83TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 39 No 1 March 2005

Using Peer Tutoring to IncreaseSocial Interactions in Early SchoolingYAOYING XUUniversity of WisconsinMilwaukee Wisconsin United States

JEFFREY GELFERUniversity of NevadaLas Vegas Nevada United States

PEGGY PERKINSUniversity of NevadaLas Vegas Nevada United States

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of classwide peertutoring (CWPT) a peer-mediated teaching approach on the socialinteraction behavior of children who are English language learners andchildren who are native English speakers Two second-grade classroomsfrom an elementary school were selected as the research setting CWPTwas the independent variable and childrenrsquos frequency of socialinteractions was the dependent variable All children from the twosettings were observed and videotaped during the study Findings of thisstudy indicated that CWPT was as effective for English languagelearners as it has been for native English speakers in shaping positivesocial interactions In both groups children engaged in very fewnegative behaviors Questionnaires from the teachers and studentsindicated that both groups enjoyed the CWPT process and theyintended to continue using CWPT The findings encourage teachers ofEnglish language students to implement CWPT regularly in theirnatural classroom settings The results also indicate that the appropri-ate arrangement of learning environments is critical for childrenrsquossocial interactions The opportunities provided for social interactionscontribute significantly to the educational success of English languagestudents despite their limited English proficiency

With the United States moving toward a culturally and linguisticallydiverse society teachers often feel unprepared to teach students

whose primary language is not English To help these students meet thehigher national standards can be very challenging for all teachers

83TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 39 No 1 March 2005

Using Peer Tutoring to IncreaseSocial Interactions in Early SchoolingYAOYING XUUniversity of WisconsinMilwaukee Wisconsin United States

JEFFREY GELFERUniversity of NevadaLas Vegas Nevada United States

PEGGY PERKINSUniversity of NevadaLas Vegas Nevada United States

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of classwide peertutoring (CWPT) a peer-mediated teaching approach on the socialinteraction behavior of children who are English language learners andchildren who are native English speakers Two second-grade classroomsfrom an elementary school were selected as the research setting CWPTwas the independent variable and childrenrsquos frequency of socialinteractions was the dependent variable All children from the twosettings were observed and videotaped during the study Findings of thisstudy indicated that CWPT was as effective for English languagelearners as it has been for native English speakers in shaping positivesocial interactions In both groups children engaged in very fewnegative behaviors Questionnaires from the teachers and studentsindicated that both groups enjoyed the CWPT process and theyintended to continue using CWPT The findings encourage teachers ofEnglish language students to implement CWPT regularly in theirnatural classroom settings The results also indicate that the appropri-ate arrangement of learning environments is critical for childrenrsquossocial interactions The opportunities provided for social interactionscontribute significantly to the educational success of English languagestudents despite their limited English proficiency

With the United States moving toward a culturally and linguisticallydiverse society teachers often feel unprepared to teach students

whose primary language is not English To help these students meet thehigher national standards can be very challenging for all teachers

84 TESOL QUARTERLY

especially for those in programs exclusively for nonnative studentsThough most researchers and practitioners have focused on how toimprove these studentsrsquo English language development this study wasconducted to examine the social interactions of English languagelearners through a peer-mediated approach CWPT In addition Englishlanguage students were compared with native English speakers toprovide practical recommendations for teachers of both groups ininclusive settings

The study aims to help teachers develop alternative instructionalstrategies for teaching the growing population of English languagelearners In 2000 in the United States 35 million children ages 5 to 17(about 15 percent of the total student population) had difficultyspeaking English (Mather amp Rivers 2003) The ratio of these childrenincreased from 53 percent in 1990 to 66 percent in 2000 (Mather ampRivers 2003) In addition many more children in the United Statesspeak a language other than English at home These children may alsoface challenges because the family and school are not linked effectively(AmeriStat 2002)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Researchers have found links between childrenrsquos social skills deficitsand delinquency school dropout and substance abuse in adolescence(Greene et al 1999 Parker amp Asher 1987) and mental health problemsin adulthood (Cowen Pederson Babigian Izzo amp Trost 1973 Strain ampOdom 1986) Guralnick (1990) defined social competence as ldquotheability of young children to successfully and appropriately select andcarry out their interpersonal goalsrdquo (p 4) Howes and Matheson (1992)defined childrenrsquos social competence with peers as behaviors andcognition that reflect successful social functioning with peers

A critical period for social development is the 6ndash8 age span (DodgeJablon amp Bickart 1994 Flavell 1977) Children at this age start todevelop friendships and feel as though they are fitting in at school thusmotivating them to learn social skills (McCay amp Keyes 20012002) Theywant to pursue goals and feel a sense of accomplishment Vygotskyrsquos(1978) sociocultural theory suggests that learning is a social process andsocial interaction is important for cognitive development Vygotskyviewed human beings as meaning makers He believed that a child co-constructs meaning through social interaction (Mahn 1999) The childrsquosdevelopment is influenced by the social and cultural activities the childexperiences and in which he or she grows up

Vygotskyrsquos (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development implies

84 TESOL QUARTERLY

especially for those in programs exclusively for nonnative studentsThough most researchers and practitioners have focused on how toimprove these studentsrsquo English language development this study wasconducted to examine the social interactions of English languagelearners through a peer-mediated approach CWPT In addition Englishlanguage students were compared with native English speakers toprovide practical recommendations for teachers of both groups ininclusive settings

The study aims to help teachers develop alternative instructionalstrategies for teaching the growing population of English languagelearners In 2000 in the United States 35 million children ages 5 to 17(about 15 percent of the total student population) had difficultyspeaking English (Mather amp Rivers 2003) The ratio of these childrenincreased from 53 percent in 1990 to 66 percent in 2000 (Mather ampRivers 2003) In addition many more children in the United Statesspeak a language other than English at home These children may alsoface challenges because the family and school are not linked effectively(AmeriStat 2002)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Researchers have found links between childrenrsquos social skills deficitsand delinquency school dropout and substance abuse in adolescence(Greene et al 1999 Parker amp Asher 1987) and mental health problemsin adulthood (Cowen Pederson Babigian Izzo amp Trost 1973 Strain ampOdom 1986) Guralnick (1990) defined social competence as ldquotheability of young children to successfully and appropriately select andcarry out their interpersonal goalsrdquo (p 4) Howes and Matheson (1992)defined childrenrsquos social competence with peers as behaviors andcognition that reflect successful social functioning with peers

A critical period for social development is the 6ndash8 age span (DodgeJablon amp Bickart 1994 Flavell 1977) Children at this age start todevelop friendships and feel as though they are fitting in at school thusmotivating them to learn social skills (McCay amp Keyes 20012002) Theywant to pursue goals and feel a sense of accomplishment Vygotskyrsquos(1978) sociocultural theory suggests that learning is a social process andsocial interaction is important for cognitive development Vygotskyviewed human beings as meaning makers He believed that a child co-constructs meaning through social interaction (Mahn 1999) The childrsquosdevelopment is influenced by the social and cultural activities the childexperiences and in which he or she grows up

Vygotskyrsquos (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development implies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 85

two levels of growth the actual level and the potential level Anindividual achieves his or her actual level of development throughindependent problem solving however he or she will need guidance orcollaboration from an adult or a more capable peer to reach thepotential level of development This concept underlines the interdepen-dence between individuals and the social processes in co-constructingknowledge ( John-Steiner amp Mahn 1996) Interactions with other chil-dren and with adults are the primary vehicles children have developedfor learning about the world around them

In early childhood education social play is viewed as a means to fosterand enhance language and cognitive social and emotional develop-ment (Ivory amp McCollum 1999) This is true for all children regardlessof their developmental level or their linguistic and cultural backgroundsPlay is an essential ingredient in early childhood programs and itenhances every aspect of child development (Berk 1999)

Traditionally Grades 1ndash3 are referred to as primary education andprimary education is separated from preschool or kindergarten educa-tion Instruction for primary grades is mainly teacher directed andformal including small- and large-group teaching combined with stu-dentsrsquo independent work Since the 1960s developmental theories ofPiaget Bruner Dewey and Erikson have become popular and acceptedin US education (Henniger 2002) Educators and other professionalshave realized that primary-grade children think more like preschool andkindergarten children than older elementary children and so they haveemphasized play activities child-initiated activities hands-on manipula-tion of objects and interaction with peers

Peer acceptance is a powerful predictor of current and later psycho-logical adjustment Studies show that social behavior plays a critical rolein causing a child to be liked or rejected (Berk 1999) For examplepopular children have very positive social skills They communicate withpeers in sensitive friendly and cooperative ways and are appropriatelyassertive On the other hand rejected children display a wide range ofnegative social behaviors Social play and peer imitation are thought tobe basic developmental processes to facilitate learning social skills(Garfinkle amp Schwartz 2002 Ivory amp McCollum 1999)

However because of nonnative-English-speaking childrenrsquos limitedEnglish proficiency or different cultural background these childrenrsquossocial behaviors may be different from or less than that of their English-speaking peers Most previous studies have focused on academic im-provement for children who have difficulty speaking English (egGersten amp Baker 2000b Greenwood Arreaga-Mayer Utley Gavin ampTerry 2001) Very few researchers have examined the social interactionbehaviors of these children

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 85

two levels of growth the actual level and the potential level Anindividual achieves his or her actual level of development throughindependent problem solving however he or she will need guidance orcollaboration from an adult or a more capable peer to reach thepotential level of development This concept underlines the interdepen-dence between individuals and the social processes in co-constructingknowledge ( John-Steiner amp Mahn 1996) Interactions with other chil-dren and with adults are the primary vehicles children have developedfor learning about the world around them

In early childhood education social play is viewed as a means to fosterand enhance language and cognitive social and emotional develop-ment (Ivory amp McCollum 1999) This is true for all children regardlessof their developmental level or their linguistic and cultural backgroundsPlay is an essential ingredient in early childhood programs and itenhances every aspect of child development (Berk 1999)

Traditionally Grades 1ndash3 are referred to as primary education andprimary education is separated from preschool or kindergarten educa-tion Instruction for primary grades is mainly teacher directed andformal including small- and large-group teaching combined with stu-dentsrsquo independent work Since the 1960s developmental theories ofPiaget Bruner Dewey and Erikson have become popular and acceptedin US education (Henniger 2002) Educators and other professionalshave realized that primary-grade children think more like preschool andkindergarten children than older elementary children and so they haveemphasized play activities child-initiated activities hands-on manipula-tion of objects and interaction with peers

Peer acceptance is a powerful predictor of current and later psycho-logical adjustment Studies show that social behavior plays a critical rolein causing a child to be liked or rejected (Berk 1999) For examplepopular children have very positive social skills They communicate withpeers in sensitive friendly and cooperative ways and are appropriatelyassertive On the other hand rejected children display a wide range ofnegative social behaviors Social play and peer imitation are thought tobe basic developmental processes to facilitate learning social skills(Garfinkle amp Schwartz 2002 Ivory amp McCollum 1999)

However because of nonnative-English-speaking childrenrsquos limitedEnglish proficiency or different cultural background these childrenrsquossocial behaviors may be different from or less than that of their English-speaking peers Most previous studies have focused on academic im-provement for children who have difficulty speaking English (egGersten amp Baker 2000b Greenwood Arreaga-Mayer Utley Gavin ampTerry 2001) Very few researchers have examined the social interactionbehaviors of these children

86 TESOL QUARTERLY

CLASSWIDE PEER TUTORING

CWPT is a specific form of peer-mediated instruction that encourageschildren to learn from each other facilitated and supported by theteacher CWPT was originally developed to improve the academicperformance of children from low socioeconomic culturally diversebackgrounds in schools federally funded under Title I1 (DelquadriGreenwood Stretton amp Hall 1983) In the past 20 years CWPT has beenused in general and special education settings It has worked for childrenfrom diverse backgrounds and different developmental levels

Unlike other forms of peer tutoring that typically involve an older ormore capable tutor for a younger or less capable tutee CWPT involvesreciprocal tutor-tutee pairs in the same classroom or age group Duringthe CWPT process every child has an equal opportunity to be a tutor anda tutee The process involves procedures such as the following selectinginstructional content and materials pairing all students into tutor-tuteepartners regularly changing tutor-tutee partners immediately correct-ing errors and giving points contingent upon performance arrangingthe whole class into two teams competing for higher total points postingindividual and team scores and socially rewarding the winning team(Greenwood Delquadri amp Carta 1988)

Areas covered by CWPT include reading assorted other languageabilities and mathematics (Chun amp Winter 1999) In their comprehen-sive review of literature on CWPT used for native-English-speakingchildren DuPaul and Eckert (1998) reported that results from empiricalstudies in these areas have supported CWPTrsquos effectiveness CWPT hasbeen found superior to conventional forms of teacher-mediated instruc-tion in reading fluency and comprehension and mastery of other basicacademic skills (Greenwood et al 2001) It also helps low-achievingstudents improve spelling performance (Greenwood Delquadri amp Hall1989 Maheady amp Harper 1987)

In spite of its effectiveness for children with and without limitations inacademic areas few empirical studies have been done in generaleducation settings on the relationship between CWPT and social interac-tions among primary-grade children whose first language is not EnglishThe limited empirical studies on children learning English have almostall focused on their English language development or their academicperformance (August 1987 Gersten amp Baker 2000a Greenwood et al2001) Greenwood and colleagues (2001) used the classwide peer

1 Title I is an amendment to the US Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) TitleI provides federal funds that address the needs of US school districts with a large populationof children living in poverty

86 TESOL QUARTERLY

CLASSWIDE PEER TUTORING

CWPT is a specific form of peer-mediated instruction that encourageschildren to learn from each other facilitated and supported by theteacher CWPT was originally developed to improve the academicperformance of children from low socioeconomic culturally diversebackgrounds in schools federally funded under Title I1 (DelquadriGreenwood Stretton amp Hall 1983) In the past 20 years CWPT has beenused in general and special education settings It has worked for childrenfrom diverse backgrounds and different developmental levels

Unlike other forms of peer tutoring that typically involve an older ormore capable tutor for a younger or less capable tutee CWPT involvesreciprocal tutor-tutee pairs in the same classroom or age group Duringthe CWPT process every child has an equal opportunity to be a tutor anda tutee The process involves procedures such as the following selectinginstructional content and materials pairing all students into tutor-tuteepartners regularly changing tutor-tutee partners immediately correct-ing errors and giving points contingent upon performance arrangingthe whole class into two teams competing for higher total points postingindividual and team scores and socially rewarding the winning team(Greenwood Delquadri amp Carta 1988)

Areas covered by CWPT include reading assorted other languageabilities and mathematics (Chun amp Winter 1999) In their comprehen-sive review of literature on CWPT used for native-English-speakingchildren DuPaul and Eckert (1998) reported that results from empiricalstudies in these areas have supported CWPTrsquos effectiveness CWPT hasbeen found superior to conventional forms of teacher-mediated instruc-tion in reading fluency and comprehension and mastery of other basicacademic skills (Greenwood et al 2001) It also helps low-achievingstudents improve spelling performance (Greenwood Delquadri amp Hall1989 Maheady amp Harper 1987)

In spite of its effectiveness for children with and without limitations inacademic areas few empirical studies have been done in generaleducation settings on the relationship between CWPT and social interac-tions among primary-grade children whose first language is not EnglishThe limited empirical studies on children learning English have almostall focused on their English language development or their academicperformance (August 1987 Gersten amp Baker 2000a Greenwood et al2001) Greenwood and colleagues (2001) used the classwide peer

1 Title I is an amendment to the US Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) TitleI provides federal funds that address the needs of US school districts with a large populationof children living in poverty

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 87

tutoring learning management system (CWPT-LMS) in the literacyinstruction of elementary-level English language learners August (1987)examined the effects of peer tutoring other than CWPT on secondlanguage acquisition of Mexican-American children Similarly Gerstenand Baker (2000a) reported the effectiveness of peer tutoring andcooperative learning on English language learnersrsquo English languagedevelopment Although some previous studies (eg Kamps KravitsStolze amp Swaggart 1999 Locke amp Fuchs 1995) have reported the effectsof CWPT on peer interactions when it was combined with positivereinforcement or rewards the effectiveness of CWPT without usingpositive reinforcement is unknown Educators need to know if theimproved peer interaction behavior resulted from the positive reinforce-ment or the CWPT No previous studies have singled out the effective-ness of CWPT on social interactions isolated from other variables(DuPaul amp Eckert 1998) This study therefore focused on the socialaspects of CWPT among the much under-studied English languagestudent population

Furthermore previous studies have provided few findings comparingthe social behaviors of English language learners and native Englishspeakers Unfortunately labeled as limited English proficient Englishlanguage learners are characterized by a particular deficiency Thischaracterization often results in a lower quality of education for thesestudents in terms of materials interactions activities and expectationswhich themselves create deficiencies in many other dimensions (Faltis1997) To provide fair and equal educational opportunities for allindividuals educators must find out more about the relationship be-tween studentsrsquo cultural backgrounds and their social interactionsFurthermore if such a relationship exists educators need to determinewhether the process of education has an effect on social interactionbehaviors

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of CWPT onsocial interaction behaviors of English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers in second-grade classrooms Academic performance inmath and spelling was used as content for the CWPT process followingprevious research Because of the reciprocal influence during the tutor-tutee procedure English language learners and native English speakersfrom both classrooms were expected to benefit from this positiveinteraction The hypothesis was that CWPT would increase Englishlanguage learnersrsquo social interactions as effectively as it increased nativeEnglish speakersrsquo social interactions

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 87

tutoring learning management system (CWPT-LMS) in the literacyinstruction of elementary-level English language learners August (1987)examined the effects of peer tutoring other than CWPT on secondlanguage acquisition of Mexican-American children Similarly Gerstenand Baker (2000a) reported the effectiveness of peer tutoring andcooperative learning on English language learnersrsquo English languagedevelopment Although some previous studies (eg Kamps KravitsStolze amp Swaggart 1999 Locke amp Fuchs 1995) have reported the effectsof CWPT on peer interactions when it was combined with positivereinforcement or rewards the effectiveness of CWPT without usingpositive reinforcement is unknown Educators need to know if theimproved peer interaction behavior resulted from the positive reinforce-ment or the CWPT No previous studies have singled out the effective-ness of CWPT on social interactions isolated from other variables(DuPaul amp Eckert 1998) This study therefore focused on the socialaspects of CWPT among the much under-studied English languagestudent population

