Posts
Over at Laura's blog, she has a post up about a tutoring program that she implemented. He recruited the top half of her class to adopt a member of the bottom half of the class to help mentor/tutor them.
When she reviewed the grade sheets, she didn't find much of a benefit, except on tests immediately after she implemented the program.
I left a comment suggesting that she should teach her class instead of having her students do it, but perhaps I am wrong. A quick google showed several studies that has positive effects on student tutors and tutoree's.
Having said that though, I am not convinced. Here are my reservations.
1. If done, are the tutors being specifically trained on how to be effective tutors?
2. Even though the studies I found show increases in the tutors scores, could their scores be improved even more if they were given more instruction.
3. Is tutoring a subconscious effort by teachers to teach to the average?
4. Is it fair to ask other students to be semi-responsible for other students grades?
5. If students were taught to mastery the first time, would peer tutoring even be needed?
6. At what point does peer tutoring become peer teaching?
Having been one of the kids who was asked to provide tutoring during my childhood, I admit I might be prejudiced against the idea. I always resented having to spend time helping kids who didn't put in the effort at home. Yes, some of the kids did put in effort, but just didn't get it. On these kids, sometimes I was able to help, but other times I felt like I was banging my head into a brick wall.
So, what are your thoughts? Do I owe Laura an apology and a cup of coffee?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Speaking as someone who taught high school for 3 years some 40 (yikes) years ago, I agree with the poster that this is a bad idea.
I've read of programs where, say, sixth graders, tutored second graders on reading that worked. In this case, the tutor presumably is so far ahead of the tutee that the positive nature of the one-on-one effect takes over.
In my teaching experience, the kids at the bottom of the class needed intensive help on basic skills that peer tutoring couldn't possibly have addressed.
On the other hand, I think I would have gotten more out of college if I'd participated in study groups.
Some math kids like to tutor and are probably good at it, but I tend to think of teaching as a separate gift. I know many people who are masters at what they do but can't explain it worth a darn.
I don't think you need to apologize because I think if teachers use this strategy they need to think about what's behind it. Also, should the tutors be spending time doing this rather than moving on in their own learning?
I've been on the receiving end of good student tutoring and really bad. Quality control could be a problem.
My latest experience comes from my mathhead 12-year old. He tutored some kids after school when he was 11. He found it fascinating, but I had to constantly remind him to watch for clues of "checking out." I had to explain to him that he had to "find" the kid and what the real problem was behind the inability to understand a problem.
He found this fascinating, but he also couldn't understand why kids couldn't see math the way he did. He would often try to assist a kid by using some similar, convoluted mathematical analogy which probably made the poor thing want to run screaming from the room.
Finding the gap and attending to that was what I advised him to do, but it was hard for him. He wanted to do more.
Although, I think it was good learning experience, without me weighing in I imagine he would have created a few more math- haters.
All of your reservations are extremely important and valid.
The problem is that I find peer tutoring being forced on students. It's not optional and it's not after-school. Schools like it because it fits in with the idea of full-inclusion. It's a way to justify full-inclusion. The goal is to get the more able kids to understand and respect the less able ones. Perhaps this is a nice goal, but is this the most effective way to teach kids who didn't understand it the first time? Are you doing more harm than good?
My son just absorbs information and skills. He probably doesn't know how or why. I suspect he would be an awful teacher. How could he be better than a teacher who (supposedly) learned many different methods.
I like optional, after-school tutoring a lot. That is not what is happening in schools.
I remember seeing a lot of that kind of research a few years ago; I'll see if I can dig it back up.
In the meantime, I believe that the positive effect is limited to the tutee. The tutor does not benefit from the arrangement.
Just thinking about it, you'd think that, logically speaking, the tutor might benefit if they are a little shaky in their own understanding of a concept as talking it through helps to crystalize your own thought processes. However, you'd have to be really careful here, the tutor would have to be only a little shaky, not outright confused. Also, the tutor should not be really solid either, or they get no benefit.
The research was used in our school district to implement heterogeneous classrooms on the theory that it helps the lowest performers. But really, it doesn't help the top kids at all. Clustering, small class sizes, and qualified TAs probably have a more positive benefit for all kids.
He found this fascinating, but he also couldn't understand why kids couldn't see math the way he did.
Interesting.
He's too far ahead.
I've heard of fantastic "kid tutors." Given what you're reporting, I bet they weren't gifted, but were fast learners.
Their knowledge of math is solid, but it's not so "different" from a slower learner's knowledge of math.
(Possibly.)
I was a gifted student who also was a good teacher, so my abilities were often used and abused by my teachers.
