout the program (Klavina, 2011).

10. Monitor progress. Trained peer tutors learn how to be good teachers, just like student teachers. If reciprocal peer tutoring is used, both students should be given feedback.

They should be monitored and given feedback at the beginning of each lesson, but less and less as they become efficient at teaching.

Note: Samples of each step can be found in Lieberman and Houston-Wilson (2009).

46 VOlumE 84 NumbER 3 maRch 2013

Choose age-appropriate skills as well as provide adequate time to practice. Using task cards and data sheets for skill analysis may ben-efit peers without disabilities when in the role of tutor (Houston-Wilson, Dunn et al., 1997; Lieberman & Houston-Wilson). Table 1 summarizes the steps to design and implement a peer-tutoring program that includes training.

Importance of Training and Preparing Peers The training of peer tutors, along with additional support, is critical for the success of this strategy (Block, 2007; Lieberman & Hous-ton-Wilson, 2009; Lieberman, Newcomer, McCubbin, & Dalrym-ple, 1997). Compared to untrained peer tutors, trained peer tutors tend to have greater impact on the motor performance of students with disabilities and may benefit most from the experience (Barron & Foot, 1991; Houston-Wilson, Dunn et al., 1997). Tutors must pay attention to the various demands caused by different compo-nents of the task, including the physical, instructional, and social components (Barron & Foot, 1991). Consequently, inadequately trained tutors may be unable to manipulate the task materials, com-municate the necessary information to execute the task, or success-fully manage personal interactions with the tutee (Lieberman & Houston-Wilson). Untrained peers may do more harm than good related to emotional and physical safety and adequate instruction and feedback. Hence, purposeful peer assignment and careful prep-aration of peer-tutoring materials is critical (Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Berkeley, 2007; McMaster, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2006).

If peers without disabilities serve only in the tutor role, an imbal-ance in the relationship between peers and students with disabilities may be formed (Block, 2007). The imbalanced relationship can lead students serving as tutors to believe that students with disabilities al-ways need help and are inferior to students without disabilities, like themselves (Block, 2007; Sherrill, 2004). These relationships can cause lower self-esteem in students with disabilities. Therefore it is important to train at least three peer tutors per child with disability. Then the peers can rotate and take turns each class. Reciprocal peer tutoring should also be used when possible.

General physical education must create an environment of trust and peer acceptance in which all members of the class are welcomed and valued (Block, 2007; Sherrill, 2004). To do this, they must pre-pare their classes for the inclusion of students with disabilities before the implementation of a peer-learning structure. Disability awareness train-ing, class discussions, role playing, and guest speakers are some strate-gies that GPE teachers may use to educate students without disabilities that their peers with disabilities are different, yet similar to themselves (Block, 2007; Lieberman, & Hous-ton-Wilson, 2009). It is important to keep in mind that there are several ways to set up a peer-tutoring pro-gram within a class. Table 2 presents the pros and cons of each.

The age, experiences, unit of in-struction and attention of the peer tutors need to be considered be-fore the configuration of the class

is determined. It is also important to determine whether CWPT will be used, as this has its own process. So when should the GPE teacher conduct peer-tutor training? The time for training will be based on the teacher’s understanding of the students, the school, and the community. Whatever time in chosen, the child with dis-ability should be included in the training when possible. Among the times the GPE teacher may consider are before school, after school, during part of the physical education class, during study hall, on a superintendent’s day or teacher development day, or during part of recess. In addition, other members of a multidisciplinary team—adapted physical education specialists, paraeducators, special edu-cation teachers, and previous peer tutors who are well respected by peers and younger students—can help set up and implement the training. The GPE teacher does not have to take on the entire re-sponsibility alone and can and should ask for help.

ConclusionIn today’s GPE settings, teachers are responsible for attending to a large number of students at one time. Peer tutoring appears to be a viable option for providing individual support and attention to students with disabilities while maintaining a quality educational experience for peers without disabilities (Block, 2007; Hodge et al., 2012; Lieberman & Houston-Wilson, 2009). Within the peer-tutoring structure, students are able to practice new components of a skill and receive immediate feedback on their performance; both factors are needed for the acquisition and maintenance of new skills (Van Norman, 2007). It is a teacher’s responsibility to provide all students with age-appropriate activities and tasks that will help to promote the development of necessary, functional skills for the future (Block, 2007). However, most students with disabilities are not receiving equal opportunities for physical activity and social inclusion in general physical education classes (Klavina, 2008). For additional information and resources (permission forms, tests, sce-narios, etc.) regarding peer tutoring in GPE, readers are referred to Lieberman and Houston-Wilson’s (2009) textbook. A carefully planned and successfully implemented peer-tutoring program may

A peer tutor works with a fellow student with a disability on dribbling a basketball.