Furthermore previous studies have provided few findings comparingthe social behaviors of English language learners and native Englishspeakers Unfortunately labeled as limited English proficient Englishlanguage learners are characterized by a particular deficiency Thischaracterization often results in a lower quality of education for thesestudents in terms of materials interactions activities and expectationswhich themselves create deficiencies in many other dimensions (Faltis1997) To provide fair and equal educational opportunities for allindividuals educators must find out more about the relationship be-tween studentsrsquo cultural backgrounds and their social interactionsFurthermore if such a relationship exists educators need to determinewhether the process of education has an effect on social interactionbehaviors

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of CWPT onsocial interaction behaviors of English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers in second-grade classrooms Academic performance inmath and spelling was used as content for the CWPT process followingprevious research Because of the reciprocal influence during the tutor-tutee procedure English language learners and native English speakersfrom both classrooms were expected to benefit from this positiveinteraction The hypothesis was that CWPT would increase Englishlanguage learnersrsquo social interactions as effectively as it increased nativeEnglish speakersrsquo social interactions

88 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants were selected from an elementary school located in anurban city of a Southwestern state Each of the two second-grade class-rooms had 14 students which was typical for the first- and second-gradeclassrooms in the participating school Their ages ranged from 7 to 8years old Seven children from each classroom (4 girls 3 boys) wereselected as the participants with a total of 14 participants in this studyPurposeful selection was used to achieve gender parity in the sample

All seven participants from Class 1 were English language learnerswhereas all seven participants from Class 2 were native English speakersThe English language learners were all enrolled in the local schooldistrict English language learner program and met the criteria estab-lished by the school district (a) Primary language is not English (b)proficiency in English is below the average proficiency of pupils at thesame age or grade level whose primary language is English (ie at leastone grade below based on the standardized English language proficiencytest) and (c) probability of success is impaired in a classroom in whichcourses of study are taught only in English because of the studentrsquoslimited proficiency in that language Data collection and analysis focusedonly on the 14 participants from the two classrooms although all 28children from the two classrooms were involved in the videotaping andCWPT process All 28 children also received parental consent becausethe videotaping might include children in the setting who were not studyparticipants

To enable the researchers to assess the participantsrsquo prerequisite skillsthe participants took a pretest on spelling and math before CWPT wasimplemented The spelling test included 10 words and the math testincluded 10 one-to-two-digit addition problems Both tests were devel-oped by the classroom teacher If any participant received a score below20 correct on either test a one-on-one activity with the teacher wasconducted to help the participant reach the criterion (20 correct atpretest) In Class 1 5 out of 14 children did not meet the spelling testcriterion and 3 of them did not meet the math test criterion In Class 23 participants did not meet the criterion for spelling and for mathrespectively After the one week of training with one-on-one activityeveryday one student from Class 1 and one student from Class 2 still didnot meet the spelling test criterion For the purpose of this researchthese two students were not selected as participants for data analysis Therange of the spelling test scores for Class 1 was from 20 to 80 with a meanof 50 and for Class 2 it was from 30 to 80 with a mean of 54 The range

88 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants were selected from an elementary school located in anurban city of a Southwestern state Each of the two second-grade class-rooms had 14 students which was typical for the first- and second-gradeclassrooms in the participating school Their ages ranged from 7 to 8years old Seven children from each classroom (4 girls 3 boys) wereselected as the participants with a total of 14 participants in this studyPurposeful selection was used to achieve gender parity in the sample

All seven participants from Class 1 were English language learnerswhereas all seven participants from Class 2 were native English speakersThe English language learners were all enrolled in the local schooldistrict English language learner program and met the criteria estab-lished by the school district (a) Primary language is not English (b)proficiency in English is below the average proficiency of pupils at thesame age or grade level whose primary language is English (ie at leastone grade below based on the standardized English language proficiencytest) and (c) probability of success is impaired in a classroom in whichcourses of study are taught only in English because of the studentrsquoslimited proficiency in that language Data collection and analysis focusedonly on the 14 participants from the two classrooms although all 28children from the two classrooms were involved in the videotaping andCWPT process All 28 children also received parental consent becausethe videotaping might include children in the setting who were not studyparticipants

To enable the researchers to assess the participantsrsquo prerequisite skillsthe participants took a pretest on spelling and math before CWPT wasimplemented The spelling test included 10 words and the math testincluded 10 one-to-two-digit addition problems Both tests were devel-oped by the classroom teacher If any participant received a score below20 correct on either test a one-on-one activity with the teacher wasconducted to help the participant reach the criterion (20 correct atpretest) In Class 1 5 out of 14 children did not meet the spelling testcriterion and 3 of them did not meet the math test criterion In Class 23 participants did not meet the criterion for spelling and for mathrespectively After the one week of training with one-on-one activityeveryday one student from Class 1 and one student from Class 2 still didnot meet the spelling test criterion For the purpose of this researchthese two students were not selected as participants for data analysis Therange of the spelling test scores for Class 1 was from 20 to 80 with a meanof 50 and for Class 2 it was from 30 to 80 with a mean of 54 The range

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60

Participating Teachers

The two classroom teachers participated in this study Teacher A fromClass 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school withone year of experience teaching first grade and one year teachingsecond grade Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teachingexperience with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teachingsecond grade Both teachers have a bachelorrsquos degree in elementaryeducation Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teachingEnglish language learner programs

Settings and Arrangement

This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in ayear-round school Both classrooms were second grade with children 7ndash8 years of age Class 1 included 13 English language learners and onenative English speaker who was involved in the CWPT process but wasnot selected as a participant for this study Class 2 included 13 nativeEnglish speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish)This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was notselected as a participant Adults involved in the classroom during the3-week observation period included the classroom teacher a practicumstudent a high school student worker and the researcher (the leadauthor) A Title I reading teacher came in once a day and twoadministrators came in once a week

Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)

The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditionsThe whole research process was videotaped and the coded number ofsocial interactions was recorded The social interactions were operation-ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer Antia Coyner Eldredgeamp Gupta 1991) To establish the baseline data the frequency of socialinteractions before CWPT was also videotaped

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60

Participating Teachers

The two classroom teachers participated in this study Teacher A fromClass 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school withone year of experience teaching first grade and one year teachingsecond grade Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teachingexperience with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teachingsecond grade Both teachers have a bachelorrsquos degree in elementaryeducation Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teachingEnglish language learner programs

Settings and Arrangement

This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in ayear-round school Both classrooms were second grade with children 7ndash8 years of age Class 1 included 13 English language learners and onenative English speaker who was involved in the CWPT process but wasnot selected as a participant for this study Class 2 included 13 nativeEnglish speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish)This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was notselected as a participant Adults involved in the classroom during the3-week observation period included the classroom teacher a practicumstudent a high school student worker and the researcher (the leadauthor) A Title I reading teacher came in once a day and twoadministrators came in once a week

Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)

The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditionsThe whole research process was videotaped and the coded number ofsocial interactions was recorded The social interactions were operation-ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer Antia Coyner Eldredgeamp Gupta 1991) To establish the baseline data the frequency of socialinteractions before CWPT was also videotaped

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

84 TESOL QUARTERLY

especially for those in programs exclusively for nonnative studentsThough most researchers and practitioners have focused on how toimprove these studentsrsquo English language development this study wasconducted to examine the social interactions of English languagelearners through a peer-mediated approach CWPT In addition Englishlanguage students were compared with native English speakers toprovide practical recommendations for teachers of both groups ininclusive settings

The study aims to help teachers develop alternative instructionalstrategies for teaching the growing population of English languagelearners In 2000 in the United States 35 million children ages 5 to 17(about 15 percent of the total student population) had difficultyspeaking English (Mather amp Rivers 2003) The ratio of these childrenincreased from 53 percent in 1990 to 66 percent in 2000 (Mather ampRivers 2003) In addition many more children in the United Statesspeak a language other than English at home These children may alsoface challenges because the family and school are not linked effectively(AmeriStat 2002)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Researchers have found links between childrenrsquos social skills deficitsand delinquency school dropout and substance abuse in adolescence(Greene et al 1999 Parker amp Asher 1987) and mental health problemsin adulthood (Cowen Pederson Babigian Izzo amp Trost 1973 Strain ampOdom 1986) Guralnick (1990) defined social competence as ldquotheability of young children to successfully and appropriately select andcarry out their interpersonal goalsrdquo (p 4) Howes and Matheson (1992)defined childrenrsquos social competence with peers as behaviors andcognition that reflect successful social functioning with peers

A critical period for social development is the 6ndash8 age span (DodgeJablon amp Bickart 1994 Flavell 1977) Children at this age start todevelop friendships and feel as though they are fitting in at school thusmotivating them to learn social skills (McCay amp Keyes 20012002) Theywant to pursue goals and feel a sense of accomplishment Vygotskyrsquos(1978) sociocultural theory suggests that learning is a social process andsocial interaction is important for cognitive development Vygotskyviewed human beings as meaning makers He believed that a child co-constructs meaning through social interaction (Mahn 1999) The childrsquosdevelopment is influenced by the social and cultural activities the childexperiences and in which he or she grows up

Vygotskyrsquos (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development implies

84 TESOL QUARTERLY

especially for those in programs exclusively for nonnative studentsThough most researchers and practitioners have focused on how toimprove these studentsrsquo English language development this study wasconducted to examine the social interactions of English languagelearners through a peer-mediated approach CWPT In addition Englishlanguage students were compared with native English speakers toprovide practical recommendations for teachers of both groups ininclusive settings

The study aims to help teachers develop alternative instructionalstrategies for teaching the growing population of English languagelearners In 2000 in the United States 35 million children ages 5 to 17(about 15 percent of the total student population) had difficultyspeaking English (Mather amp Rivers 2003) The ratio of these childrenincreased from 53 percent in 1990 to 66 percent in 2000 (Mather ampRivers 2003) In addition many more children in the United Statesspeak a language other than English at home These children may alsoface challenges because the family and school are not linked effectively(AmeriStat 2002)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Researchers have found links between childrenrsquos social skills deficitsand delinquency school dropout and substance abuse in adolescence(Greene et al 1999 Parker amp Asher 1987) and mental health problemsin adulthood (Cowen Pederson Babigian Izzo amp Trost 1973 Strain ampOdom 1986) Guralnick (1990) defined social competence as ldquotheability of young children to successfully and appropriately select andcarry out their interpersonal goalsrdquo (p 4) Howes and Matheson (1992)defined childrenrsquos social competence with peers as behaviors andcognition that reflect successful social functioning with peers

A critical period for social development is the 6ndash8 age span (DodgeJablon amp Bickart 1994 Flavell 1977) Children at this age start todevelop friendships and feel as though they are fitting in at school thusmotivating them to learn social skills (McCay amp Keyes 20012002) Theywant to pursue goals and feel a sense of accomplishment Vygotskyrsquos(1978) sociocultural theory suggests that learning is a social process andsocial interaction is important for cognitive development Vygotskyviewed human beings as meaning makers He believed that a child co-constructs meaning through social interaction (Mahn 1999) The childrsquosdevelopment is influenced by the social and cultural activities the childexperiences and in which he or she grows up

Vygotskyrsquos (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development implies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 85

two levels of growth the actual level and the potential level Anindividual achieves his or her actual level of development throughindependent problem solving however he or she will need guidance orcollaboration from an adult or a more capable peer to reach thepotential level of development This concept underlines the interdepen-dence between individuals and the social processes in co-constructingknowledge ( John-Steiner amp Mahn 1996) Interactions with other chil-dren and with adults are the primary vehicles children have developedfor learning about the world around them

In early childhood education social play is viewed as a means to fosterand enhance language and cognitive social and emotional develop-ment (Ivory amp McCollum 1999) This is true for all children regardlessof their developmental level or their linguistic and cultural backgroundsPlay is an essential ingredient in early childhood programs and itenhances every aspect of child development (Berk 1999)

Traditionally Grades 1ndash3 are referred to as primary education andprimary education is separated from preschool or kindergarten educa-tion Instruction for primary grades is mainly teacher directed andformal including small- and large-group teaching combined with stu-dentsrsquo independent work Since the 1960s developmental theories ofPiaget Bruner Dewey and Erikson have become popular and acceptedin US education (Henniger 2002) Educators and other professionalshave realized that primary-grade children think more like preschool andkindergarten children than older elementary children and so they haveemphasized play activities child-initiated activities hands-on manipula-tion of objects and interaction with peers

Peer acceptance is a powerful predictor of current and later psycho-logical adjustment Studies show that social behavior plays a critical rolein causing a child to be liked or rejected (Berk 1999) For examplepopular children have very positive social skills They communicate withpeers in sensitive friendly and cooperative ways and are appropriatelyassertive On the other hand rejected children display a wide range ofnegative social behaviors Social play and peer imitation are thought tobe basic developmental processes to facilitate learning social skills(Garfinkle amp Schwartz 2002 Ivory amp McCollum 1999)

However because of nonnative-English-speaking childrenrsquos limitedEnglish proficiency or different cultural background these childrenrsquossocial behaviors may be different from or less than that of their English-speaking peers Most previous studies have focused on academic im-provement for children who have difficulty speaking English (egGersten amp Baker 2000b Greenwood Arreaga-Mayer Utley Gavin ampTerry 2001) Very few researchers have examined the social interactionbehaviors of these children

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 85

two levels of growth the actual level and the potential level Anindividual achieves his or her actual level of development throughindependent problem solving however he or she will need guidance orcollaboration from an adult or a more capable peer to reach thepotential level of development This concept underlines the interdepen-dence between individuals and the social processes in co-constructingknowledge ( John-Steiner amp Mahn 1996) Interactions with other chil-dren and with adults are the primary vehicles children have developedfor learning about the world around them

In early childhood education social play is viewed as a means to fosterand enhance language and cognitive social and emotional develop-ment (Ivory amp McCollum 1999) This is true for all children regardlessof their developmental level or their linguistic and cultural backgroundsPlay is an essential ingredient in early childhood programs and itenhances every aspect of child development (Berk 1999)

Traditionally Grades 1ndash3 are referred to as primary education andprimary education is separated from preschool or kindergarten educa-tion Instruction for primary grades is mainly teacher directed andformal including small- and large-group teaching combined with stu-dentsrsquo independent work Since the 1960s developmental theories ofPiaget Bruner Dewey and Erikson have become popular and acceptedin US education (Henniger 2002) Educators and other professionalshave realized that primary-grade children think more like preschool andkindergarten children than older elementary children and so they haveemphasized play activities child-initiated activities hands-on manipula-tion of objects and interaction with peers

Peer acceptance is a powerful predictor of current and later psycho-logical adjustment Studies show that social behavior plays a critical rolein causing a child to be liked or rejected (Berk 1999) For examplepopular children have very positive social skills They communicate withpeers in sensitive friendly and cooperative ways and are appropriatelyassertive On the other hand rejected children display a wide range ofnegative social behaviors Social play and peer imitation are thought tobe basic developmental processes to facilitate learning social skills(Garfinkle amp Schwartz 2002 Ivory amp McCollum 1999)

However because of nonnative-English-speaking childrenrsquos limitedEnglish proficiency or different cultural background these childrenrsquossocial behaviors may be different from or less than that of their English-speaking peers Most previous studies have focused on academic im-provement for children who have difficulty speaking English (egGersten amp Baker 2000b Greenwood Arreaga-Mayer Utley Gavin ampTerry 2001) Very few researchers have examined the social interactionbehaviors of these children

86 TESOL QUARTERLY

CLASSWIDE PEER TUTORING

CWPT is a specific form of peer-mediated instruction that encourageschildren to learn from each other facilitated and supported by theteacher CWPT was originally developed to improve the academicperformance of children from low socioeconomic culturally diversebackgrounds in schools federally funded under Title I1 (DelquadriGreenwood Stretton amp Hall 1983) In the past 20 years CWPT has beenused in general and special education settings It has worked for childrenfrom diverse backgrounds and different developmental levels

Unlike other forms of peer tutoring that typically involve an older ormore capable tutor for a younger or less capable tutee CWPT involvesreciprocal tutor-tutee pairs in the same classroom or age group Duringthe CWPT process every child has an equal opportunity to be a tutor anda tutee The process involves procedures such as the following selectinginstructional content and materials pairing all students into tutor-tuteepartners regularly changing tutor-tutee partners immediately correct-ing errors and giving points contingent upon performance arrangingthe whole class into two teams competing for higher total points postingindividual and team scores and socially rewarding the winning team(Greenwood Delquadri amp Carta 1988)

Areas covered by CWPT include reading assorted other languageabilities and mathematics (Chun amp Winter 1999) In their comprehen-sive review of literature on CWPT used for native-English-speakingchildren DuPaul and Eckert (1998) reported that results from empiricalstudies in these areas have supported CWPTrsquos effectiveness CWPT hasbeen found superior to conventional forms of teacher-mediated instruc-tion in reading fluency and comprehension and mastery of other basicacademic skills (Greenwood et al 2001) It also helps low-achievingstudents improve spelling performance (Greenwood Delquadri amp Hall1989 Maheady amp Harper 1987)

In spite of its effectiveness for children with and without limitations inacademic areas few empirical studies have been done in generaleducation settings on the relationship between CWPT and social interac-tions among primary-grade children whose first language is not EnglishThe limited empirical studies on children learning English have almostall focused on their English language development or their academicperformance (August 1987 Gersten amp Baker 2000a Greenwood et al2001) Greenwood and colleagues (2001) used the classwide peer

1 Title I is an amendment to the US Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) TitleI provides federal funds that address the needs of US school districts with a large populationof children living in poverty

86 TESOL QUARTERLY

CLASSWIDE PEER TUTORING

CWPT is a specific form of peer-mediated instruction that encourageschildren to learn from each other facilitated and supported by theteacher CWPT was originally developed to improve the academicperformance of children from low socioeconomic culturally diversebackgrounds in schools federally funded under Title I1 (DelquadriGreenwood Stretton amp Hall 1983) In the past 20 years CWPT has beenused in general and special education settings It has worked for childrenfrom diverse backgrounds and different developmental levels

Unlike other forms of peer tutoring that typically involve an older ormore capable tutor for a younger or less capable tutee CWPT involvesreciprocal tutor-tutee pairs in the same classroom or age group Duringthe CWPT process every child has an equal opportunity to be a tutor anda tutee The process involves procedures such as the following selectinginstructional content and materials pairing all students into tutor-tuteepartners regularly changing tutor-tutee partners immediately correct-ing errors and giving points contingent upon performance arrangingthe whole class into two teams competing for higher total points postingindividual and team scores and socially rewarding the winning team(Greenwood Delquadri amp Carta 1988)

