Long Term Peer Tutoring
Background
• How many times have you paired a students of disparate ability levels?
• How many times has it really worked?
• How many times have you told parents that is how you differentiate for their child?
• What was their response?
Barriers to effective peer mentoring
• Lack of confidence
• Hostility
• Pride
• Communication skills
• Learning styles
• I don’t want to ask for help or correct someone else.
• I don’t need help from someone else/why should I help another person, I don’t even like them.
• I can do this on my own.
• I don’t understand what they are telling me/ I am not sure how to explain it.
• I don’t remember this kind of stuff/ I need time to take it in before I understand it.
Idea – Corporate identity
• Mixed ability groups.
• Members of group are expected to support each other.
• Responsibility is shared.
• Works best for a sustained piece of individual work.
• Builds personal responsibility and interdependence.
• Method works best if sustained for several lessons.
What, Who and Why?
• Selected 6 students to take part
• Total of three working pairs.
• Duration – 1 term.
• Mobile seating plan for these students to build up peer relations.
What, Who and Why? Mentors
O. & J. – both boys have high target grades but show little enthusiasm or effort. Both are below target.
Aim – role of mentor will aid to engage them both and develop their own understanding as well as helping other students.
P. – high achieving girl and on target.
What, Who and Why? Mentees
I. – severely under target, makes minimal effort, disengaged in class.
M. – hard working but struggles with understanding concepts and applying to questions
B. – very quiet and lacks confidence in the subject. A black box student.
Method:
• Allow students to have mobile seating arrangements – they must sit in
mentor/mentee pairs and do all group work in those pairs.
• Mentors given photocopies of book pages in advance. Less hwk given as
they are expected to pre-read and highlight prior to lessons.
• Mentors encouraged to challenge mentees rather than be an
“intellectual crutch”.
• Duration – 1 term
Results:
• Actual results hard to compare. Students studied chemistry prior to
programme and physics during the programme.
• Comparison of end of topic grades was mixed with no clear trend.
Topic P O J M B I
AP2 (before) A1 B3 B2 C2 C2 D2
PPE MOCK RESULTS (during)
B3 B1 B2 C2 C2 C3
Conclusions/Future trials:
• Underachieving mentors seemed highly motivated by position of
responsibility and their engagement peaked.
• Most mentees seemed to benefit from the experience.
• Despite feedback, I believe mentors would benefit from some initial coaching.
• High achieving mentor seemed to switch off – “more of the same” syndrome?
• Repeat across different ability groups – is it more effective in high or low sets?
• Maintain duration of 1 term.
Method summary:
• Total of three working pairs.
• Select 6 underachieving students to take part (3 high/3 low target grades).
• Work together for one term only.
• Mobile seating plan for these students – mentors are encouraged to move
around every so often. Seat collective group together if possible.
• Provide initial mentor training to help mentors understand how to
encourage and challenge their mentee.