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

Student Feedback – “About Me”

Student Feedback – “About the programme”

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.