Areas covered by CWPT include reading assorted other languageabilities and mathematics (Chun amp Winter 1999) In their comprehen-sive review of literature on CWPT used for native-English-speakingchildren DuPaul and Eckert (1998) reported that results from empiricalstudies in these areas have supported CWPTrsquos effectiveness CWPT hasbeen found superior to conventional forms of teacher-mediated instruc-tion in reading fluency and comprehension and mastery of other basicacademic skills (Greenwood et al 2001) It also helps low-achievingstudents improve spelling performance (Greenwood Delquadri amp Hall1989 Maheady amp Harper 1987)

In spite of its effectiveness for children with and without limitations inacademic areas few empirical studies have been done in generaleducation settings on the relationship between CWPT and social interac-tions among primary-grade children whose first language is not EnglishThe limited empirical studies on children learning English have almostall focused on their English language development or their academicperformance (August 1987 Gersten amp Baker 2000a Greenwood et al2001) Greenwood and colleagues (2001) used the classwide peer

1 Title I is an amendment to the US Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) TitleI provides federal funds that address the needs of US school districts with a large populationof children living in poverty

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 87

tutoring learning management system (CWPT-LMS) in the literacyinstruction of elementary-level English language learners August (1987)examined the effects of peer tutoring other than CWPT on secondlanguage acquisition of Mexican-American children Similarly Gerstenand Baker (2000a) reported the effectiveness of peer tutoring andcooperative learning on English language learnersrsquo English languagedevelopment Although some previous studies (eg Kamps KravitsStolze amp Swaggart 1999 Locke amp Fuchs 1995) have reported the effectsof CWPT on peer interactions when it was combined with positivereinforcement or rewards the effectiveness of CWPT without usingpositive reinforcement is unknown Educators need to know if theimproved peer interaction behavior resulted from the positive reinforce-ment or the CWPT No previous studies have singled out the effective-ness of CWPT on social interactions isolated from other variables(DuPaul amp Eckert 1998) This study therefore focused on the socialaspects of CWPT among the much under-studied English languagestudent population

Furthermore previous studies have provided few findings comparingthe social behaviors of English language learners and native Englishspeakers Unfortunately labeled as limited English proficient Englishlanguage learners are characterized by a particular deficiency Thischaracterization often results in a lower quality of education for thesestudents in terms of materials interactions activities and expectationswhich themselves create deficiencies in many other dimensions (Faltis1997) To provide fair and equal educational opportunities for allindividuals educators must find out more about the relationship be-tween studentsrsquo cultural backgrounds and their social interactionsFurthermore if such a relationship exists educators need to determinewhether the process of education has an effect on social interactionbehaviors

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of CWPT onsocial interaction behaviors of English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers in second-grade classrooms Academic performance inmath and spelling was used as content for the CWPT process followingprevious research Because of the reciprocal influence during the tutor-tutee procedure English language learners and native English speakersfrom both classrooms were expected to benefit from this positiveinteraction The hypothesis was that CWPT would increase Englishlanguage learnersrsquo social interactions as effectively as it increased nativeEnglish speakersrsquo social interactions

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 87

tutoring learning management system (CWPT-LMS) in the literacyinstruction of elementary-level English language learners August (1987)examined the effects of peer tutoring other than CWPT on secondlanguage acquisition of Mexican-American children Similarly Gerstenand Baker (2000a) reported the effectiveness of peer tutoring andcooperative learning on English language learnersrsquo English languagedevelopment Although some previous studies (eg Kamps KravitsStolze amp Swaggart 1999 Locke amp Fuchs 1995) have reported the effectsof CWPT on peer interactions when it was combined with positivereinforcement or rewards the effectiveness of CWPT without usingpositive reinforcement is unknown Educators need to know if theimproved peer interaction behavior resulted from the positive reinforce-ment or the CWPT No previous studies have singled out the effective-ness of CWPT on social interactions isolated from other variables(DuPaul amp Eckert 1998) This study therefore focused on the socialaspects of CWPT among the much under-studied English languagestudent population

Furthermore previous studies have provided few findings comparingthe social behaviors of English language learners and native Englishspeakers Unfortunately labeled as limited English proficient Englishlanguage learners are characterized by a particular deficiency Thischaracterization often results in a lower quality of education for thesestudents in terms of materials interactions activities and expectationswhich themselves create deficiencies in many other dimensions (Faltis1997) To provide fair and equal educational opportunities for allindividuals educators must find out more about the relationship be-tween studentsrsquo cultural backgrounds and their social interactionsFurthermore if such a relationship exists educators need to determinewhether the process of education has an effect on social interactionbehaviors

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of CWPT onsocial interaction behaviors of English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers in second-grade classrooms Academic performance inmath and spelling was used as content for the CWPT process followingprevious research Because of the reciprocal influence during the tutor-tutee procedure English language learners and native English speakersfrom both classrooms were expected to benefit from this positiveinteraction The hypothesis was that CWPT would increase Englishlanguage learnersrsquo social interactions as effectively as it increased nativeEnglish speakersrsquo social interactions

88 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants were selected from an elementary school located in anurban city of a Southwestern state Each of the two second-grade class-rooms had 14 students which was typical for the first- and second-gradeclassrooms in the participating school Their ages ranged from 7 to 8years old Seven children from each classroom (4 girls 3 boys) wereselected as the participants with a total of 14 participants in this studyPurposeful selection was used to achieve gender parity in the sample

All seven participants from Class 1 were English language learnerswhereas all seven participants from Class 2 were native English speakersThe English language learners were all enrolled in the local schooldistrict English language learner program and met the criteria estab-lished by the school district (a) Primary language is not English (b)proficiency in English is below the average proficiency of pupils at thesame age or grade level whose primary language is English (ie at leastone grade below based on the standardized English language proficiencytest) and (c) probability of success is impaired in a classroom in whichcourses of study are taught only in English because of the studentrsquoslimited proficiency in that language Data collection and analysis focusedonly on the 14 participants from the two classrooms although all 28children from the two classrooms were involved in the videotaping andCWPT process All 28 children also received parental consent becausethe videotaping might include children in the setting who were not studyparticipants

To enable the researchers to assess the participantsrsquo prerequisite skillsthe participants took a pretest on spelling and math before CWPT wasimplemented The spelling test included 10 words and the math testincluded 10 one-to-two-digit addition problems Both tests were devel-oped by the classroom teacher If any participant received a score below20 correct on either test a one-on-one activity with the teacher wasconducted to help the participant reach the criterion (20 correct atpretest) In Class 1 5 out of 14 children did not meet the spelling testcriterion and 3 of them did not meet the math test criterion In Class 23 participants did not meet the criterion for spelling and for mathrespectively After the one week of training with one-on-one activityeveryday one student from Class 1 and one student from Class 2 still didnot meet the spelling test criterion For the purpose of this researchthese two students were not selected as participants for data analysis Therange of the spelling test scores for Class 1 was from 20 to 80 with a meanof 50 and for Class 2 it was from 30 to 80 with a mean of 54 The range

88 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants were selected from an elementary school located in anurban city of a Southwestern state Each of the two second-grade class-rooms had 14 students which was typical for the first- and second-gradeclassrooms in the participating school Their ages ranged from 7 to 8years old Seven children from each classroom (4 girls 3 boys) wereselected as the participants with a total of 14 participants in this studyPurposeful selection was used to achieve gender parity in the sample

All seven participants from Class 1 were English language learnerswhereas all seven participants from Class 2 were native English speakersThe English language learners were all enrolled in the local schooldistrict English language learner program and met the criteria estab-lished by the school district (a) Primary language is not English (b)proficiency in English is below the average proficiency of pupils at thesame age or grade level whose primary language is English (ie at leastone grade below based on the standardized English language proficiencytest) and (c) probability of success is impaired in a classroom in whichcourses of study are taught only in English because of the studentrsquoslimited proficiency in that language Data collection and analysis focusedonly on the 14 participants from the two classrooms although all 28children from the two classrooms were involved in the videotaping andCWPT process All 28 children also received parental consent becausethe videotaping might include children in the setting who were not studyparticipants

To enable the researchers to assess the participantsrsquo prerequisite skillsthe participants took a pretest on spelling and math before CWPT wasimplemented The spelling test included 10 words and the math testincluded 10 one-to-two-digit addition problems Both tests were devel-oped by the classroom teacher If any participant received a score below20 correct on either test a one-on-one activity with the teacher wasconducted to help the participant reach the criterion (20 correct atpretest) In Class 1 5 out of 14 children did not meet the spelling testcriterion and 3 of them did not meet the math test criterion In Class 23 participants did not meet the criterion for spelling and for mathrespectively After the one week of training with one-on-one activityeveryday one student from Class 1 and one student from Class 2 still didnot meet the spelling test criterion For the purpose of this researchthese two students were not selected as participants for data analysis Therange of the spelling test scores for Class 1 was from 20 to 80 with a meanof 50 and for Class 2 it was from 30 to 80 with a mean of 54 The range

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60

Participating Teachers

The two classroom teachers participated in this study Teacher A fromClass 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school withone year of experience teaching first grade and one year teachingsecond grade Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teachingexperience with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teachingsecond grade Both teachers have a bachelorrsquos degree in elementaryeducation Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teachingEnglish language learner programs

Settings and Arrangement

This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in ayear-round school Both classrooms were second grade with children 7ndash8 years of age Class 1 included 13 English language learners and onenative English speaker who was involved in the CWPT process but wasnot selected as a participant for this study Class 2 included 13 nativeEnglish speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish)This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was notselected as a participant Adults involved in the classroom during the3-week observation period included the classroom teacher a practicumstudent a high school student worker and the researcher (the leadauthor) A Title I reading teacher came in once a day and twoadministrators came in once a week

Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)

The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditionsThe whole research process was videotaped and the coded number ofsocial interactions was recorded The social interactions were operation-ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer Antia Coyner Eldredgeamp Gupta 1991) To establish the baseline data the frequency of socialinteractions before CWPT was also videotaped

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60

Participating Teachers

The two classroom teachers participated in this study Teacher A fromClass 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school withone year of experience teaching first grade and one year teachingsecond grade Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teachingexperience with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teachingsecond grade Both teachers have a bachelorrsquos degree in elementaryeducation Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teachingEnglish language learner programs

Settings and Arrangement

This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in ayear-round school Both classrooms were second grade with children 7ndash8 years of age Class 1 included 13 English language learners and onenative English speaker who was involved in the CWPT process but wasnot selected as a participant for this study Class 2 included 13 nativeEnglish speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish)This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was notselected as a participant Adults involved in the classroom during the3-week observation period included the classroom teacher a practicumstudent a high school student worker and the researcher (the leadauthor) A Title I reading teacher came in once a day and twoadministrators came in once a week

Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)

The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditionsThe whole research process was videotaped and the coded number ofsocial interactions was recorded The social interactions were operation-ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer Antia Coyner Eldredgeamp Gupta 1991) To establish the baseline data the frequency of socialinteractions before CWPT was also videotaped

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 85

two levels of growth the actual level and the potential level Anindividual achieves his or her actual level of development throughindependent problem solving however he or she will need guidance orcollaboration from an adult or a more capable peer to reach thepotential level of development This concept underlines the interdepen-dence between individuals and the social processes in co-constructingknowledge ( John-Steiner amp Mahn 1996) Interactions with other chil-dren and with adults are the primary vehicles children have developedfor learning about the world around them

In early childhood education social play is viewed as a means to fosterand enhance language and cognitive social and emotional develop-ment (Ivory amp McCollum 1999) This is true for all children regardlessof their developmental level or their linguistic and cultural backgroundsPlay is an essential ingredient in early childhood programs and itenhances every aspect of child development (Berk 1999)

Traditionally Grades 1ndash3 are referred to as primary education andprimary education is separated from preschool or kindergarten educa-tion Instruction for primary grades is mainly teacher directed andformal including small- and large-group teaching combined with stu-dentsrsquo independent work Since the 1960s developmental theories ofPiaget Bruner Dewey and Erikson have become popular and acceptedin US education (Henniger 2002) Educators and other professionalshave realized that primary-grade children think more like preschool andkindergarten children than older elementary children and so they haveemphasized play activities child-initiated activities hands-on manipula-tion of objects and interaction with peers

Peer acceptance is a powerful predictor of current and later psycho-logical adjustment Studies show that social behavior plays a critical rolein causing a child to be liked or rejected (Berk 1999) For examplepopular children have very positive social skills They communicate withpeers in sensitive friendly and cooperative ways and are appropriatelyassertive On the other hand rejected children display a wide range ofnegative social behaviors Social play and peer imitation are thought tobe basic developmental processes to facilitate learning social skills(Garfinkle amp Schwartz 2002 Ivory amp McCollum 1999)

However because of nonnative-English-speaking childrenrsquos limitedEnglish proficiency or different cultural background these childrenrsquossocial behaviors may be different from or less than that of their English-speaking peers Most previous studies have focused on academic im-provement for children who have difficulty speaking English (egGersten amp Baker 2000b Greenwood Arreaga-Mayer Utley Gavin ampTerry 2001) Very few researchers have examined the social interactionbehaviors of these children

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 85

two levels of growth the actual level and the potential level Anindividual achieves his or her actual level of development throughindependent problem solving however he or she will need guidance orcollaboration from an adult or a more capable peer to reach thepotential level of development This concept underlines the interdepen-dence between individuals and the social processes in co-constructingknowledge ( John-Steiner amp Mahn 1996) Interactions with other chil-dren and with adults are the primary vehicles children have developedfor learning about the world around them

In early childhood education social play is viewed as a means to fosterand enhance language and cognitive social and emotional develop-ment (Ivory amp McCollum 1999) This is true for all children regardlessof their developmental level or their linguistic and cultural backgroundsPlay is an essential ingredient in early childhood programs and itenhances every aspect of child development (Berk 1999)

Traditionally Grades 1ndash3 are referred to as primary education andprimary education is separated from preschool or kindergarten educa-tion Instruction for primary grades is mainly teacher directed andformal including small- and large-group teaching combined with stu-dentsrsquo independent work Since the 1960s developmental theories ofPiaget Bruner Dewey and Erikson have become popular and acceptedin US education (Henniger 2002) Educators and other professionalshave realized that primary-grade children think more like preschool andkindergarten children than older elementary children and so they haveemphasized play activities child-initiated activities hands-on manipula-tion of objects and interaction with peers

Peer acceptance is a powerful predictor of current and later psycho-logical adjustment Studies show that social behavior plays a critical rolein causing a child to be liked or rejected (Berk 1999) For examplepopular children have very positive social skills They communicate withpeers in sensitive friendly and cooperative ways and are appropriatelyassertive On the other hand rejected children display a wide range ofnegative social behaviors Social play and peer imitation are thought tobe basic developmental processes to facilitate learning social skills(Garfinkle amp Schwartz 2002 Ivory amp McCollum 1999)

However because of nonnative-English-speaking childrenrsquos limitedEnglish proficiency or different cultural background these childrenrsquossocial behaviors may be different from or less than that of their English-speaking peers Most previous studies have focused on academic im-provement for children who have difficulty speaking English (egGersten amp Baker 2000b Greenwood Arreaga-Mayer Utley Gavin ampTerry 2001) Very few researchers have examined the social interactionbehaviors of these children

86 TESOL QUARTERLY

CLASSWIDE PEER TUTORING

CWPT is a specific form of peer-mediated instruction that encourageschildren to learn from each other facilitated and supported by theteacher CWPT was originally developed to improve the academicperformance of children from low socioeconomic culturally diversebackgrounds in schools federally funded under Title I1 (DelquadriGreenwood Stretton amp Hall 1983) In the past 20 years CWPT has beenused in general and special education settings It has worked for childrenfrom diverse backgrounds and different developmental levels

Unlike other forms of peer tutoring that typically involve an older ormore capable tutor for a younger or less capable tutee CWPT involvesreciprocal tutor-tutee pairs in the same classroom or age group Duringthe CWPT process every child has an equal opportunity to be a tutor anda tutee The process involves procedures such as the following selectinginstructional content and materials pairing all students into tutor-tuteepartners regularly changing tutor-tutee partners immediately correct-ing errors and giving points contingent upon performance arrangingthe whole class into two teams competing for higher total points postingindividual and team scores and socially rewarding the winning team(Greenwood Delquadri amp Carta 1988)

Areas covered by CWPT include reading assorted other languageabilities and mathematics (Chun amp Winter 1999) In their comprehen-sive review of literature on CWPT used for native-English-speakingchildren DuPaul and Eckert (1998) reported that results from empiricalstudies in these areas have supported CWPTrsquos effectiveness CWPT hasbeen found superior to conventional forms of teacher-mediated instruc-tion in reading fluency and comprehension and mastery of other basicacademic skills (Greenwood et al 2001) It also helps low-achievingstudents improve spelling performance (Greenwood Delquadri amp Hall1989 Maheady amp Harper 1987)

In spite of its effectiveness for children with and without limitations inacademic areas few empirical studies have been done in generaleducation settings on the relationship between CWPT and social interac-tions among primary-grade children whose first language is not EnglishThe limited empirical studies on children learning English have almostall focused on their English language development or their academicperformance (August 1987 Gersten amp Baker 2000a Greenwood et al2001) Greenwood and colleagues (2001) used the classwide peer

1 Title I is an amendment to the US Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) TitleI provides federal funds that address the needs of US school districts with a large populationof children living in poverty

86 TESOL QUARTERLY

CLASSWIDE PEER TUTORING

CWPT is a specific form of peer-mediated instruction that encourageschildren to learn from each other facilitated and supported by theteacher CWPT was originally developed to improve the academicperformance of children from low socioeconomic culturally diversebackgrounds in schools federally funded under Title I1 (DelquadriGreenwood Stretton amp Hall 1983) In the past 20 years CWPT has beenused in general and special education settings It has worked for childrenfrom diverse backgrounds and different developmental levels

Unlike other forms of peer tutoring that typically involve an older ormore capable tutor for a younger or less capable tutee CWPT involvesreciprocal tutor-tutee pairs in the same classroom or age group Duringthe CWPT process every child has an equal opportunity to be a tutor anda tutee The process involves procedures such as the following selectinginstructional content and materials pairing all students into tutor-tuteepartners regularly changing tutor-tutee partners immediately correct-ing errors and giving points contingent upon performance arrangingthe whole class into two teams competing for higher total points postingindividual and team scores and socially rewarding the winning team(Greenwood Delquadri amp Carta 1988)