JOPERD 47

help GPE teachers reduce the learning gap between students of varying abilities.

ReferencesAyvazo, S., & Ward, P. (2009). Effects of classwide peer tutoring on the

performance of sixth grade students during a volleyball unit. The Physical Educator, 66(1), 12–22.

Barron, A., & Foot, H. (1991). Peer tutoring and tutor training. Educational Research, 33(3) 174–185.

Block, M. (2007). A teacher’s guide to including students with disabilities in general physical education (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Block, M. E., Oberweiser, B., & Bain, M. (1995). Using class–wide peer tu-toring to facilitate inclusion of students with disabilities in regular physi-cal education. Physical Educator, 52, 47–56.

d’Arripe–Longueville, F., Gernigon, C., Huet, M. L., Cadopi, M., & Win-nykamen, F. (2002). Peer tutoring in a physical education setting: Influ-ence of tutor skill level on novice learners’ motivation and performance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 105–123.

Decorby, K., Halas, J., Dixon, S., Wintrup, L., & Janzen, H. (2005). Class-room teachers and the challenges of delivering quality physical education. The Journal of Education Research, 98(4), 208–220.

DePaepe, J. L. (1985). The influence of three least restrictive environments on the content motor–ALT and performance of moderately mentally re-tarded children. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 34–41.

Ensergueix, P., & Lafont, L. (2010). Reciprocal peer tutoring in a physical education setting: Influence of peer tutor training and gender on motor performance and self–efficacy outcomes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25(2), 222–242.

Fantuzzo, J. W., King, J. A., & Heller, L. R. (1992). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on mathematics and school adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 331–339.

Gumpel, T. P., & Frank, R. (1999). An expansion of peer tutoring paradigm: Cross–age peer tutoring of social skills among socially rejected boys. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 115–118.

Hennessy, B. (2005). Supersizing classes is not healthy. California Asso-ciation for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance Journal, 67(4), 8–11.

Heron, T. E., Villareal, D. M., & Yao, M. (2006). Peer tutoring systems: Ap-plications in classroom and specialized environments. Reading and Writ-ing Quarterly, 22, 27–45.

Hodge, S., Lieberman, L., & Murata, N. (2012). Essentials of teaching physical education: Culture, diversity, and inclusion. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.

Houston–Wilson, C., Dunn, J. M., van der Mars, H., & McCubbin, J. A. (1997). The effect of peer tutors on motor performance in integrated physical education classes. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 14, 298–313.

Houston–Wilson, C., Lieberman, L., Horton, M., & Kasser, S. (1997). Peer tutoring: A plan for instructing students of all abilities. Journal of Physi-cal Education, Recreation & Dance, 68(6), 39–44.

Johnson, M., & Ward, P. (2001). Effects of class–wide peer tutoring on correct performance of striking skills in 3rd grade physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 20, 247–263.

Kitmitto, S. (2011). Measuring Status and Change in NAEP Inclusion Rates of Students with Disabilities: Results 2007–09 (NCES 2011- 457). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Klavina, A. (2008). Using peer–mediated instructions for students with se-vere and multiple disabilities in inclusive physical education: A multiple case study. European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 1(2), 7–19.

Klavina, A. (2011). Development and initial validation of the computerized evaluation protocol of interactions in physical education. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 15, 26–46.

Table 2. Peer-Tutoring Program Options

Set-up Pros ConsOne tutor peer tutors the entire program.

• Consistency with instruction and feedback. • The peer tutor develops a sense of accomplishment and pride in his or her skills. • A bond is created between the tutor and student with disability.

• One student is teaching the whole time. • Does not give more peers a chance to peer tutor and build relationships.

Two to four peers take turns each class for entire class. Teacher sets up a schedule for who will teach when for each quarter.

• More students to take on the responsi-bility and role of peer tutor. • More students to experience the leadership and pride of peer tutoring.