From my experiences, I see many probablems with this situation:
The tutor:
1. May get a superiority complex.
2. May lose respect for the teacher, since he/she is doing the teacher's job.
3. May get harrassed, bullied, or teased outside of class by the lower performing students
4. May tease or "lord over" the tutee
5. May feel "put upon" and desire to use free time to read or work ahead instead
6. May become frustrated with the school system and wish they could just be accelerated rather than held back as a tutor
7. May not know how to teach or be lazy, and thus give answers rather than help
8. May not understand the distinction between tutoring/helping and cheating.
9. May feel unreasonably and unfairly responsible for the performance of the tutee.
The Tutee:
1. May get an inferiority complex
2. May lose respect for the teacher because another 12 year old evidently can perform this job
3. May harrass, bully, or tease the higher performing student outside of class
4. May be teased or "lorded over" by the tutor
5. May feel stupid because it is pointed out daily that at least half of the class "gets it" when he/she doesn't
6. May become manipulative, lazy or dependent on the tutor for the answers
7. May not understand the distinction between tutoring/helping and cheating.
The Teacher:
1. May lose the respect of both tutors and tutees.
2. May stop looking for ways to challenge early finishers/top performers because they can always help someone else to stay occupied.
3. May unwittingly cause divisions and strife among the students
4. May chide tutors for being bossy after creating that sitution herself by giving too much responsibility/power to a young student.
5. May alienate lower performers by leading them to believe that the tutors are her favorites.
6. May lose touch with the specific struggles of each student because she is facilitating tutors rather than directly teaching/reteaching the lower performers.
I am generally against peers tutoring each other at the grade school level. I also don't generally like group work where there is intentionally 1 high performer, 1 low, and 2 in the middle. Homogeneous grouping always seems to work better, with the teacher focusing more of her energies on supervising the lower groups. (This is assuming she has actually taught/disseminated information first. I don't think group learning should replace direct instruction for any level of student).
Andy - Wow!
When applied on a non-voluntary basis, what is probability that the experience will work out well?
You know, this is supposed to be one of the major "benefits" of full-inclusion.
Before you even discuss the issue of peer tutoring, I think you have to address how awful it would be to have to be 'adopted' by someone in your class.
As for the tutoring, it's not clear to me whether the student had to tutor AND get his/her own work done. If so, the tutor would just help the 'adoptee' do the homework.
Also, what is the maturity level of the tutor. I think if I had tutored at that age, I would have gotten very frustrated and impatient with my 'adoptee'.
Anne Dwyer
yeah....reading all this I say 'nix' on the enforced peer tutoring.
acceleration for all
Though as I say, I think it's great to facilitate any and all forms of volunteer tutoring after school.
Well done, Andy. Those are excellent.
I've seen some of them in play with my son. Very interesting.
I consider peer tutoring to be exploitative. It is the teacher's job to teach all children in the classroom, not to ensure that all students move ahead at the same pace. If my kid has mastered the lesson, assign an independent project. Find a book on a related topic, and set a date for a presentation to the class. Let the kids who do not need extra help work on their own projects, while the kids who need help get the full attention of an adult teacher.
One of the side effects of peer tutoring has been great frustration for my child, as the tutorees are the least engaged kids in the class. In my opinion, if teachers can't reach a kid, they shouldn't assume that a peer can reach him. Voluntary tutoring after school is fine. I have to believe, however, that a parent would choose an adult tutor over a peer tutor every time.
Please note: the bottom half adopted the top half member and signed mutual contracts based on what one expected of the other. It was optional, but I sweetened the deal with a CD.
Please note AGAIN: I did not stop teaching. This program meant consistent heterogenous grouping for in-class activities and someone to call for out-of-class activities.
Will you please, please quit painting my efforts like I did less work as a result of this? I still tutor 4-8 hours a week when anyone showed up, sometimes staying until 6 with some of the struggling students. This was a Spanish I class, so obviously I was still planning the lessons, providing the materials, and aligning with curriculum.
This was not, repeat NOT, a substitute for teaching, however we may differ on the benefits or drawbacks of peer tutoring. It was NOT peer teaching.
Laura, this conversation has kind of evolved past what you were doing into a discussion of peer tutoring in general. Therefore, I'm going to continue to post this follow up even though it doesn't address your post.
I LIKED tutoring in/after school, when it wasn't required of me. I was always willing to help out a student who asked, or work with another kid occasionally at the teacher's request. In high school, they called me "the walking dictionary" because I would define words on the spot for my classmates. I tutored 7th/8th grade math as a 10th grader and loved it. What bothered me (esp. in elementary) was how often it was expected or considered my duty to use my spare time (because I had completed my own work) to teach others. Never mind that no one was teaching me! (I should have been accelerated, but my parents bought the whole "she'll be better with kids her age" line)
My teachers often told my parents I was "bossy, had too much concern about others' work, acted like a mother hen, etc.", but continued to set me up in situations where I was expected to lead, teach, and drag others along (or do the whole group's work if they didn't). Even in kindergarten the teacher sat me next to the youngest, worst behaved, most disorganized child and asked me to "help him", then told my mom I was controlling. Basically, they wanted me to act like a mini teacher, but only when it suited them. I got so used to "mini teacher mode" that I couldn't turn it on and off at the teacher's whim.