Areas covered by CWPT include reading assorted other languageabilities and mathematics (Chun amp Winter 1999) In their comprehen-sive review of literature on CWPT used for native-English-speakingchildren DuPaul and Eckert (1998) reported that results from empiricalstudies in these areas have supported CWPTrsquos effectiveness CWPT hasbeen found superior to conventional forms of teacher-mediated instruc-tion in reading fluency and comprehension and mastery of other basicacademic skills (Greenwood et al 2001) It also helps low-achievingstudents improve spelling performance (Greenwood Delquadri amp Hall1989 Maheady amp Harper 1987)

In spite of its effectiveness for children with and without limitations inacademic areas few empirical studies have been done in generaleducation settings on the relationship between CWPT and social interac-tions among primary-grade children whose first language is not EnglishThe limited empirical studies on children learning English have almostall focused on their English language development or their academicperformance (August 1987 Gersten amp Baker 2000a Greenwood et al2001) Greenwood and colleagues (2001) used the classwide peer

1 Title I is an amendment to the US Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) TitleI provides federal funds that address the needs of US school districts with a large populationof children living in poverty

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 87

tutoring learning management system (CWPT-LMS) in the literacyinstruction of elementary-level English language learners August (1987)examined the effects of peer tutoring other than CWPT on secondlanguage acquisition of Mexican-American children Similarly Gerstenand Baker (2000a) reported the effectiveness of peer tutoring andcooperative learning on English language learnersrsquo English languagedevelopment Although some previous studies (eg Kamps KravitsStolze amp Swaggart 1999 Locke amp Fuchs 1995) have reported the effectsof CWPT on peer interactions when it was combined with positivereinforcement or rewards the effectiveness of CWPT without usingpositive reinforcement is unknown Educators need to know if theimproved peer interaction behavior resulted from the positive reinforce-ment or the CWPT No previous studies have singled out the effective-ness of CWPT on social interactions isolated from other variables(DuPaul amp Eckert 1998) This study therefore focused on the socialaspects of CWPT among the much under-studied English languagestudent population

Furthermore previous studies have provided few findings comparingthe social behaviors of English language learners and native Englishspeakers Unfortunately labeled as limited English proficient Englishlanguage learners are characterized by a particular deficiency Thischaracterization often results in a lower quality of education for thesestudents in terms of materials interactions activities and expectationswhich themselves create deficiencies in many other dimensions (Faltis1997) To provide fair and equal educational opportunities for allindividuals educators must find out more about the relationship be-tween studentsrsquo cultural backgrounds and their social interactionsFurthermore if such a relationship exists educators need to determinewhether the process of education has an effect on social interactionbehaviors

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of CWPT onsocial interaction behaviors of English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers in second-grade classrooms Academic performance inmath and spelling was used as content for the CWPT process followingprevious research Because of the reciprocal influence during the tutor-tutee procedure English language learners and native English speakersfrom both classrooms were expected to benefit from this positiveinteraction The hypothesis was that CWPT would increase Englishlanguage learnersrsquo social interactions as effectively as it increased nativeEnglish speakersrsquo social interactions

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 87

tutoring learning management system (CWPT-LMS) in the literacyinstruction of elementary-level English language learners August (1987)examined the effects of peer tutoring other than CWPT on secondlanguage acquisition of Mexican-American children Similarly Gerstenand Baker (2000a) reported the effectiveness of peer tutoring andcooperative learning on English language learnersrsquo English languagedevelopment Although some previous studies (eg Kamps KravitsStolze amp Swaggart 1999 Locke amp Fuchs 1995) have reported the effectsof CWPT on peer interactions when it was combined with positivereinforcement or rewards the effectiveness of CWPT without usingpositive reinforcement is unknown Educators need to know if theimproved peer interaction behavior resulted from the positive reinforce-ment or the CWPT No previous studies have singled out the effective-ness of CWPT on social interactions isolated from other variables(DuPaul amp Eckert 1998) This study therefore focused on the socialaspects of CWPT among the much under-studied English languagestudent population

Furthermore previous studies have provided few findings comparingthe social behaviors of English language learners and native Englishspeakers Unfortunately labeled as limited English proficient Englishlanguage learners are characterized by a particular deficiency Thischaracterization often results in a lower quality of education for thesestudents in terms of materials interactions activities and expectationswhich themselves create deficiencies in many other dimensions (Faltis1997) To provide fair and equal educational opportunities for allindividuals educators must find out more about the relationship be-tween studentsrsquo cultural backgrounds and their social interactionsFurthermore if such a relationship exists educators need to determinewhether the process of education has an effect on social interactionbehaviors

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of CWPT onsocial interaction behaviors of English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers in second-grade classrooms Academic performance inmath and spelling was used as content for the CWPT process followingprevious research Because of the reciprocal influence during the tutor-tutee procedure English language learners and native English speakersfrom both classrooms were expected to benefit from this positiveinteraction The hypothesis was that CWPT would increase Englishlanguage learnersrsquo social interactions as effectively as it increased nativeEnglish speakersrsquo social interactions

88 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants were selected from an elementary school located in anurban city of a Southwestern state Each of the two second-grade class-rooms had 14 students which was typical for the first- and second-gradeclassrooms in the participating school Their ages ranged from 7 to 8years old Seven children from each classroom (4 girls 3 boys) wereselected as the participants with a total of 14 participants in this studyPurposeful selection was used to achieve gender parity in the sample

All seven participants from Class 1 were English language learnerswhereas all seven participants from Class 2 were native English speakersThe English language learners were all enrolled in the local schooldistrict English language learner program and met the criteria estab-lished by the school district (a) Primary language is not English (b)proficiency in English is below the average proficiency of pupils at thesame age or grade level whose primary language is English (ie at leastone grade below based on the standardized English language proficiencytest) and (c) probability of success is impaired in a classroom in whichcourses of study are taught only in English because of the studentrsquoslimited proficiency in that language Data collection and analysis focusedonly on the 14 participants from the two classrooms although all 28children from the two classrooms were involved in the videotaping andCWPT process All 28 children also received parental consent becausethe videotaping might include children in the setting who were not studyparticipants

To enable the researchers to assess the participantsrsquo prerequisite skillsthe participants took a pretest on spelling and math before CWPT wasimplemented The spelling test included 10 words and the math testincluded 10 one-to-two-digit addition problems Both tests were devel-oped by the classroom teacher If any participant received a score below20 correct on either test a one-on-one activity with the teacher wasconducted to help the participant reach the criterion (20 correct atpretest) In Class 1 5 out of 14 children did not meet the spelling testcriterion and 3 of them did not meet the math test criterion In Class 23 participants did not meet the criterion for spelling and for mathrespectively After the one week of training with one-on-one activityeveryday one student from Class 1 and one student from Class 2 still didnot meet the spelling test criterion For the purpose of this researchthese two students were not selected as participants for data analysis Therange of the spelling test scores for Class 1 was from 20 to 80 with a meanof 50 and for Class 2 it was from 30 to 80 with a mean of 54 The range

88 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants were selected from an elementary school located in anurban city of a Southwestern state Each of the two second-grade class-rooms had 14 students which was typical for the first- and second-gradeclassrooms in the participating school Their ages ranged from 7 to 8years old Seven children from each classroom (4 girls 3 boys) wereselected as the participants with a total of 14 participants in this studyPurposeful selection was used to achieve gender parity in the sample

All seven participants from Class 1 were English language learnerswhereas all seven participants from Class 2 were native English speakersThe English language learners were all enrolled in the local schooldistrict English language learner program and met the criteria estab-lished by the school district (a) Primary language is not English (b)proficiency in English is below the average proficiency of pupils at thesame age or grade level whose primary language is English (ie at leastone grade below based on the standardized English language proficiencytest) and (c) probability of success is impaired in a classroom in whichcourses of study are taught only in English because of the studentrsquoslimited proficiency in that language Data collection and analysis focusedonly on the 14 participants from the two classrooms although all 28children from the two classrooms were involved in the videotaping andCWPT process All 28 children also received parental consent becausethe videotaping might include children in the setting who were not studyparticipants

To enable the researchers to assess the participantsrsquo prerequisite skillsthe participants took a pretest on spelling and math before CWPT wasimplemented The spelling test included 10 words and the math testincluded 10 one-to-two-digit addition problems Both tests were devel-oped by the classroom teacher If any participant received a score below20 correct on either test a one-on-one activity with the teacher wasconducted to help the participant reach the criterion (20 correct atpretest) In Class 1 5 out of 14 children did not meet the spelling testcriterion and 3 of them did not meet the math test criterion In Class 23 participants did not meet the criterion for spelling and for mathrespectively After the one week of training with one-on-one activityeveryday one student from Class 1 and one student from Class 2 still didnot meet the spelling test criterion For the purpose of this researchthese two students were not selected as participants for data analysis Therange of the spelling test scores for Class 1 was from 20 to 80 with a meanof 50 and for Class 2 it was from 30 to 80 with a mean of 54 The range

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60

Participating Teachers

The two classroom teachers participated in this study Teacher A fromClass 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school withone year of experience teaching first grade and one year teachingsecond grade Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teachingexperience with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teachingsecond grade Both teachers have a bachelorrsquos degree in elementaryeducation Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teachingEnglish language learner programs

Settings and Arrangement

This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in ayear-round school Both classrooms were second grade with children 7ndash8 years of age Class 1 included 13 English language learners and onenative English speaker who was involved in the CWPT process but wasnot selected as a participant for this study Class 2 included 13 nativeEnglish speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish)This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was notselected as a participant Adults involved in the classroom during the3-week observation period included the classroom teacher a practicumstudent a high school student worker and the researcher (the leadauthor) A Title I reading teacher came in once a day and twoadministrators came in once a week

Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)

The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditionsThe whole research process was videotaped and the coded number ofsocial interactions was recorded The social interactions were operation-ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer Antia Coyner Eldredgeamp Gupta 1991) To establish the baseline data the frequency of socialinteractions before CWPT was also videotaped

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60

Participating Teachers

The two classroom teachers participated in this study Teacher A fromClass 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school withone year of experience teaching first grade and one year teachingsecond grade Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teachingexperience with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teachingsecond grade Both teachers have a bachelorrsquos degree in elementaryeducation Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teachingEnglish language learner programs

Settings and Arrangement

This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in ayear-round school Both classrooms were second grade with children 7ndash8 years of age Class 1 included 13 English language learners and onenative English speaker who was involved in the CWPT process but wasnot selected as a participant for this study Class 2 included 13 nativeEnglish speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish)This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was notselected as a participant Adults involved in the classroom during the3-week observation period included the classroom teacher a practicumstudent a high school student worker and the researcher (the leadauthor) A Title I reading teacher came in once a day and twoadministrators came in once a week

Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)

The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditionsThe whole research process was videotaped and the coded number ofsocial interactions was recorded The social interactions were operation-ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer Antia Coyner Eldredgeamp Gupta 1991) To establish the baseline data the frequency of socialinteractions before CWPT was also videotaped

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

86 TESOL QUARTERLY

CLASSWIDE PEER TUTORING

CWPT is a specific form of peer-mediated instruction that encourageschildren to learn from each other facilitated and supported by theteacher CWPT was originally developed to improve the academicperformance of children from low socioeconomic culturally diversebackgrounds in schools federally funded under Title I1 (DelquadriGreenwood Stretton amp Hall 1983) In the past 20 years CWPT has beenused in general and special education settings It has worked for childrenfrom diverse backgrounds and different developmental levels

Unlike other forms of peer tutoring that typically involve an older ormore capable tutor for a younger or less capable tutee CWPT involvesreciprocal tutor-tutee pairs in the same classroom or age group Duringthe CWPT process every child has an equal opportunity to be a tutor anda tutee The process involves procedures such as the following selectinginstructional content and materials pairing all students into tutor-tuteepartners regularly changing tutor-tutee partners immediately correct-ing errors and giving points contingent upon performance arrangingthe whole class into two teams competing for higher total points postingindividual and team scores and socially rewarding the winning team(Greenwood Delquadri amp Carta 1988)

Areas covered by CWPT include reading assorted other languageabilities and mathematics (Chun amp Winter 1999) In their comprehen-sive review of literature on CWPT used for native-English-speakingchildren DuPaul and Eckert (1998) reported that results from empiricalstudies in these areas have supported CWPTrsquos effectiveness CWPT hasbeen found superior to conventional forms of teacher-mediated instruc-tion in reading fluency and comprehension and mastery of other basicacademic skills (Greenwood et al 2001) It also helps low-achievingstudents improve spelling performance (Greenwood Delquadri amp Hall1989 Maheady amp Harper 1987)

In spite of its effectiveness for children with and without limitations inacademic areas few empirical studies have been done in generaleducation settings on the relationship between CWPT and social interac-tions among primary-grade children whose first language is not EnglishThe limited empirical studies on children learning English have almostall focused on their English language development or their academicperformance (August 1987 Gersten amp Baker 2000a Greenwood et al2001) Greenwood and colleagues (2001) used the classwide peer

1 Title I is an amendment to the US Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) TitleI provides federal funds that address the needs of US school districts with a large populationof children living in poverty

86 TESOL QUARTERLY

CLASSWIDE PEER TUTORING

CWPT is a specific form of peer-mediated instruction that encourageschildren to learn from each other facilitated and supported by theteacher CWPT was originally developed to improve the academicperformance of children from low socioeconomic culturally diversebackgrounds in schools federally funded under Title I1 (DelquadriGreenwood Stretton amp Hall 1983) In the past 20 years CWPT has beenused in general and special education settings It has worked for childrenfrom diverse backgrounds and different developmental levels

Unlike other forms of peer tutoring that typically involve an older ormore capable tutor for a younger or less capable tutee CWPT involvesreciprocal tutor-tutee pairs in the same classroom or age group Duringthe CWPT process every child has an equal opportunity to be a tutor anda tutee The process involves procedures such as the following selectinginstructional content and materials pairing all students into tutor-tuteepartners regularly changing tutor-tutee partners immediately correct-ing errors and giving points contingent upon performance arrangingthe whole class into two teams competing for higher total points postingindividual and team scores and socially rewarding the winning team(Greenwood Delquadri amp Carta 1988)

Areas covered by CWPT include reading assorted other languageabilities and mathematics (Chun amp Winter 1999) In their comprehen-sive review of literature on CWPT used for native-English-speakingchildren DuPaul and Eckert (1998) reported that results from empiricalstudies in these areas have supported CWPTrsquos effectiveness CWPT hasbeen found superior to conventional forms of teacher-mediated instruc-tion in reading fluency and comprehension and mastery of other basicacademic skills (Greenwood et al 2001) It also helps low-achievingstudents improve spelling performance (Greenwood Delquadri amp Hall1989 Maheady amp Harper 1987)

In spite of its effectiveness for children with and without limitations inacademic areas few empirical studies have been done in generaleducation settings on the relationship between CWPT and social interac-tions among primary-grade children whose first language is not EnglishThe limited empirical studies on children learning English have almostall focused on their English language development or their academicperformance (August 1987 Gersten amp Baker 2000a Greenwood et al2001) Greenwood and colleagues (2001) used the classwide peer

1 Title I is an amendment to the US Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) TitleI provides federal funds that address the needs of US school districts with a large populationof children living in poverty

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 87

tutoring learning management system (CWPT-LMS) in the literacyinstruction of elementary-level English language learners August (1987)examined the effects of peer tutoring other than CWPT on secondlanguage acquisition of Mexican-American children Similarly Gerstenand Baker (2000a) reported the effectiveness of peer tutoring andcooperative learning on English language learnersrsquo English languagedevelopment Although some previous studies (eg Kamps KravitsStolze amp Swaggart 1999 Locke amp Fuchs 1995) have reported the effectsof CWPT on peer interactions when it was combined with positivereinforcement or rewards the effectiveness of CWPT without usingpositive reinforcement is unknown Educators need to know if theimproved peer interaction behavior resulted from the positive reinforce-ment or the CWPT No previous studies have singled out the effective-ness of CWPT on social interactions isolated from other variables(DuPaul amp Eckert 1998) This study therefore focused on the socialaspects of CWPT among the much under-studied English languagestudent population

Furthermore previous studies have provided few findings comparingthe social behaviors of English language learners and native Englishspeakers Unfortunately labeled as limited English proficient Englishlanguage learners are characterized by a particular deficiency Thischaracterization often results in a lower quality of education for thesestudents in terms of materials interactions activities and expectationswhich themselves create deficiencies in many other dimensions (Faltis1997) To provide fair and equal educational opportunities for allindividuals educators must find out more about the relationship be-tween studentsrsquo cultural backgrounds and their social interactionsFurthermore if such a relationship exists educators need to determinewhether the process of education has an effect on social interactionbehaviors

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of CWPT onsocial interaction behaviors of English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers in second-grade classrooms Academic performance inmath and spelling was used as content for the CWPT process followingprevious research Because of the reciprocal influence during the tutor-tutee procedure English language learners and native English speakersfrom both classrooms were expected to benefit from this positiveinteraction The hypothesis was that CWPT would increase Englishlanguage learnersrsquo social interactions as effectively as it increased nativeEnglish speakersrsquo social interactions

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 87

tutoring learning management system (CWPT-LMS) in the literacyinstruction of elementary-level English language learners August (1987)examined the effects of peer tutoring other than CWPT on secondlanguage acquisition of Mexican-American children Similarly Gerstenand Baker (2000a) reported the effectiveness of peer tutoring andcooperative learning on English language learnersrsquo English languagedevelopment Although some previous studies (eg Kamps KravitsStolze amp Swaggart 1999 Locke amp Fuchs 1995) have reported the effectsof CWPT on peer interactions when it was combined with positivereinforcement or rewards the effectiveness of CWPT without usingpositive reinforcement is unknown Educators need to know if theimproved peer interaction behavior resulted from the positive reinforce-ment or the CWPT No previous studies have singled out the effective-ness of CWPT on social interactions isolated from other variables(DuPaul amp Eckert 1998) This study therefore focused on the socialaspects of CWPT among the much under-studied English languagestudent population

Furthermore previous studies have provided few findings comparingthe social behaviors of English language learners and native Englishspeakers Unfortunately labeled as limited English proficient Englishlanguage learners are characterized by a particular deficiency Thischaracterization often results in a lower quality of education for thesestudents in terms of materials interactions activities and expectationswhich themselves create deficiencies in many other dimensions (Faltis1997) To provide fair and equal educational opportunities for allindividuals educators must find out more about the relationship be-tween studentsrsquo cultural backgrounds and their social interactionsFurthermore if such a relationship exists educators need to determinewhether the process of education has an effect on social interactionbehaviors

