Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:57:18.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Helping the Academically Handicapped Reader: Peer Tutoring Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

W. Malcolm Gill
W. Malcolm Gill*
Affiliation:
University of Auckland, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The characteristics of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) which makes it so worthy of consideration for use by the teacher of pupils with special needs, whose time for individual attention with her pupils is limited, are briefly discussed, and comment is made about the limitations of this approach. Attention is drawn to the alternative approach of peer tutoring, where the desirable one-to-one characteristic is attainable, and where there is the possibility that the sensitivity to the quality of the computer program, which is one of the limitations of the approach of CAI, may be contrasted with the not-so-sensitive-to-quality-of-program characteristic of peer tutoring. This possibility is examined in the context of a sample of poor reading Year eight pupils who were given a period of peer tutoring by Year eleven and twelve pupils in the same school, where the demonstrably not high quality program consisted of relatively few meetings between tutor and tutee, of short duration, at which it was expected that there would be talk, reading and being read to. Use of a control group enabled the conclusions to be reached that this peer tutoring resulted in gains for the tutees in reading ability and in attitude towards and behaviour in school, this being suggestive of the power of this low staff input, low cost, low technology technique in the area of special education.

Type
Research and Review
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , May 1985 , pp. 16 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

A.C.E.R. Silent Reading Tests. Word Knowledge (Form C.) Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1962.Google Scholar
A.C.E.R. Silent Reading Tests. Speed of Reading (Form B). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1962.Google Scholar
A.C.E.R. Silent Reading Tests. Reading for Meaning (Form C). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1962.Google Scholar
Bloom, S. Peer and Cross-age Tutoring in the Schools. Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research, 1978.Google Scholar
Bondi, E. F. Two heads are better than one — peer tutoring makes the difference. Academic Therapy, 1982, 17, 401–5.Google Scholar
Bork, A. Preparing student-computer dialogs: advice to teachers. In Taylor, R.P. (Ed.) The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. New York: Teachers College Press, 1980, pp. 15–52.Google Scholar
Burke, R. L. CAI Sourcebook. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1982. pp. 92–100.Google Scholar
Butler, D. Reading begins at home Theory into Practice, 1982, 21, 308–314.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In, Gage, N.L. (Ed.) Handbook for Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.Google Scholar
Cloward, R. Studies in tutoring. Journal of Experimental Education, 1967, 14–25.Google Scholar
Hogan, 1970, Cited in Bloom, 1978 — reference not given.Google Scholar
Holdaway, D. Shared book experience: teaching reading using favourite books. Theory into Practice, 1982, 21, 293–300.Google Scholar
King, T. Affective outcomes of cross-age tutoring. The Mississippi Reading Journal, 1981, 6, 2–7.Google Scholar
King, T. Learning from a PAL. Reading Teacher, 1982, 35, 682–5.Google Scholar
Kokovich, A. and Matthews, G. Reading and self concept. The National Elementary Principal, 1971, 50, 53–54.Google Scholar
Mason, B. The effect of university student tutors on the self concepts of elementary school pupils. Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1976.Google Scholar
McDermott, P. A. & Watkins, M. W. Computerized vs. conventional remedial instruction for learning-disabled pupils. The Journal of Special Education, 1983, 17, 81–8.Google Scholar
Neale Analysis of Reading Ability. Second Edition. London: MacMillan, 1966.Google Scholar
Paoni, F. J. Reciprocal effects of sixth graders tutoring third graders in reading. Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 1971.Google Scholar
Progressive Achievement Tests. Reading Vocabulary (Form A). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1969.Google Scholar
Progressive Achievement Tests. Reading Comprehension (Form A). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1969.Google Scholar
Strodtbeck, F. and Granick, L. An Evaluation of the Youth Tutoring Model for In-School Neighborhood Youth Corps. New York: National Commission on Resources for Youth, 1972.Google Scholar
Wilton, K. M. Instructional technology and special education. Australian Journal of Special Education, 1983, 7, 19–25.Google Scholar