Outside of class (and sneakily in class) I was harassed, cussed at, mocked, and even physically hurt a few times because I was the "teacher's pet". I NEVER rubbed in my grades to my classmates, but the teacher singled me out to help others so often that they came to despise me for appearing to be her favorite.
I enjoyed being smart and well liked by the teacher, but I often got overwhelmed with the responsibility of helping others. I wanted to be a "normal" kid who asked the teacher for help occasionally instead of the teacher asking me for help with my classmates all the time!
Even one grade's difference is a big help when tutoring. Then the tutee can look up to the tutor as someone "older and smarter" rather than a rival who "makes me look bad"
In response to Laura:
The problem I see with Adopt an Ace is while it is not required, it is still somewhat coercive. Aren't your high acheivers more likely to do it because they think it will please you? Aren't highschoolers old enough to ask a classmate for help without a program that sets up distinctions between the two groups?
I would have done things that would eat up my free time (exploratory, imaginative, enrichment time) just to please my teacher.
When a classmate asked me for help in HS, it was a casual thing. He/she didn't feel threatened by me, because I wasn't his/her tutor, just a classmate helping out as needed (even if it was a regular occurence). If I were labeled an Ace, and asked to lay out requirements for my classmate, that would completely change the relationship. There would be an attitude shift. Suddenly, they would see me as having power over them or thinking I was better than them. Or, I might starting thinking these things myself.
Having been a peer tutor, both voluntary, coerced, and paid (college), I think that elementary to high school tutoring is best left to teachers, parents, hired tutors, or older students. I think peer tutoring at this age puts both the tutor and the tutee in awkward situations that they aren't mature enough to navigate well.
Those who did avail themselves of the system, rather than expecting osmosis to happen, did, in fact, benefit, as long as they used it. My "aces" who just intuited answers were forced to put into words why they chose them, and this helped clarify their thought processes. There was already stratification based on grades. Those failing made no bones about having failed.
Some aces did it because they liked spending extra time in my class, and when their adopters didn't show up, we listened to music in Spanish and they still learned new things. Other aces did it because they had nothing to do after school, before practice. Others did it because they wanted their friends to do better--I can think of at least 3 pairs for whom that was the primary, if not sole reason.
I observed none of the feelings you described, AndyJoy, in my students, and students, co-workers, and administrators will tell you that rapport with students is my strong suit.
I am sorry that you did not have a positive experience as a result of misplaced expectations, but I appreciate your time and consideration addressing my concerns also.
It COULD work, but you'd have to be very, very careful. You could be asking for trouble. I had to tutor at school, and I hated it. No one teased me though. I had a repuation.
Laura,
Sorry but I can't reread your original post as xanga is verboten from my work computer.
If the program was voluntary and it only happened after school then I have no problems with it at all. I didn't understand it as such when I read your post, but I may have missed something.
When I posted this, I really was serious about having misgivings about my original sentiments. I was rather surprised when it spawned such debate.
For the record, I concede that tutoring may be beneficial to both parties if done well and as long as it doesn't take up too much instruction time.
Rory
p.s. I will buy you a cup of coffee anyway.
So we are clear, you did miss the link to the original plan, it seems (which you cannot check out at work, but are invited to do so after the final whistle blows here.)
You should, however, be able to access the contract I made for partners who 1) chose to participate and 2) chose each other, which, though it may open another can of worms, has precious little to do with in-class instruction time.
Thank you for at least extending the coffee cup, if not an olive branch.
Laura,
I agree with Andy about the discussion going beyond just your story. I think it's interesting seeing the different reactions from people on both sides of the aisle.
I do think the caveats are important.
However, my son really enjoyed tutoring (and it was after school). He found it fascinating where kids got stuck. He has a special ed brother, so I'm glad he found working with strugglers to be interesting. But I did have to tutor him myself to make sure he didn't make things worse by talking over their heads or overwhelming them.
I think for those he tutored it was probably a mixed bag. He said that some seemed to resent him because he was their age and maybe they were embarrassed.
Hi Laura!
I'll chime in to say I didn't read your post (I clicked over there at one point and didn't find it, which may have been my fault).
I've been responding to folks here, not to your class!
And obviously I've experienced the fact that "teaching is good for the teacher."
Laura,
Off work finally... read both posts. I have to say its not clear that tutoring happened after school at all.
You mention arranging seating charts around the Adopt an Ace Program and having students check each others homework so I assume it was an inclass thing.
If so, then I am against the program. Of course, it appears that the program didn't work out so well anyway.
But... since you did inadvertently spark such an interesting comment thread, I hereby officially promise you a cup of coffee some day.
Post a Comment