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of CWPT onsocial interaction behaviors of English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers in second-grade classrooms Academic performance inmath and spelling was used as content for the CWPT process followingprevious research Because of the reciprocal influence during the tutor-tutee procedure English language learners and native English speakersfrom both classrooms were expected to benefit from this positiveinteraction The hypothesis was that CWPT would increase Englishlanguage learnersrsquo social interactions as effectively as it increased nativeEnglish speakersrsquo social interactions

88 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants were selected from an elementary school located in anurban city of a Southwestern state Each of the two second-grade class-rooms had 14 students which was typical for the first- and second-gradeclassrooms in the participating school Their ages ranged from 7 to 8years old Seven children from each classroom (4 girls 3 boys) wereselected as the participants with a total of 14 participants in this studyPurposeful selection was used to achieve gender parity in the sample

All seven participants from Class 1 were English language learnerswhereas all seven participants from Class 2 were native English speakersThe English language learners were all enrolled in the local schooldistrict English language learner program and met the criteria estab-lished by the school district (a) Primary language is not English (b)proficiency in English is below the average proficiency of pupils at thesame age or grade level whose primary language is English (ie at leastone grade below based on the standardized English language proficiencytest) and (c) probability of success is impaired in a classroom in whichcourses of study are taught only in English because of the studentrsquoslimited proficiency in that language Data collection and analysis focusedonly on the 14 participants from the two classrooms although all 28children from the two classrooms were involved in the videotaping andCWPT process All 28 children also received parental consent becausethe videotaping might include children in the setting who were not studyparticipants

To enable the researchers to assess the participantsrsquo prerequisite skillsthe participants took a pretest on spelling and math before CWPT wasimplemented The spelling test included 10 words and the math testincluded 10 one-to-two-digit addition problems Both tests were devel-oped by the classroom teacher If any participant received a score below20 correct on either test a one-on-one activity with the teacher wasconducted to help the participant reach the criterion (20 correct atpretest) In Class 1 5 out of 14 children did not meet the spelling testcriterion and 3 of them did not meet the math test criterion In Class 23 participants did not meet the criterion for spelling and for mathrespectively After the one week of training with one-on-one activityeveryday one student from Class 1 and one student from Class 2 still didnot meet the spelling test criterion For the purpose of this researchthese two students were not selected as participants for data analysis Therange of the spelling test scores for Class 1 was from 20 to 80 with a meanof 50 and for Class 2 it was from 30 to 80 with a mean of 54 The range

88 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants were selected from an elementary school located in anurban city of a Southwestern state Each of the two second-grade class-rooms had 14 students which was typical for the first- and second-gradeclassrooms in the participating school Their ages ranged from 7 to 8years old Seven children from each classroom (4 girls 3 boys) wereselected as the participants with a total of 14 participants in this studyPurposeful selection was used to achieve gender parity in the sample

All seven participants from Class 1 were English language learnerswhereas all seven participants from Class 2 were native English speakersThe English language learners were all enrolled in the local schooldistrict English language learner program and met the criteria estab-lished by the school district (a) Primary language is not English (b)proficiency in English is below the average proficiency of pupils at thesame age or grade level whose primary language is English (ie at leastone grade below based on the standardized English language proficiencytest) and (c) probability of success is impaired in a classroom in whichcourses of study are taught only in English because of the studentrsquoslimited proficiency in that language Data collection and analysis focusedonly on the 14 participants from the two classrooms although all 28children from the two classrooms were involved in the videotaping andCWPT process All 28 children also received parental consent becausethe videotaping might include children in the setting who were not studyparticipants

To enable the researchers to assess the participantsrsquo prerequisite skillsthe participants took a pretest on spelling and math before CWPT wasimplemented The spelling test included 10 words and the math testincluded 10 one-to-two-digit addition problems Both tests were devel-oped by the classroom teacher If any participant received a score below20 correct on either test a one-on-one activity with the teacher wasconducted to help the participant reach the criterion (20 correct atpretest) In Class 1 5 out of 14 children did not meet the spelling testcriterion and 3 of them did not meet the math test criterion In Class 23 participants did not meet the criterion for spelling and for mathrespectively After the one week of training with one-on-one activityeveryday one student from Class 1 and one student from Class 2 still didnot meet the spelling test criterion For the purpose of this researchthese two students were not selected as participants for data analysis Therange of the spelling test scores for Class 1 was from 20 to 80 with a meanof 50 and for Class 2 it was from 30 to 80 with a mean of 54 The range

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60

Participating Teachers

The two classroom teachers participated in this study Teacher A fromClass 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school withone year of experience teaching first grade and one year teachingsecond grade Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teachingexperience with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teachingsecond grade Both teachers have a bachelorrsquos degree in elementaryeducation Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teachingEnglish language learner programs

Settings and Arrangement

This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in ayear-round school Both classrooms were second grade with children 7ndash8 years of age Class 1 included 13 English language learners and onenative English speaker who was involved in the CWPT process but wasnot selected as a participant for this study Class 2 included 13 nativeEnglish speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish)This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was notselected as a participant Adults involved in the classroom during the3-week observation period included the classroom teacher a practicumstudent a high school student worker and the researcher (the leadauthor) A Title I reading teacher came in once a day and twoadministrators came in once a week

Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)

The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditionsThe whole research process was videotaped and the coded number ofsocial interactions was recorded The social interactions were operation-ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer Antia Coyner Eldredgeamp Gupta 1991) To establish the baseline data the frequency of socialinteractions before CWPT was also videotaped

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60

Participating Teachers

The two classroom teachers participated in this study Teacher A fromClass 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school withone year of experience teaching first grade and one year teachingsecond grade Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teachingexperience with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teachingsecond grade Both teachers have a bachelorrsquos degree in elementaryeducation Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teachingEnglish language learner programs

Settings and Arrangement

This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in ayear-round school Both classrooms were second grade with children 7ndash8 years of age Class 1 included 13 English language learners and onenative English speaker who was involved in the CWPT process but wasnot selected as a participant for this study Class 2 included 13 nativeEnglish speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish)This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was notselected as a participant Adults involved in the classroom during the3-week observation period included the classroom teacher a practicumstudent a high school student worker and the researcher (the leadauthor) A Title I reading teacher came in once a day and twoadministrators came in once a week

Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)

The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditionsThe whole research process was videotaped and the coded number ofsocial interactions was recorded The social interactions were operation-ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer Antia Coyner Eldredgeamp Gupta 1991) To establish the baseline data the frequency of socialinteractions before CWPT was also videotaped

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 87

tutoring learning management system (CWPT-LMS) in the literacyinstruction of elementary-level English language learners August (1987)examined the effects of peer tutoring other than CWPT on secondlanguage acquisition of Mexican-American children Similarly Gerstenand Baker (2000a) reported the effectiveness of peer tutoring andcooperative learning on English language learnersrsquo English languagedevelopment Although some previous studies (eg Kamps KravitsStolze amp Swaggart 1999 Locke amp Fuchs 1995) have reported the effectsof CWPT on peer interactions when it was combined with positivereinforcement or rewards the effectiveness of CWPT without usingpositive reinforcement is unknown Educators need to know if theimproved peer interaction behavior resulted from the positive reinforce-ment or the CWPT No previous studies have singled out the effective-ness of CWPT on social interactions isolated from other variables(DuPaul amp Eckert 1998) This study therefore focused on the socialaspects of CWPT among the much under-studied English languagestudent population

Furthermore previous studies have provided few findings comparingthe social behaviors of English language learners and native Englishspeakers Unfortunately labeled as limited English proficient Englishlanguage learners are characterized by a particular deficiency Thischaracterization often results in a lower quality of education for thesestudents in terms of materials interactions activities and expectationswhich themselves create deficiencies in many other dimensions (Faltis1997) To provide fair and equal educational opportunities for allindividuals educators must find out more about the relationship be-tween studentsrsquo cultural backgrounds and their social interactionsFurthermore if such a relationship exists educators need to determinewhether the process of education has an effect on social interactionbehaviors

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of CWPT onsocial interaction behaviors of English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers in second-grade classrooms Academic performance inmath and spelling was used as content for the CWPT process followingprevious research Because of the reciprocal influence during the tutor-tutee procedure English language learners and native English speakersfrom both classrooms were expected to benefit from this positiveinteraction The hypothesis was that CWPT would increase Englishlanguage learnersrsquo social interactions as effectively as it increased nativeEnglish speakersrsquo social interactions

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 87

tutoring learning management system (CWPT-LMS) in the literacyinstruction of elementary-level English language learners August (1987)examined the effects of peer tutoring other than CWPT on secondlanguage acquisition of Mexican-American children Similarly Gerstenand Baker (2000a) reported the effectiveness of peer tutoring andcooperative learning on English language learnersrsquo English languagedevelopment Although some previous studies (eg Kamps KravitsStolze amp Swaggart 1999 Locke amp Fuchs 1995) have reported the effectsof CWPT on peer interactions when it was combined with positivereinforcement or rewards the effectiveness of CWPT without usingpositive reinforcement is unknown Educators need to know if theimproved peer interaction behavior resulted from the positive reinforce-ment or the CWPT No previous studies have singled out the effective-ness of CWPT on social interactions isolated from other variables(DuPaul amp Eckert 1998) This study therefore focused on the socialaspects of CWPT among the much under-studied English languagestudent population

Furthermore previous studies have provided few findings comparingthe social behaviors of English language learners and native Englishspeakers Unfortunately labeled as limited English proficient Englishlanguage learners are characterized by a particular deficiency Thischaracterization often results in a lower quality of education for thesestudents in terms of materials interactions activities and expectationswhich themselves create deficiencies in many other dimensions (Faltis1997) To provide fair and equal educational opportunities for allindividuals educators must find out more about the relationship be-tween studentsrsquo cultural backgrounds and their social interactionsFurthermore if such a relationship exists educators need to determinewhether the process of education has an effect on social interactionbehaviors

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of CWPT onsocial interaction behaviors of English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers in second-grade classrooms Academic performance inmath and spelling was used as content for the CWPT process followingprevious research Because of the reciprocal influence during the tutor-tutee procedure English language learners and native English speakersfrom both classrooms were expected to benefit from this positiveinteraction The hypothesis was that CWPT would increase Englishlanguage learnersrsquo social interactions as effectively as it increased nativeEnglish speakersrsquo social interactions

88 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants were selected from an elementary school located in anurban city of a Southwestern state Each of the two second-grade class-rooms had 14 students which was typical for the first- and second-gradeclassrooms in the participating school Their ages ranged from 7 to 8years old Seven children from each classroom (4 girls 3 boys) wereselected as the participants with a total of 14 participants in this studyPurposeful selection was used to achieve gender parity in the sample

All seven participants from Class 1 were English language learnerswhereas all seven participants from Class 2 were native English speakersThe English language learners were all enrolled in the local schooldistrict English language learner program and met the criteria estab-lished by the school district (a) Primary language is not English (b)proficiency in English is below the average proficiency of pupils at thesame age or grade level whose primary language is English (ie at leastone grade below based on the standardized English language proficiencytest) and (c) probability of success is impaired in a classroom in whichcourses of study are taught only in English because of the studentrsquoslimited proficiency in that language Data collection and analysis focusedonly on the 14 participants from the two classrooms although all 28children from the two classrooms were involved in the videotaping andCWPT process All 28 children also received parental consent becausethe videotaping might include children in the setting who were not studyparticipants

To enable the researchers to assess the participantsrsquo prerequisite skillsthe participants took a pretest on spelling and math before CWPT wasimplemented The spelling test included 10 words and the math testincluded 10 one-to-two-digit addition problems Both tests were devel-oped by the classroom teacher If any participant received a score below20 correct on either test a one-on-one activity with the teacher wasconducted to help the participant reach the criterion (20 correct atpretest) In Class 1 5 out of 14 children did not meet the spelling testcriterion and 3 of them did not meet the math test criterion In Class 23 participants did not meet the criterion for spelling and for mathrespectively After the one week of training with one-on-one activityeveryday one student from Class 1 and one student from Class 2 still didnot meet the spelling test criterion For the purpose of this researchthese two students were not selected as participants for data analysis Therange of the spelling test scores for Class 1 was from 20 to 80 with a meanof 50 and for Class 2 it was from 30 to 80 with a mean of 54 The range

88 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants were selected from an elementary school located in anurban city of a Southwestern state Each of the two second-grade class-rooms had 14 students which was typical for the first- and second-gradeclassrooms in the participating school Their ages ranged from 7 to 8years old Seven children from each classroom (4 girls 3 boys) wereselected as the participants with a total of 14 participants in this studyPurposeful selection was used to achieve gender parity in the sample

All seven participants from Class 1 were English language learnerswhereas all seven participants from Class 2 were native English speakersThe English language learners were all enrolled in the local schooldistrict English language learner program and met the criteria estab-lished by the school district (a) Primary language is not English (b)proficiency in English is below the average proficiency of pupils at thesame age or grade level whose primary language is English (ie at leastone grade below based on the standardized English language proficiencytest) and (c) probability of success is impaired in a classroom in whichcourses of study are taught only in English because of the studentrsquoslimited proficiency in that language Data collection and analysis focusedonly on the 14 participants from the two classrooms although all 28children from the two classrooms were involved in the videotaping andCWPT process All 28 children also received parental consent becausethe videotaping might include children in the setting who were not studyparticipants

To enable the researchers to assess the participantsrsquo prerequisite skillsthe participants took a pretest on spelling and math before CWPT wasimplemented The spelling test included 10 words and the math testincluded 10 one-to-two-digit addition problems Both tests were devel-oped by the classroom teacher If any participant received a score below20 correct on either test a one-on-one activity with the teacher wasconducted to help the participant reach the criterion (20 correct atpretest) In Class 1 5 out of 14 children did not meet the spelling testcriterion and 3 of them did not meet the math test criterion In Class 23 participants did not meet the criterion for spelling and for mathrespectively After the one week of training with one-on-one activityeveryday one student from Class 1 and one student from Class 2 still didnot meet the spelling test criterion For the purpose of this researchthese two students were not selected as participants for data analysis Therange of the spelling test scores for Class 1 was from 20 to 80 with a meanof 50 and for Class 2 it was from 30 to 80 with a mean of 54 The range

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60

Participating Teachers

The two classroom teachers participated in this study Teacher A fromClass 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school withone year of experience teaching first grade and one year teachingsecond grade Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teachingexperience with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teachingsecond grade Both teachers have a bachelorrsquos degree in elementaryeducation Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teachingEnglish language learner programs

Settings and Arrangement

This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in ayear-round school Both classrooms were second grade with children 7ndash8 years of age Class 1 included 13 English language learners and onenative English speaker who was involved in the CWPT process but wasnot selected as a participant for this study Class 2 included 13 nativeEnglish speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish)This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was notselected as a participant Adults involved in the classroom during the3-week observation period included the classroom teacher a practicumstudent a high school student worker and the researcher (the leadauthor) A Title I reading teacher came in once a day and twoadministrators came in once a week

Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)

The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditionsThe whole research process was videotaped and the coded number ofsocial interactions was recorded The social interactions were operation-ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer Antia Coyner Eldredgeamp Gupta 1991) To establish the baseline data the frequency of socialinteractions before CWPT was also videotaped

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60

Participating Teachers

The two classroom teachers participated in this study Teacher A fromClass 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school withone year of experience teaching first grade and one year teachingsecond grade Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teachingexperience with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teachingsecond grade Both teachers have a bachelorrsquos degree in elementaryeducation Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teachingEnglish language learner programs

Settings and Arrangement

This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in ayear-round school Both classrooms were second grade with children 7ndash8 years of age Class 1 included 13 English language learners and onenative English speaker who was involved in the CWPT process but wasnot selected as a participant for this study Class 2 included 13 nativeEnglish speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish)This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was notselected as a participant Adults involved in the classroom during the3-week observation period included the classroom teacher a practicumstudent a high school student worker and the researcher (the leadauthor) A Title I reading teacher came in once a day and twoadministrators came in once a week

Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)

The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditionsThe whole research process was videotaped and the coded number ofsocial interactions was recorded The social interactions were operation-ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer Antia Coyner Eldredgeamp Gupta 1991) To establish the baseline data the frequency of socialinteractions before CWPT was also videotaped

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

88 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants were selected from an elementary school located in anurban city of a Southwestern state Each of the two second-grade class-rooms had 14 students which was typical for the first- and second-gradeclassrooms in the participating school Their ages ranged from 7 to 8years old Seven children from each classroom (4 girls 3 boys) wereselected as the participants with a total of 14 participants in this studyPurposeful selection was used to achieve gender parity in the sample

All seven participants from Class 1 were English language learnerswhereas all seven participants from Class 2 were native English speakersThe English language learners were all enrolled in the local schooldistrict English language learner program and met the criteria estab-lished by the school district (a) Primary language is not English (b)proficiency in English is below the average proficiency of pupils at thesame age or grade level whose primary language is English (ie at leastone grade below based on the standardized English language proficiencytest) and (c) probability of success is impaired in a classroom in whichcourses of study are taught only in English because of the studentrsquoslimited proficiency in that language Data collection and analysis focusedonly on the 14 participants from the two classrooms although all 28children from the two classrooms were involved in the videotaping andCWPT process All 28 children also received parental consent becausethe videotaping might include children in the setting who were not studyparticipants

To enable the researchers to assess the participantsrsquo prerequisite skillsthe participants took a pretest on spelling and math before CWPT wasimplemented The spelling test included 10 words and the math testincluded 10 one-to-two-digit addition problems Both tests were devel-oped by the classroom teacher If any participant received a score below20 correct on either test a one-on-one activity with the teacher wasconducted to help the participant reach the criterion (20 correct atpretest) In Class 1 5 out of 14 children did not meet the spelling testcriterion and 3 of them did not meet the math test criterion In Class 23 participants did not meet the criterion for spelling and for mathrespectively After the one week of training with one-on-one activityeveryday one student from Class 1 and one student from Class 2 still didnot meet the spelling test criterion For the purpose of this researchthese two students were not selected as participants for data analysis Therange of the spelling test scores for Class 1 was from 20 to 80 with a meanof 50 and for Class 2 it was from 30 to 80 with a mean of 54 The range