• If a student moves, is sick, or decides he or she does not want to peer tutor for a specific unit, there are other trained peers to take over.

• No real consistency with instruction and feed-back from class to class.

• The time between turns may be a week or two, and relationships may vary from a strong bond to just two children working together.

Two to four peers take turns during one class each activity or every 5-10 minutes. The teacher or a paraeducator must oversee the program to ensure a smooth transition from peer tutor to peer tutor.

• More students to take on the responsi-bility and role of peer tutor. • Each child can still experience physi-cal education without the role of a peer tutor each class. • More students to experience the leadership and pride of peer tutoring.

• If a student moves, is sick, or decides he or she does not want to peer tutor for a specific unit, there are other trained peers to take over.

• No consistency with instruction and feedback during the class.

• May have confusion about whose turn it is to teach what.

• Someone must oversee the times and peer tutor turns and ensure they know what is hap-pening when they start tutoring.

48 VOlumE 84 NumbER 3 maRch 2013

Klavina, A., & Block, M. (2008). The effect of peer tutoring on interac-tion behaviors in inclusive physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 25, 132–158.

Lee, M. A., & Ward, P. (2002). Peer tutoring: Student–centered learning in physical education for the 21st century. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 13(4), 16–17.

Legrain, P., d’Arripe–Longueville, F., & Gernigon, C. (2003). Peer tutoring in a sport setting: Are there any benefits for tutors? The Sport Psycholo-gist, 17, 77–94.

Lieberman, L. J. (2006) Peer tutoring in general physical education. Re-trieved December 12, 2012, from www.ncpad.org/109/846/Peer~Tutoring~in~General~Physical~Education.

Lieberman, L. J., Dunn, J. M., van der Mars, H., & McCubbin, J. (2000). Peer tutors’ effects on activity levels of deaf students in inclusive el-ementary physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17, 20–39.

Lieberman, L.J., & Houston–Wilson, C. (2009). Strategies for inclu-sion: A handbook for physical educators (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Lieberman, L., Newcomer, J., McCubbin, J., & Dalrymple, N. (1997). The effects of cross–aged peer tutors on the academic learning time in physi-cal education of students with disabilities in inclusive elementary physi-cal education classes. Brazilian International Journal of Adapted Physical Education, 4(1), 15–32.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Berkeley, S. L. (2007). Peers helping peers. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 54–58.

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Research on peer–as-sisted learning strategies: The promise and limitations of peer–medi-ated instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 22, 5–25.

Place, K., & Hodge, S. R. (2001). Social inclusion of students with physical disabilities in general physical education: A behavioral analysis. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18, 389–404.

Sherrill, C. (2004). Adapted physical activity, recreation, and sport: Cross-disciplinary and lifespan (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2011). Digest of education statistics 2010 (NCES 2011–015). Washington, DC: National Center for Edu-cation Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Temple, V., & Lynnes, M. (2008). Peer tutoring for inclusion. ACHPER Aus-tralia Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 55(2–3), 11.

Temple, V., & Stanish, H. (2011). The feasibility of using peer–guided model to enhance participation in community–based physical activity for youth with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 15(3), 209–217.

Tripp, A., Rizzo, T., & Webbert, L. (2007). Inclusion in physical educa-tion: Changing the culture. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 78(2), 32–36.

Utley, C. A., & Mortweet, S. L. (1997). Peer–mediated instruction and inter-ventions. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(5), 1–23.

Van Norman, R. K. (2007). Who’s on first? Using sports trivia peer tutoring to increase conversational language. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(2), 88–100.

Ward, P., & Ayvazo, S. (2006). Classwide peer tutoring in physical edu-cation: Assessing its effects with kindergartners with autism. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 23, 233–244.

Webb, D., Webb, T., Fults–McMurtery, R. (2011). Physical educators and school counselors collaborating to foster successful inclusion of students with disabilities. Physical Educator, 68(3), 124–129.

Webster, G. (1987). Influence of peer tutors upon academic learning time-physical education of mentally handicapped students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 6(4), 393–403.

Wiskochil, B., Lieberman, L., Houston–Wilson, C., & Petersen, S. (2007). The effects of trained peer tutors on academic learning time–physical education on four children who are visually impaired or blind. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 101, 339–350. J