88 TESOL QUARTERLY

METHODOLOGY

Participants

Participants were selected from an elementary school located in anurban city of a Southwestern state Each of the two second-grade class-rooms had 14 students which was typical for the first- and second-gradeclassrooms in the participating school Their ages ranged from 7 to 8years old Seven children from each classroom (4 girls 3 boys) wereselected as the participants with a total of 14 participants in this studyPurposeful selection was used to achieve gender parity in the sample

All seven participants from Class 1 were English language learnerswhereas all seven participants from Class 2 were native English speakersThe English language learners were all enrolled in the local schooldistrict English language learner program and met the criteria estab-lished by the school district (a) Primary language is not English (b)proficiency in English is below the average proficiency of pupils at thesame age or grade level whose primary language is English (ie at leastone grade below based on the standardized English language proficiencytest) and (c) probability of success is impaired in a classroom in whichcourses of study are taught only in English because of the studentrsquoslimited proficiency in that language Data collection and analysis focusedonly on the 14 participants from the two classrooms although all 28children from the two classrooms were involved in the videotaping andCWPT process All 28 children also received parental consent becausethe videotaping might include children in the setting who were not studyparticipants

To enable the researchers to assess the participantsrsquo prerequisite skillsthe participants took a pretest on spelling and math before CWPT wasimplemented The spelling test included 10 words and the math testincluded 10 one-to-two-digit addition problems Both tests were devel-oped by the classroom teacher If any participant received a score below20 correct on either test a one-on-one activity with the teacher wasconducted to help the participant reach the criterion (20 correct atpretest) In Class 1 5 out of 14 children did not meet the spelling testcriterion and 3 of them did not meet the math test criterion In Class 23 participants did not meet the criterion for spelling and for mathrespectively After the one week of training with one-on-one activityeveryday one student from Class 1 and one student from Class 2 still didnot meet the spelling test criterion For the purpose of this researchthese two students were not selected as participants for data analysis Therange of the spelling test scores for Class 1 was from 20 to 80 with a meanof 50 and for Class 2 it was from 30 to 80 with a mean of 54 The range

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60

Participating Teachers

The two classroom teachers participated in this study Teacher A fromClass 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school withone year of experience teaching first grade and one year teachingsecond grade Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teachingexperience with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teachingsecond grade Both teachers have a bachelorrsquos degree in elementaryeducation Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teachingEnglish language learner programs

Settings and Arrangement

This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in ayear-round school Both classrooms were second grade with children 7ndash8 years of age Class 1 included 13 English language learners and onenative English speaker who was involved in the CWPT process but wasnot selected as a participant for this study Class 2 included 13 nativeEnglish speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish)This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was notselected as a participant Adults involved in the classroom during the3-week observation period included the classroom teacher a practicumstudent a high school student worker and the researcher (the leadauthor) A Title I reading teacher came in once a day and twoadministrators came in once a week

Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)

The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditionsThe whole research process was videotaped and the coded number ofsocial interactions was recorded The social interactions were operation-ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer Antia Coyner Eldredgeamp Gupta 1991) To establish the baseline data the frequency of socialinteractions before CWPT was also videotaped

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60

Participating Teachers

The two classroom teachers participated in this study Teacher A fromClass 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school withone year of experience teaching first grade and one year teachingsecond grade Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teachingexperience with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teachingsecond grade Both teachers have a bachelorrsquos degree in elementaryeducation Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teachingEnglish language learner programs

Settings and Arrangement

This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in ayear-round school Both classrooms were second grade with children 7ndash8 years of age Class 1 included 13 English language learners and onenative English speaker who was involved in the CWPT process but wasnot selected as a participant for this study Class 2 included 13 nativeEnglish speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish)This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was notselected as a participant Adults involved in the classroom during the3-week observation period included the classroom teacher a practicumstudent a high school student worker and the researcher (the leadauthor) A Title I reading teacher came in once a day and twoadministrators came in once a week

Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)

The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditionsThe whole research process was videotaped and the coded number ofsocial interactions was recorded The social interactions were operation-ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer Antia Coyner Eldredgeamp Gupta 1991) To establish the baseline data the frequency of socialinteractions before CWPT was also videotaped

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60

Participating Teachers

The two classroom teachers participated in this study Teacher A fromClass 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school withone year of experience teaching first grade and one year teachingsecond grade Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teachingexperience with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teachingsecond grade Both teachers have a bachelorrsquos degree in elementaryeducation Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teachingEnglish language learner programs

Settings and Arrangement

This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in ayear-round school Both classrooms were second grade with children 7ndash8 years of age Class 1 included 13 English language learners and onenative English speaker who was involved in the CWPT process but wasnot selected as a participant for this study Class 2 included 13 nativeEnglish speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish)This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was notselected as a participant Adults involved in the classroom during the3-week observation period included the classroom teacher a practicumstudent a high school student worker and the researcher (the leadauthor) A Title I reading teacher came in once a day and twoadministrators came in once a week

Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)

The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditionsThe whole research process was videotaped and the coded number ofsocial interactions was recorded The social interactions were operation-ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer Antia Coyner Eldredgeamp Gupta 1991) To establish the baseline data the frequency of socialinteractions before CWPT was also videotaped

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60

Participating Teachers

The two classroom teachers participated in this study Teacher A fromClass 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school withone year of experience teaching first grade and one year teachingsecond grade Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teachingexperience with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teachingsecond grade Both teachers have a bachelorrsquos degree in elementaryeducation Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teachingEnglish language learner programs

Settings and Arrangement

This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in ayear-round school Both classrooms were second grade with children 7ndash8 years of age Class 1 included 13 English language learners and onenative English speaker who was involved in the CWPT process but wasnot selected as a participant for this study Class 2 included 13 nativeEnglish speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish)This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was notselected as a participant Adults involved in the classroom during the3-week observation period included the classroom teacher a practicumstudent a high school student worker and the researcher (the leadauthor) A Title I reading teacher came in once a day and twoadministrators came in once a week

Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)

The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditionsThe whole research process was videotaped and the coded number ofsocial interactions was recorded The social interactions were operation-ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer Antia Coyner Eldredgeamp Gupta 1991) To establish the baseline data the frequency of socialinteractions before CWPT was also videotaped

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

Materials and Equipment

Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weeklytutoring list (1 per pair) tutoring worksheet tutoring point sheet helpsign (1 per pair) and timer (1 for the whole class) These materials weremodified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood Delquadriand Carter (1997) to meet the classrsquos age and developmental levelaccording to the teacherrsquos weekly and monthly lesson plans Each pairused learning materials related to the instructional content in theclassroom for example a list of sight words a set of counting cardspictures of animals beginning with the same letter upper-lower lettermatching cards or one-to-two digit number addition problems Thecorrect answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoringworksheet This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responsesthat they could not yet independently make themselves

Instrumentation

The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed byKreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 socialinteraction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-initiated activities) in the classroom These 15 behaviors were dividedinto 7 positive behaviors 5 passive behaviors and 3 negative behaviorsThe positive behaviors werebull Child engages in positive interaction with peersbull Child engages in associative andor cooperative playbull Child engages in positive linguistic interactionbull Peer(s) initiate interaction toward childbull Child responds positively to peer initiationbull Child initiates interaction toward peersbull Peer responds positively to childrsquos initiation

The passive behaviors werebull Child engages in nonplay behaviorbull Child engages in solitary playbull Child engages in parallel playbull Child makes no response to peer initiationbull Peers make no response to childrsquos initiation

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

The negative behaviors werebull Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s)bull Child responds negatively to peer initiationbull Peer(s) respond negatively to childrsquos initiation

Overall Procedure

Baseline data were collected once a day 5 days a week for one weekbefore the training of CWPT started During baseline week data werecollected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minuteteacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math)between 930 and 1000 in the morning After the baseline week a three-session training week of CWPT followed Then came the interventionweek During the intervention week data were collected during free playtime also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure insteadof after teacher instruction The CWPT procedure was applied once aday for 5 days Then another baseline week followed without CWPTAlthough data were collected everyday during baseline and interventionweeks only the days when all the selected participants attended wereincluded for the data analysis

During the free play period children initiated activities related tomath spelling and reading They were free to select their favoriteactivities among the four or five choices that the teacher had plannedThe typical choices included buying and selling with play moneymeasurement time telling letter and word matching and reading toeach other with their own choice of books Students also selected theirown playmates for the activity Sometimes they had to negotiate becauseonly three or four people could play the same game simultaneouslyStudents were the decision makers while negotiating for the number ofplaymates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games Theteacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering thechoices of activities This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutesbased on the teacherrsquos schedule but data analyses were based only onthe first 5 minutes

Data Analysis

Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks) and Class 2 had 9observation sessions (3 weeks) To keep the number of observationsequal for both groups the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

first 3 weeksrsquo observation Each participantrsquos individual data were alsocompared and analyzed

Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baselineand intervention weeks but only three sessions a week were used for dataanalysis To control the researcher effect the videotaped data wereanalyzed after the data were collected During the data analysis eachparticipant was rated over four one-minute intervals after the firstminute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacherinstruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week)For each one-minute interval the social behaviors of the participantwere marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0) This process was repeatedfor the second participant in the class during a second viewing of thetape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classroomshad been rated The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors wasquantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number oftimes each social behavior was exhibited

Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings ofObserver A to Observer B on 25 of the videotaped CWPT and non-CWPT sessions Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the socialinteraction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOSThen Observer B viewed 25 (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes andrated childrenrsquos social behavior using SIOS Interrater reliability on theSIOS was determined by [agreements(agreements + disagreements)] x100 = percent of agreement The interrater agreement was 994 on theSIOS

Social Validity

At the end of the study in each class the teacher completed a 10-itemsurvey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul ErvinHook and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about thebenefits of using CWPT Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-typescale ranging from not true to very true The survey not only includeditems on the studentsrsquo academic performance and social interactionsbut also asked about the teachersrsquo opinions on implementing the CWPTprocedure managing time their overall satisfaction and whether theywould continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it toothers

To examine the studentsrsquo satisfaction a five-item survey (StudentSatisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end ofthe study The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul andcolleagues (1998) Because children in this study were younger and in alower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

colleagues the adapted questionnaire used only five items from theoriginal to examine studentsrsquo perceptions on the use of CWPT2 Thesefive yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peertutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions

In Class 1 the teacher read each question in both English and Spanishto ensure that every child understood its meaning In Class 2 the teacherread each item only in English The teacher explained and clarified anyquestions about the survey before children completed it All children ineach class were asked to complete the survey although only the answersfrom the selected participants were used for the data analysis

RESULTS

Social Interaction Observation System

To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on bothgroups SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures Thismethod increased the chances of making Type I error That is we mightclaim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not thecase In this study ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviorswhich reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p lt005) This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would makea false claim

Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overallsignificant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 outof the 15 social interaction behaviors Among these 7 were positivebehaviors and one was passive behavior The 7 positive behaviors werepositive interaction [F(2 24) = 7097 p lt 001] associative andor coop-erative play [F(2 24) = 15076 p lt 001] positive linguistic interaction[F(2 24) = 2423 p lt 001] peer initiates interaction [F(2 24) = 5598p lt 001] child responds positively [F(2 24) = 8234 p lt 001] childinitiates interaction [F(2 24) = 3142 p lt 001] and peer respondspositively [F(2 24) = 6656 p lt 001] All the positive behaviors weresignificantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreasedwhen intervention was withdrawn

The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on socialbehaviors in two ways (a) the overall number of social interactionbehaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing themeans between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix

2 Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT whether they would like to adopt it againwhether it helps them to be a better student make a friend and so on and whether they willshare CWPT with friends

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Table A1) (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was alsosignificantly improved during intervention evidenced by the significantdifference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7positive behaviors The increasing pattern was similar for both groupsFor example in Class 1 (English language learners) the mean compari-son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = 20)and from the second baseline week (mean = 18) Similarly in Class 2(native English speakers) the mean for positive interactions duringintervention week (mean = 89) was significantly different from the firstbaseline (mean = 44) and from the second baseline ( mean = 32) Thesignificant differences between baseline and intervention weeks werefound in all 7 positive behaviors Table A1 lists the detailed comparisonfor each behavior between the weeks The paired t -test between Week 1versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicatedthat CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (seeAppendix Table A2)

In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors theintervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passivebehavior) [F(2 24) = 5739 p lt 001] Parallel play was defined asindependent play side by side in similar activities and social contactoccurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction withone another Specific behaviors that were operationally defined asparallel play included reading side by side without interaction matchingletter or word cards together but each in his or her own way withoutcommunication playing the math game by following the group leaderonly with no interaction among the group members or solving mathproblems with their own counting cubes and worksheet

Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week The reverseeffect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the interventionweek parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = 0 Class 2mean = 06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = 42 Class 2 mean =69) When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back tobaseline condition parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = 65Class 2 mean = 70)

No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negativebehaviors in both groups (see Table A2) These behaviors were Behavior2 (negative behaviors) [F(2 24) lt 1 p gt 5] Behavior 3 (nonplaybehaviors) [F(2 24) = 415 p gt 01] Behavior 4 (solitary play) [F(224) = 447 p gt 01] Behavior 10 (child responds negatively) [F(224) = 184 p gt 1] Behavior 11 (child makes no response) [F(2 24) = 271p gt 05] Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively) [F(2 24) = 45 p gt 01]and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response) [F(2 24) = 350 p gt 01] Allthese passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

and intervention phases but they were rated even lower during interven-tion Although the main effects of intervention were not statisticallysignificant on all these behaviors the overall trend still indicated thatduring intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibitedfewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups Thedecreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious forClass 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native Englishspeakers) For example the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)during first baseline was 21 compared with Class 2 mean of 14 Duringintervention week the Class 1 mean was reduced to 01 compared withClass 2 mean of 03

Throughout the study children in both groups showed very fewnegative behaviors either during baseline or intervention phases Amongall the observations of the study only one negative behavior wasobserved The childrsquos behavior was observed as negative when sherefused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play timeby saying ldquoNo nordquo

Studentsrsquo verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed asqualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction OverallEnglish language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction inaddition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakerswere Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interactionthe qualitative data did show that English language learners were makingmore positive social comments toward their peers than native Englishspeakers during the CWPT procedure The examples listed in Table 1(see p 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 commentswhile native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time

Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires

At the end of this study the two classroom teachers and all theparticipating students from both classes were asked to complete thesatisfaction questionnaire Both teachers answered with ldquovery truerdquo whenasked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academicbenefits Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) withldquosomewhat truerdquo She also stated that ldquotime consumingrdquo was ldquosomewhattruerdquo in the beginning but it was not so after the first week ofimplementing the intervention Teacher B from Class 2 answered the lastitem (token economy and time-out) with ldquosomewhat truerdquo He alsocommented that sometimes classroom management was necessary toorganize activities All 28 students from both classrooms answered ldquoyesrdquoto all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire althoughdata were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

DISCUSSION

In early childhood education programs social play has been empha-sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916)Vygotsky (1978) Parten (1932) and other theorists and educators Eventhough Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge throughactively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her ownpast experience he also valued the role of play in the childrsquos social andemotional development According to Piaget play pushes children outof egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with otherchildren in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmatesrsquoviewpoints (Brewer 1998)

Learning is developed in the social context and it works for allchildren The social environment includes the childrsquos family schoolcommunity culture and all other contexts that are relevant to the childUndoubtedly cultural differences affect how the child thinks Vygotsky(1978) believed that the childrsquos cultural history and individual historyare important factors influencing how the child interacts with others inthe social context Within that context children share activities withothers first and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky1978) Children learn best when they positively interact with peers andadults in a meaningful activity (Phillips amp Soltis 1998) Unfortunatelymany children whose primary language is not English have receivedlower quality of education in terms of materials interactions activitiesand expectations (Faltis 1997)

Social Interaction Behaviors DuringBaseline and CWPT Procedure

Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observersCWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the Englishlanguage learners and the native English speakers as predicted Thepositive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA testson the frequency of social interaction behaviors

One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviorsthat were significantly affected all the 7 positive behaviors increasedduring intervention as predicted The other one behavior that wasstatistically significant was parallel play However it changed in theopposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors While all the positivebehaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baselineparallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increasedduring baseline This was the case for both groups except for Child 7from Class 1 who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

the first baseline and first intervention phases But even this child wasengaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in thesecond and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals)

This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence ofchildrenrsquos social play especially Partenrsquos (1932) social play theoryAccording to Parten childrenrsquos social or peer play can be sequenced ina meaningful order from simple minimum social interaction to com-plex maximum social interaction with the complexity increasing as thechild gets older For younger preschoolers parallel play dominates andassociative play is limited Then older preschoolers start to play associa-tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary gradesassociative and cooperative play dominate although other simpler formsof play may never disappear altogether (Parten 1932) In this studychildren in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baselineconditions Interestingly children in both groups exhibited significantlyfewer parallel play behaviors during intervention

This finding could be explained in two ways First the reducedparallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase ofassociative play The associative play behaviors were defined operation-ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object andwriting it down assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-tion negotiating for turn-taking in the math game or reading a storytogether and answering questions related to the story Data analysisindicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative playduring intervention During baseline conditions children in both groupsengaged frequently in parallel play and very few engaged in associativeor cooperative play When intervention was implemented the datachanged the other way around Associative play increased significantlyand parallel play reduced greatly Especially in Class 1 parallel play fellto zero during the first intervention phase The decrease of parallel playindicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorssuch as associative and cooperative play This result may imply thatCWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-tively or cooperatively

Second the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-ute to the increase of childrenrsquos associative and cooperative playAlthough children were observed during free play time after CWPT wasimplemented rather than during the CWPT process the significantdifference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24hours (Brady 1997) However the effects of CWPT were not maintainedafter students returned to the baseline condition the next week Thisfinding could result from environmental influence in the classroomduring teacher-directed instruction For example during baseline all

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

students were assigned to sit at their own seats side by side with eachother This formal classroom format might restrict studentsrsquo choice forsocial interaction Even during free play time after the teacherrsquos instruc-tion when students could have a choice of activities they were notencouraged to leave their seats Therefore they tended to work at theirown desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as ateam

Furthermore the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-sional with the teacher instructing and students receiving This one-dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-studentinteraction For example after teacher instruction during baseline weeka student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every timeit was played Even when another student repeatedly asked to be theleader the other students ignored her requests

On the other hand during CWPT week students were encouraged tosit wherever they chose and the students rather than the teacher werein control of the learning and teaching procedure Every student had theopportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process This two-dimensional child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared childrento be more interactive during the free play time that immediatelyfollowed The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviorswere not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-directed instruction influenced the studentsrsquo behavior To find out thelasting effects of CWPT alternative observations could be made atdifferent times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-directed instruction

The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallelplay but less associative and cooperative play during baseline and moreassociative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-tion implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate forparallel play than for associative play Two pedagogical implications canbe drawn from this finding (a) English language learners and nativeEnglish speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in theclassroom setting Therefore teachers should always hold the same highexpectations for both groups in terms of social skill development (b) Arelationship seems to exist between the instructional method andchildrenrsquos social interaction Specifically when teacher-directed instruc-tion (baseline) was applied parallel play dominated in both groupswhen student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed cooperativeplay increased significantly Based on this finding teachers may want toencourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such socialinteraction

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

Different from a preschool setting the primary-grade classrooms aremore academically arranged For example each child has an assigneddesk with his or her name on it More academic activities are involved inprimary-grade childrenrsquos play than in younger childrenrsquos play (Brewer1998) Children may be more used to and trained to do their own workfor an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculumrequirement Furthermore although Parten (1932) and Howes andMatheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as ageincreases it never completely disappears Children at different age levelsalways engage in some type of parallel play Regardless of the participat-ing childrenrsquos culturally and linguistically different backgrounds everychild in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive socialinteraction behaviors

Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors weremore obvious for the English language learners than for the nativeEnglish speakers during CWPT intervention The greater effectiveness ofthe intervention for English language learners implies that they aremore willing to interact with their peers when the environment isappropriately prepared for them (see Table 1) In Table 1 among the 10verbal statements made by children from the English language learnersgroup 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPTprocedure (eg ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquo ldquoItrsquos your turn I willwaitrdquo) Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native Englishspeakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPTprocedure For example 4 of the 5 statements from the native Englishspeakers comment directly on the partnerrsquos CWPT task behavior (eg ldquoIwant to be the tutor todayrdquo ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo) Comparedwith the native English speakers the English language learners were notonly doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners) but also interactingwith each other with natural social prompts (ldquoYou are a geniusrdquo ldquoYou aregreatrdquo)

According to Montessorirsquos theory children learn best in a well-prepared child-centered environment in which children can do thingsfor themselves (Morrison 1998) Children are always curious about newinformation and knowledge The diverse cultural and linguistic back-grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate childrenrsquosmotivation to interact with each other For example when a new studentfrom Bosnia came into Class 1 almost every child in the class was tryingto learn some new words in this studentrsquos language At the same timethey all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases suchas sit down books go to lunch and letrsquos play More peer interaction wasobserved during the week when the new student was introduced to theclass

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role ofchildrenrsquos social competence few studies have been conducted toexamine the social skills of English language learners and how thatwould influence child development Using a fine-grained and well-designed peer-mediated instructional strategy CWPT this study focusedon the social aspects of English language learners and native Englishspeakers in the general education setting

The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing andimproving the social interaction behaviors of both English languagelearners and native English speakers However because of this studyrsquossmall sample size the statistical power for group comparison is lowFurther studies need to compare these two groups by using a largerrandomly selected sample In addition English language learners in thisstudy were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds More data are neededfor English language learners from diverse cultural and linguisticbackgrounds

This study indicates an inverse relationship between the interventionand parallel play Future studies can examine the relationship between

TABLE 1

Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention

ID No Source Verbal Statement

Child 5 Tape 6 ldquoYou know you can do itrdquoChild 5 Tape 10 ldquoYou are doing goodrdquoChild 2 Tape 6 ldquoCan you make a ten You are greatrdquoChild 1 Tape 11 ldquoGood job You are a geniusrdquoChild 13 Tape 12 ldquoTry your bestrdquoChild 3 Tape 6 ldquoI like it This is funrdquoChild 5 Tape 15 ldquoYou can join us This is funrdquoChild 12 Tape 17 ldquoTry it again I know you can do itrdquoChild 14 Tape 17 ldquoYou guys are doing better todayrdquoChild 7 Tape 9 ldquoCan you read this to merdquoChild 7 Tape 11 ldquoItrsquos your turn I will waitrdquoChild 3 Tape 18 ldquoWhen will we do CWPT again I like itrdquoChild 6 Tape 17 ldquoI got better points todayrdquoChild 9 Tape 9 ldquoI want to be the tutor todayrdquoChild 10 Tape 9 ldquoCan you say again pleaserdquo

Note Children 1ndash7 are English language learners 8ndash14 are native English speakers

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

childrenrsquos parallel play the educational setting and the instructorrsquosteaching style Further study is also needed to investigate the relationshipbetween parallel play and childrenrsquos cultural differences Additionallythe lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined Instead ofbeing withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes as in this andsome other studies (eg DuPaul et al 1998 Locke amp Fuchs 1995)CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings studentsand events

Despite the need for more research this study shows that CWPT willbe an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-gradeEnglish language learners as well as native English speakers Thestrength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for allstudents to learn and interact in the same setting regardless of theirdifferent skill levels As a student-centered approach CWPT can be easilyincorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active roleof the classroom teacher As a facilitator the teacher prepares a develop-mentally appropriate environment in a friendly nonthreatening atmo-sphere Students interact with each other as a group and as individualsFurthermore in an inclusive setting with both English language learnersand native English speakers CWPTrsquos partnership feature will promotepositive social interactions The strategy of CWPT also helps Englishlanguage learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome thefear of failure and embarrassment CWPT provides English languagelearners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limitedlanguage proficiency

THE AUTHORS

Yaoying Xu is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education atthe University of WisconsinndashMilwaukee Dr Xursquos research interests include usingpeer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diversebackgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities and their families

Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the Universityof Nevada Las Vegas Dr Gelferrsquos research interests include developing teachertraining programs for inclusive early childhood settings

Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychologyat the University of Nevada Las Vegas Dr Perkinsrsquos research interests include self-efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

REFERENCES

AmeriStat (2002 May) English-speaking ability Retrieved February 12 2004 fromhttpwwwprborg

August D L (1987) Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition ofMexican American children in elementary school TESOL Quarterly 21 717ndash736

Berk L E (1999) Infants and children Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconBrady N C (1997) The teaching game A reciprocal peer tutoring program for

preschool children Education and Treatment of Children 20 123ndash149Brewer J A (1998) Introduction to early childhood education Preschool through primary

grades Needham Heights MA Allyn amp BaconChun C C amp Winter S (1999) Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-

ment Effects on academic responding content coverage achievement intrinsicinterest and reported project experiences Educational Psychology 19 191ndash205

Cowen E L Pederson A Babigian H Izzo L D amp Trost M A (1973) Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 41 438ndash446

Delquadri J Greenwood C R Stretton K amp Hall R V (1983) The peer tutoringgame A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spellingperformance Education and Treatment of Children 6 225ndash239

Dewey J (1916) Democracy amp education An introduction to the philosophy of educationNew York Macmillan

Dodge D T Jablon J R amp Bickart T S (1994) Constructing curriculum for theprimary grades Washington DC Teaching Strategies

DuPaul G J amp Eckert T L (1998) Academic interventions for students withattention-deficithyperactivity disorder A review of the literature Reading ampWriting Quarterly 14 59ndash82

DuPaul G J Ervin R A Hook C L amp McGoey K E (1998) Peer tutoring forchildren with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Effects on classroom behav-ior and academic performance Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 579ndash592

Faltis C J (1997) Joinfostering Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nded) Upper Saddle River NJ Merrill

Flavell J H (1977) Cognitive development Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice HallGarfinkle A N amp Schwartz I (2002) Peer imitation Increasing social interaction

in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-school classrooms Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22(1) 26ndash38

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000a) Practices for English-language learners An overview ofinstructional practices for English-language learners Prominent themes and future direc-tions Topical summary Newton MA Education Development Center (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED 445176)

Gersten R amp Baker S (2000b) What we know about effective instructionalpractices for English-language learners Exceptional Children 66 454ndash470

Greene R W Bieberman J Faraone S Wilens T Mick E amp Blier H K (1999)Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abusedisorders Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHDJournal of Clinical Child Psychology 28 349ndash354

Greenwood C R Arreaga-Mayer C Utley C A Gavin K M amp Terry B J (2001)Classwide peer tutoring learning management system Remedial and Special Educa-tion 22(1) 34ndash47

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1988) Classwide peer tutoring SeattleEducational Achievement Systems

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 103

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1997) Together we can Classwide peertutoring for basic academic skills Longmont CO Sopris West

Greenwood C R Delquadri J C amp Hall R V (1989) Longitudinal effects ofclasswide peer tutoring Journal of Educational Psychology 81 371ndash383

Guralnick M J (1990) Social competence and early intervention Journal of EarlyIntervention 14 3ndash14

Henniger M L (2002) Teaching young children Upper Saddle River NJ PearsonEducation

Howes C amp Matheson C C (1992) Sequences in the development of competentplay with peers Social and social pretend play Developmental Psychology 28 961ndash974

Ivory J J amp McCollum J A (1999) Effects of social and isolate toys on social play ininclusive setting Journal of Special Education 32 238ndash245

John-Steiner V amp Mahn H (1996) Sociocultural approaches to learning anddevelopment A Vygotskian framework Educational Psychologist 31 191ndash206

Kamps D Kravits T Stolze J amp Swaggart B (1999) Prevention strategies for at-risk students and students with EBD in urban elementary schools Journal ofEmotional amp Behavioral Disorders 7(3) 178ndash194

Kreimeyer K Antia S Coyner L Eldredge N amp Gupta A (1991) Socialinteraction observation system Project interact Tucson AZ University of Arizona

Locke W R amp Fuchs L S (1995) Effects of peer-mediated reading instruction onthe on-task behavior and social interaction of children with behavior disordersJournal of Behavioral Disorders 3 92ndash99

Maheady L amp Harper G F (1987) A classwide peer tutoring program to improvethe spelling test performance of low-income third- and fourth-grade studentsEducation and Treatment of Children 10 120ndash133

Mahn H (1999) Vygotskyrsquos methodological contribution to sociocultural theoryRemedial and Special Education 20 341ndash350

Mather M amp Rivers K (2003) State profiles of child well-being Results from the 2000census Retrieved February 12 2004 from httpwwwkidscountorg

McCay L O amp Keyes D W (20012002) Developing social competence in theinclusive primary classroom Childhood Education 78(2) 70ndash79

Morrison G S (1998) Early childhood education today Upper Saddle River NJPrentice-Hall

Parker J G amp Asher S R (1987) Peer relations and later personal adjustment Arelow-accepted children at risk Psychological Bulletin 102 357ndash389

Parten M B (1932) Social participation among pre-school children Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology 27 243ndash269

Phillips D C amp Soltis J F (1998) Perspectives on learning New York NY TeachersCollege Press

Strain P S amp Odom S L (1986) Peer social initiations Effective intervention forsocial skills development of exceptional children Exceptional Children 52 543ndash551

Vygotsky L (1978) Mind in society The development of higher psychological processesCambridge MA Harvard University Press

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 103

Greenwood C R Delquadri J amp Carta J J (1997) Together we can Classwide peertutoring for basic academic skills Longmont CO Sopris West

Greenwood C R Delquadri J C amp Hall R V (1989) Longitudinal effects ofclasswide peer tutoring Journal of Educational Psychology 81 371ndash383

Guralnick M J (1990) Social competence and early intervention Journal of EarlyIntervention 14 3ndash14

Henniger M L (2002) Teaching young children Upper Saddle River NJ PearsonEducation

Howes C amp Matheson C C (1992) Sequences in the development of competentplay with peers Social and social pretend play Developmental Psychology 28 961ndash974

Ivory J J amp McCollum J A (1999) Effects of social and isolate toys on social play ininclusive setting Journal of Special Education 32 238ndash245

John-Steiner V amp Mahn H (1996) Sociocultural approaches to learning anddevelopment A Vygotskian framework Educational Psychologist 31 191ndash206

Kamps D Kravits T Stolze J amp Swaggart B (1999) Prevention strategies for at-risk students and students with EBD in urban elementary schools Journal ofEmotional amp Behavioral Disorders 7(3) 178ndash194

Kreimeyer K Antia S Coyner L Eldredge N amp Gupta A (1991) Socialinteraction observation system Project interact Tucson AZ University of Arizona

Locke W R amp Fuchs L S (1995) Effects of peer-mediated reading instruction onthe on-task behavior and social interaction of children with behavior disordersJournal of Behavioral Disorders 3 92ndash99

Maheady L amp Harper G F (1987) A classwide peer tutoring program to improvethe spelling test performance of low-income third- and fourth-grade studentsEducation and Treatment of Children 10 120ndash133

Mahn H (1999) Vygotskyrsquos methodological contribution to sociocultural theoryRemedial and Special Education 20 341ndash350

Mather M amp Rivers K (2003) State profiles of child well-being Results from the 2000census Retrieved February 12 2004 from httpwwwkidscountorg

McCay L O amp Keyes D W (20012002) Developing social competence in theinclusive primary classroom Childhood Education 78(2) 70ndash79

Morrison G S (1998) Early childhood education today Upper Saddle River NJPrentice-Hall

Parker J G amp Asher S R (1987) Peer relations and later personal adjustment Arelow-accepted children at risk Psychological Bulletin 102 357ndash389

Parten M B (1932) Social participation among pre-school children Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology 27 243ndash269

Phillips D C amp Soltis J F (1998) Perspectives on learning New York NY TeachersCollege Press

Strain P S amp Odom S L (1986) Peer social initiations Effective intervention forsocial skills development of exceptional children Exceptional Children 52 543ndash551

Vygotsky L (1978) Mind in society The development of higher psychological processesCambridge MA Harvard University Press

104 TESOL QUARTERLY

APPENDIX

TABLE A1

Means and Standard Deviations of the Main Effects for the SIOS

Week Baseline (A) Intervention (B) Baseline (A)M SD M SD M SD

1 Positive Interactions

ELL (n=7) 20 19 95 066 18 16NES (n=7) 44 21 89 12 32 12

2 Negative behaviors

ELL (n=7) 024 063 012 032 060 12NES (n=7) 00 00 00 00 00 00

3 Nonplay behaviors

ELL (n=7) 15 14 024 041 012 032NES (n=7) 024 041 012 032 060 063

4 Solitary play

ELL (n=7) 21 20 012 032 23 22NES (n=7) 14 19 036 066 095 10

5 Parallel play

ELL (n=7) 42 24 00 00 65 17NES (n=7) 69 27 060 079 70 19

6 Associative andor cooperative play

ELL (n=7) 14 16 96 045 095 16NES (n=7) 13 18 89 093 14 10

7 Positive linguistic interaction

ELL (n=7) 51 20 95 045 46 33NES (n=7) 65 20 90 075 45 13

8 Peer initiates interaction

ELL (n=7) 27 12 89 12 18 15NES (n=7) 37 22 74 16 20 16

9 Child responds positively

ELL (n=7) 21 12 89 12 083 096NES (n=7) 31 19 73 15 20 16

10 Child responds negatively

ELL (n=7) 012 032 00 00 060 093NES (n=7) 012 032 00 00 00 00

11 Child makes no response

ELL (n=7) 036 045 00 00 036 045NES (n=7) 048 066 00 00 00 00

(Continued on p 105)

104 TESOL QUARTERLY

APPENDIX

TABLE A1

Means and Standard Deviations of the Main Effects for the SIOS

Week Baseline (A) Intervention (B) Baseline (A)M SD M SD M SD

1 Positive Interactions

ELL (n=7) 20 19 95 066 18 16NES (n=7) 44 21 89 12 32 12

2 Negative behaviors

ELL (n=7) 024 063 012 032 060 12NES (n=7) 00 00 00 00 00 00

3 Nonplay behaviors

ELL (n=7) 15 14 024 041 012 032NES (n=7) 024 041 012 032 060 063

4 Solitary play

ELL (n=7) 21 20 012 032 23 22NES (n=7) 14 19 036 066 095 10

5 Parallel play

ELL (n=7) 42 24 00 00 65 17NES (n=7) 69 27 060 079 70 19

6 Associative andor cooperative play

ELL (n=7) 14 16 96 045 095 16NES (n=7) 13 18 89 093 14 10

7 Positive linguistic interaction

ELL (n=7) 51 20 95 045 46 33NES (n=7) 65 20 90 075 45 13

8 Peer initiates interaction

ELL (n=7) 27 12 89 12 18 15NES (n=7) 37 22 74 16 20 16

9 Child responds positively

ELL (n=7) 21 12 89 12 083 096NES (n=7) 31 19 73 15 20 16

10 Child responds negatively

ELL (n=7) 012 032 00 00 060 093NES (n=7) 012 032 00 00 00 00

11 Child makes no response

ELL (n=7) 036 045 00 00 036 045NES (n=7) 048 066 00 00 00 00

(Continued on p 105)

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 105

12 Child initiates interaction

ELL (n=7) 23 093 87 081 37 34NES (n=7) 51 16 87 11 29 21

13 Peer responds positively

ELL (n=7) 17 068 87 081 14 16NES (n=7) 43 18 82 15 25 17

14 Peer responds negatively

ELL (n=7) 00 00 00 00 036 045NES (n=7) 00 00 00 00 00 00

15 Peer makes no response

ELL (n=7) 048 66 00 00 19 18NES (n=7) 083 048 048 094 036 045

Notes Significant at the p lt 005 level Week = the baseline or intervention week ELL = Englishlanguage learners NES = native English speakers M = mean SD = standard deviation

TABLE A2

Paired t -Test for Week 1 vs Week 2 and Week 2 vs Week 3

Weeks t p

1 Positive interactions

Week 1 (M=32 SD=23) vs Week 2 (M=92 SD=10) 773 000Week 2 (M=92 SD=10) vs Week 3 (M=25 SD=16) 1196 000

2 Negative behaviors

Week 1 (M=012 SD=04) vs Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) 43 67Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) vs Week 3 (M=03 SD=02) 94 37

3 Nonplay behaviors

Week 1 (M=09 SD=03) vs Week 2 (M=02 SD=04) 220 05Week 2 ( M=02 SD=04) vs Week 3 (M=04 SD=05) 90 39

4 Solitary play

Week 1 (M=18 SD=19) vs Week 2 (M=02 SD=05) 300 01Week 2 (M=02 SD=05) vs Week 3 (M=16 SD=18) 27 02

TABLE A1 (continued)

Means and Standard Deviations of the Main Effects for the SIOS

Week Baseline (A) Intervention (B) Baseline (A)M SD M SD M SD

(Continued on p 106)

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 105

12 Child initiates interaction

ELL (n=7) 23 093 87 081 37 34NES (n=7) 51 16 87 11 29 21

13 Peer responds positively

ELL (n=7) 17 068 87 081 14 16NES (n=7) 43 18 82 15 25 17

14 Peer responds negatively

ELL (n=7) 00 00 00 00 036 045NES (n=7) 00 00 00 00 00 00

15 Peer makes no response

ELL (n=7) 048 66 00 00 19 18NES (n=7) 083 048 048 094 036 045

Notes Significant at the p lt 005 level Week = the baseline or intervention week ELL = Englishlanguage learners NES = native English speakers M = mean SD = standard deviation

TABLE A2

Paired t -Test for Week 1 vs Week 2 and Week 2 vs Week 3

Weeks t p

1 Positive interactions

Week 1 (M=32 SD=23) vs Week 2 (M=92 SD=10) 773 000Week 2 (M=92 SD=10) vs Week 3 (M=25 SD=16) 1196 000

2 Negative behaviors

Week 1 (M=012 SD=04) vs Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) 43 67Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) vs Week 3 (M=03 SD=02) 94 37

3 Nonplay behaviors

Week 1 (M=09 SD=03) vs Week 2 (M=02 SD=04) 220 05Week 2 ( M=02 SD=04) vs Week 3 (M=04 SD=05) 90 39

4 Solitary play

Week 1 (M=18 SD=19) vs Week 2 (M=02 SD=05) 300 01Week 2 (M=02 SD=05) vs Week 3 (M=16 SD=18) 27 02

TABLE A1 (continued)

Means and Standard Deviations of the Main Effects for the SIOS

Week Baseline (A) Intervention (B) Baseline (A)M SD M SD M SD

(Continued on p 106)

106 TESOL QUARTERLY

5 Parallel play

Week 1 (M=55 SD=28) vs Week 2 (M=03 SD=06) 736 000Week 2 (M=03 SD=06) vs Week 3 (M=68 SD=17) 1235 000

6 Associative andor cooperative play

Week 1 (M=14 SD=17) vs Week 2 (M=93 SD=08) 1420 000Week 2 (M=93 SD=08) vs Week 3 (M=12 SD=13) 1770 000

7 Positive linguistic interaction

Week 1 (M=58 SD=20) vs Week 2 (M=93 SD=06) 565 000Week 2 (M=93 SD=06) vs Week 3 (M=56 SD=24) 697 000

8 Peer initiates interaction

Week 1 (M=32 SD=18) vs Week 2 (M=82 SD=16) 612 000Week 2 (M=82 SD=16) vs Week 3 (M=19 SD=14) 1571 000

9 Child responds positively

Week 1 (M=26 SD=16) vs Week 2 (M=81 SD=15) 730 000Week 2 (M=81 SD=15) vs Week 3 (M=14 SD=14) 1309 000

10 Child responds negatively

Week 1 (M=01 SD=03) vs Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) 147 17Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 3 (M=03 SD=07) 159 14

11 Child makes no response

Week 1 (M=04 SD=05) vs Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) 212 05Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) vs Week 3 (M=02 SD=04) 100 34

12 Child initiates interaction

Week 1 (M=37 SD=20) vs Week 2 (M=87 SD=09) 954 000Week 2 (M=87 SD=09) vs Week 3 (M=33 SD=27) 609 000

13 Peer responds positively

Week 1 (M=30 SD=19) vs Week 2 (M=85 SD=12) 898 000Week 2 (M=85 SD=12) vs Week 3 (M=20 SD=17) 906 000

14 Peer responds negatively

Week 1 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 3 (M=02 SD=04) 188 08

15 Peer makes no response

Week 1 (M=07 SD=06) vs Week 2 (M=02 SD=07) 184 09Week 2 (M=02 SD=07) vs Week 3 (M=11 SD=15) 195 07

Significant at the p lt 005 level

TABLE A2 (continued)

Paired t -Test for Week 1 vs Week 2 and Week 2 vs Week 3

Weeks t p

106 TESOL QUARTERLY

5 Parallel play

Week 1 (M=55 SD=28) vs Week 2 (M=03 SD=06) 736 000Week 2 (M=03 SD=06) vs Week 3 (M=68 SD=17) 1235 000

6 Associative andor cooperative play

Week 1 (M=14 SD=17) vs Week 2 (M=93 SD=08) 1420 000Week 2 (M=93 SD=08) vs Week 3 (M=12 SD=13) 1770 000

7 Positive linguistic interaction

Week 1 (M=58 SD=20) vs Week 2 (M=93 SD=06) 565 000Week 2 (M=93 SD=06) vs Week 3 (M=56 SD=24) 697 000

8 Peer initiates interaction

Week 1 (M=32 SD=18) vs Week 2 (M=82 SD=16) 612 000Week 2 (M=82 SD=16) vs Week 3 (M=19 SD=14) 1571 000

9 Child responds positively

Week 1 (M=26 SD=16) vs Week 2 (M=81 SD=15) 730 000Week 2 (M=81 SD=15) vs Week 3 (M=14 SD=14) 1309 000

10 Child responds negatively

Week 1 (M=01 SD=03) vs Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) 147 17Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 3 (M=03 SD=07) 159 14

11 Child makes no response

Week 1 (M=04 SD=05) vs Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) 212 05Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) vs Week 3 (M=02 SD=04) 100 34

12 Child initiates interaction

Week 1 (M=37 SD=20) vs Week 2 (M=87 SD=09) 954 000Week 2 (M=87 SD=09) vs Week 3 (M=33 SD=27) 609 000

13 Peer responds positively

Week 1 (M=30 SD=19) vs Week 2 (M=85 SD=12) 898 000Week 2 (M=85 SD=12) vs Week 3 (M=20 SD=17) 906 000

14 Peer responds negatively

Week 1 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 3 (M=02 SD=04) 188 08

15 Peer makes no response

Week 1 (M=07 SD=06) vs Week 2 (M=02 SD=07) 184 09Week 2 (M=02 SD=07) vs Week 3 (M=11 SD=15) 195 07

Significant at the p lt 005 level

TABLE A2 (continued)

Paired t -Test for Week 1 vs Week 2 and Week 2 vs Week 3

Weeks t p

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 105

12 Child initiates interaction

ELL (n=7) 23 093 87 081 37 34NES (n=7) 51 16 87 11 29 21

13 Peer responds positively

ELL (n=7) 17 068 87 081 14 16NES (n=7) 43 18 82 15 25 17

14 Peer responds negatively

ELL (n=7) 00 00 00 00 036 045NES (n=7) 00 00 00 00 00 00

15 Peer makes no response

ELL (n=7) 048 66 00 00 19 18NES (n=7) 083 048 048 094 036 045

Notes Significant at the p lt 005 level Week = the baseline or intervention week ELL = Englishlanguage learners NES = native English speakers M = mean SD = standard deviation

TABLE A2

Paired t -Test for Week 1 vs Week 2 and Week 2 vs Week 3

Weeks t p

1 Positive interactions

Week 1 (M=32 SD=23) vs Week 2 (M=92 SD=10) 773 000Week 2 (M=92 SD=10) vs Week 3 (M=25 SD=16) 1196 000

2 Negative behaviors

Week 1 (M=012 SD=04) vs Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) 43 67Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) vs Week 3 (M=03 SD=02) 94 37

3 Nonplay behaviors

Week 1 (M=09 SD=03) vs Week 2 (M=02 SD=04) 220 05Week 2 ( M=02 SD=04) vs Week 3 (M=04 SD=05) 90 39

4 Solitary play

Week 1 (M=18 SD=19) vs Week 2 (M=02 SD=05) 300 01Week 2 (M=02 SD=05) vs Week 3 (M=16 SD=18) 27 02

TABLE A1 (continued)

Means and Standard Deviations of the Main Effects for the SIOS

Week Baseline (A) Intervention (B) Baseline (A)M SD M SD M SD

(Continued on p 106)

USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 105

12 Child initiates interaction

ELL (n=7) 23 093 87 081 37 34NES (n=7) 51 16 87 11 29 21

13 Peer responds positively

ELL (n=7) 17 068 87 081 14 16NES (n=7) 43 18 82 15 25 17

14 Peer responds negatively

ELL (n=7) 00 00 00 00 036 045NES (n=7) 00 00 00 00 00 00

15 Peer makes no response

ELL (n=7) 048 66 00 00 19 18NES (n=7) 083 048 048 094 036 045

Notes Significant at the p lt 005 level Week = the baseline or intervention week ELL = Englishlanguage learners NES = native English speakers M = mean SD = standard deviation

TABLE A2

Paired t -Test for Week 1 vs Week 2 and Week 2 vs Week 3

Weeks t p

1 Positive interactions

Week 1 (M=32 SD=23) vs Week 2 (M=92 SD=10) 773 000Week 2 (M=92 SD=10) vs Week 3 (M=25 SD=16) 1196 000

2 Negative behaviors

Week 1 (M=012 SD=04) vs Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) 43 67Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) vs Week 3 (M=03 SD=02) 94 37

3 Nonplay behaviors

Week 1 (M=09 SD=03) vs Week 2 (M=02 SD=04) 220 05Week 2 ( M=02 SD=04) vs Week 3 (M=04 SD=05) 90 39

4 Solitary play

Week 1 (M=18 SD=19) vs Week 2 (M=02 SD=05) 300 01Week 2 (M=02 SD=05) vs Week 3 (M=16 SD=18) 27 02

TABLE A1 (continued)

Means and Standard Deviations of the Main Effects for the SIOS

Week Baseline (A) Intervention (B) Baseline (A)M SD M SD M SD

(Continued on p 106)

106 TESOL QUARTERLY

5 Parallel play

Week 1 (M=55 SD=28) vs Week 2 (M=03 SD=06) 736 000Week 2 (M=03 SD=06) vs Week 3 (M=68 SD=17) 1235 000

6 Associative andor cooperative play

Week 1 (M=14 SD=17) vs Week 2 (M=93 SD=08) 1420 000Week 2 (M=93 SD=08) vs Week 3 (M=12 SD=13) 1770 000

7 Positive linguistic interaction

Week 1 (M=58 SD=20) vs Week 2 (M=93 SD=06) 565 000Week 2 (M=93 SD=06) vs Week 3 (M=56 SD=24) 697 000

8 Peer initiates interaction

Week 1 (M=32 SD=18) vs Week 2 (M=82 SD=16) 612 000Week 2 (M=82 SD=16) vs Week 3 (M=19 SD=14) 1571 000

9 Child responds positively

Week 1 (M=26 SD=16) vs Week 2 (M=81 SD=15) 730 000Week 2 (M=81 SD=15) vs Week 3 (M=14 SD=14) 1309 000

10 Child responds negatively

Week 1 (M=01 SD=03) vs Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) 147 17Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 3 (M=03 SD=07) 159 14

11 Child makes no response

Week 1 (M=04 SD=05) vs Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) 212 05Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) vs Week 3 (M=02 SD=04) 100 34

12 Child initiates interaction

Week 1 (M=37 SD=20) vs Week 2 (M=87 SD=09) 954 000Week 2 (M=87 SD=09) vs Week 3 (M=33 SD=27) 609 000

13 Peer responds positively

Week 1 (M=30 SD=19) vs Week 2 (M=85 SD=12) 898 000Week 2 (M=85 SD=12) vs Week 3 (M=20 SD=17) 906 000

14 Peer responds negatively

Week 1 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 3 (M=02 SD=04) 188 08

15 Peer makes no response

Week 1 (M=07 SD=06) vs Week 2 (M=02 SD=07) 184 09Week 2 (M=02 SD=07) vs Week 3 (M=11 SD=15) 195 07

Significant at the p lt 005 level

TABLE A2 (continued)

Paired t -Test for Week 1 vs Week 2 and Week 2 vs Week 3

Weeks t p

106 TESOL QUARTERLY

5 Parallel play

Week 1 (M=55 SD=28) vs Week 2 (M=03 SD=06) 736 000Week 2 (M=03 SD=06) vs Week 3 (M=68 SD=17) 1235 000

6 Associative andor cooperative play

Week 1 (M=14 SD=17) vs Week 2 (M=93 SD=08) 1420 000Week 2 (M=93 SD=08) vs Week 3 (M=12 SD=13) 1770 000

7 Positive linguistic interaction

Week 1 (M=58 SD=20) vs Week 2 (M=93 SD=06) 565 000Week 2 (M=93 SD=06) vs Week 3 (M=56 SD=24) 697 000

8 Peer initiates interaction

Week 1 (M=32 SD=18) vs Week 2 (M=82 SD=16) 612 000Week 2 (M=82 SD=16) vs Week 3 (M=19 SD=14) 1571 000

9 Child responds positively

Week 1 (M=26 SD=16) vs Week 2 (M=81 SD=15) 730 000Week 2 (M=81 SD=15) vs Week 3 (M=14 SD=14) 1309 000

10 Child responds negatively

Week 1 (M=01 SD=03) vs Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) 147 17Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 3 (M=03 SD=07) 159 14

11 Child makes no response

Week 1 (M=04 SD=05) vs Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) 212 05Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) vs Week 3 (M=02 SD=04) 100 34

12 Child initiates interaction

Week 1 (M=37 SD=20) vs Week 2 (M=87 SD=09) 954 000Week 2 (M=87 SD=09) vs Week 3 (M=33 SD=27) 609 000

13 Peer responds positively

Week 1 (M=30 SD=19) vs Week 2 (M=85 SD=12) 898 000Week 2 (M=85 SD=12) vs Week 3 (M=20 SD=17) 906 000

14 Peer responds negatively

Week 1 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 3 (M=02 SD=04) 188 08

15 Peer makes no response

Week 1 (M=07 SD=06) vs Week 2 (M=02 SD=07) 184 09Week 2 (M=02 SD=07) vs Week 3 (M=11 SD=15) 195 07

Significant at the p lt 005 level

TABLE A2 (continued)

Paired t -Test for Week 1 vs Week 2 and Week 2 vs Week 3

Weeks t p

106 TESOL QUARTERLY

5 Parallel play

Week 1 (M=55 SD=28) vs Week 2 (M=03 SD=06) 736 000Week 2 (M=03 SD=06) vs Week 3 (M=68 SD=17) 1235 000

6 Associative andor cooperative play

Week 1 (M=14 SD=17) vs Week 2 (M=93 SD=08) 1420 000Week 2 (M=93 SD=08) vs Week 3 (M=12 SD=13) 1770 000

7 Positive linguistic interaction

Week 1 (M=58 SD=20) vs Week 2 (M=93 SD=06) 565 000Week 2 (M=93 SD=06) vs Week 3 (M=56 SD=24) 697 000

8 Peer initiates interaction

Week 1 (M=32 SD=18) vs Week 2 (M=82 SD=16) 612 000Week 2 (M=82 SD=16) vs Week 3 (M=19 SD=14) 1571 000

9 Child responds positively

Week 1 (M=26 SD=16) vs Week 2 (M=81 SD=15) 730 000Week 2 (M=81 SD=15) vs Week 3 (M=14 SD=14) 1309 000

10 Child responds negatively

Week 1 (M=01 SD=03) vs Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) 147 17Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 3 (M=03 SD=07) 159 14

11 Child makes no response

Week 1 (M=04 SD=05) vs Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) 212 05Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) vs Week 3 (M=02 SD=04) 100 34

12 Child initiates interaction

Week 1 (M=37 SD=20) vs Week 2 (M=87 SD=09) 954 000Week 2 (M=87 SD=09) vs Week 3 (M=33 SD=27) 609 000

13 Peer responds positively

Week 1 (M=30 SD=19) vs Week 2 (M=85 SD=12) 898 000Week 2 (M=85 SD=12) vs Week 3 (M=20 SD=17) 906 000

14 Peer responds negatively

Week 1 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 3 (M=02 SD=04) 188 08

15 Peer makes no response

Week 1 (M=07 SD=06) vs Week 2 (M=02 SD=07) 184 09Week 2 (M=02 SD=07) vs Week 3 (M=11 SD=15) 195 07

Significant at the p lt 005 level

TABLE A2 (continued)

Paired t -Test for Week 1 vs Week 2 and Week 2 vs Week 3

Weeks t p

106 TESOL QUARTERLY

5 Parallel play

Week 1 (M=55 SD=28) vs Week 2 (M=03 SD=06) 736 000Week 2 (M=03 SD=06) vs Week 3 (M=68 SD=17) 1235 000

6 Associative andor cooperative play

Week 1 (M=14 SD=17) vs Week 2 (M=93 SD=08) 1420 000Week 2 (M=93 SD=08) vs Week 3 (M=12 SD=13) 1770 000

7 Positive linguistic interaction

Week 1 (M=58 SD=20) vs Week 2 (M=93 SD=06) 565 000Week 2 (M=93 SD=06) vs Week 3 (M=56 SD=24) 697 000

8 Peer initiates interaction

Week 1 (M=32 SD=18) vs Week 2 (M=82 SD=16) 612 000Week 2 (M=82 SD=16) vs Week 3 (M=19 SD=14) 1571 000

9 Child responds positively

Week 1 (M=26 SD=16) vs Week 2 (M=81 SD=15) 730 000Week 2 (M=81 SD=15) vs Week 3 (M=14 SD=14) 1309 000

10 Child responds negatively

Week 1 (M=01 SD=03) vs Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) 147 17Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 3 (M=03 SD=07) 159 14

11 Child makes no response

Week 1 (M=04 SD=05) vs Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) 212 05Week 2 (M=006 SD=02) vs Week 3 (M=02 SD=04) 100 34

12 Child initiates interaction

Week 1 (M=37 SD=20) vs Week 2 (M=87 SD=09) 954 000Week 2 (M=87 SD=09) vs Week 3 (M=33 SD=27) 609 000

13 Peer responds positively

Week 1 (M=30 SD=19) vs Week 2 (M=85 SD=12) 898 000Week 2 (M=85 SD=12) vs Week 3 (M=20 SD=17) 906 000

14 Peer responds negatively

Week 1 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) Week 2 (M=00 SD=00) vs Week 3 (M=02 SD=04) 188 08

15 Peer makes no response

Week 1 (M=07 SD=06) vs Week 2 (M=02 SD=07) 184 09Week 2 (M=02 SD=07) vs Week 3 (M=11 SD=15) 195 07

Significant at the p lt 005 level

TABLE A2 (continued)

Paired t -Test for Week 1 vs Week 2 and Week 2 vs Week 3

Weeks t p