The Effects of Training and Experience on Adult Peer Tutors in Community Colleges

by

Rick A. Sheets

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

August 1994

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of training and experience on tutors. Constructivism and metacognition laid the theoretical foundation for the need, the process, and the outcomes for tutor training. The investigation followed a field study design. Variables were not manipulated; instead, existing variables and interventions were investigated. Four research questions guided the study.

Does tutor training affect a tutor’s ability to identify an appropriate course of action with a student?
Does tutoring experience affect a tutor’s ability to identify an appropriate course of action with a student?
What other factors contribute to a tutor’s ability to identify an appropriate course of action with a student?
What are the relationships between the tutors’ abilities to identify an appropriate course of action and their abilities to construct an appropriate course of action?

Two researcher-created instruments were developed for the study. Twenty local and national experts in the field identified the appropriateness of tutor responses on the instruments. Ten or more hours of training was found to make a significant difference in the appropriateness of tutor responses to presented tutoring situations on the total score. “Active listening and paraphrasing” was the one topic investigated in which one or more hours of training made a significant difference in the appropriateness of tutor responses on a sub-test score.

There were no significant differences found in the total score nor sub-test scores among groups based on reported tutoring experience which was acquired during the study.

Four “other” factors also significantly affected the total post-test scores. From the pre-test, two variables had a positive effect: 1) amount of prior related work experience, and 2) the category of “other” as a “Reason for becoming a tutor.” From the post-test, two variables when valued by tutors as “Perceived rewards of being a tutor” had a negative effect: 1) “Making money” and 2) “Giving something back.” Recommendations were presented 1) for practitioners in the field, and 2) for professionals interested in pursuing additional research to exceed the scope and findings of this study.

[iii-iv]

Dedicated to my family:

my wife, Barbara

my parents, Dick and Carolyn

my brother, Greg

and my grandparents,

Martha and Cecil Sheets & Clara and Bob Briney

[v]

No study of this nature and complexity can be accomplished without the help, support, and cooperation of many others. My list of acknowledgments begins with the eternal patience and guidance of my committee chair, Gary Anderson. His efforts, though frustrating at times, were most effective in the development and completion of this study. For their support and guidance in the completion of a rigorous, professional program of study, including this dissertation, special recognition goes to my present and former committee members: Lyndon Searfoss, Billie Enz, Robert Stahl, Kay Martens, Naomi Wamacks, Nelson Haggerson, and Keith Thomas. I extend my appreciation to my supervisor and my college administrators who have given me continued support through both the comprehensive exams and this study: Fred Stahl, Gina Kranitz, and Raul Cardenas. My special thanks go to the experts and program directors who used their precious time to actively participate in this study, and to my research consultant, Warren Gamas, for his help and insight. Twenty people deserve special mention because of their mentoring, faith, and everlasting support over the years: Barbara Sheets, Carolyn Sheets, Dick Sheets, Sally Rings, Frank Christ, David Gerkin, John Córdova, Kay Martens, Ken Roberts, Richard Wurtz, Sylvia Mioduski, Tom Gier, Aimée Jafary, Suzy Crescenti, Jack Rolinger, Mary Lou Mosley, Cheryl Kubasch, Lou Farmakis, Marty Kamins, and David Friedman. Finally, I want to thank all my friends, family, and colleagues, who have supported me with their kind words, nudgings, and even pep talks throughout this nine-year process.

Background

The need for students to receive tutoring to succeed in institutions of higher learning was evident in America when Harvard opened its doors in 1636 as America’s first college. Because many of its incoming students were not yet proficient in Latin, Harvard provided tutors to help these students acquire the proficiency needed to succeed (Van, 1992). “Underpreparedness” for college in other academic areas is also not a new phenomenon in higher education in America. In 1907, over half of the beginning students at Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia failed to meet entrance requirements (Maxwell, 1979). Since the 1960s, as increasing numbers of non-traditional and underprepared students entered colleges and universities, the need to provide tutoring and other support services for students has continued.

Most American colleges and universities today offer some form of peer tutoring to some of their adult students through student services, special services, individual departments, or learning assistance programs. Today, adult peer tutoring is generally recognized as a service, which provides more than equalizing the opportunity for success among specific disadvantaged populations. It is also recognized as a service for providing support to all students to help them increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their efforts in studying and meeting their educational goals (Maxwell, 1990a).

Roueche (1983), in her national study on elements of success in institutions of higher education, stated that one of the components of the success of basic skill development programs for colleges and universities was the use of peer tutors. For this investigation, peer tutors are defined as adult tutors who are generally close in class standing to the students with whom they work. Furthermore, in Maxwell’s (1990a) review of the literature on tutoring, she identified several studies that supported the use of adult peer tutors for college students. In those studies, students responded more positively to tutors who were closer in class standing (not necessarily in age) than to professional tutors who were farther removed from the class standing of the college student (e.g., freshman). Maxwell also identified training for peer tutors as an essential element for successful tutoring programs in colleges and universities. In 1992, the National Center for Developmental Education at Appalachian State University completed a follow-up study of over 6000 students enrolled in basic skill development classes nationwide. The study cited that “tutor training is the best programmatic predictorof successful college developmental education [basic skill development] programs” (Maxwell, 1993).

A set of national Standards and Guidelines for Learning Assistance Programs was developed over a six year period as part of the national Council for the Advancement of Standards’ (CAS) Guidelines for Student Services/Development Programs. These guidelines, published in 1986, recommended that paraprofessional staff (tutors) should be “trained with respect to helping skills and institutional services and procedures.” (Materniak & Williams, 1987).

Statement of the Problem

Many colleges and universities hire adult peer tutors; however, only a few programs provide them with formal training for tutoring (Mohr, 1991). Tutors are usually hired because they have been successful students. A criterion most programs use in tutor selection is a grade of “A” or “B” in the course they will be tutoring and/or a faculty recommendation (Maxwell, 1990a). Thus it is often assumed that the tutors can convey their strategies for success to the students they tutor and will gain tutoring techniques with experience. Unfortunately, being successful in their coursework does not necessarily mean they will be successful tutors without training. For example, some tutors, though successful as students, do not utilize efficient study strategies themselves and may need training before they can help the students they tutor become more efficient, effective, and independent as learners (Rings & Sheets, 1991). Other tutors have developed their strategies and metacognitive abilities to the extent that they may be operating on “automatic pilot,” that is, at a sub-conscious level, thus being unaware of the strategies they use to be successful. Therefore, these tutors are unaware of the strategies they employ and will need training to be able to consciously assist students in choosing strategies they may need to learn new material (A. L. Brown, 1980; Rings & Sheets, 1991). A third set of tutors may know the strategies they employ in learning new information, may be both effective and efficient learners, and may still not possess the repertoire of strategies needed to help students select the strategies appropriate for their learning needs (Rings & Sheets, 1991).

For the college programs who choose to provide training for their adult peer tutors, little research exists which identifies what topics should be included, which format of presentation is best (orientation session, staff meeting, course, seminar, etc.), or what kind of teaching method is best for tutor training (lecture, discussion, role play, etc.). An International Tutoring Certification Training Program was created by the national College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA, formerly WCRLA) in 1989. Its role was to certify post-secondary peer tutor training programs based on their adherence to specific guidelines (Maxwell, 1993). These guidelines (see Appendix A) provide flexibility so that program directors can select appropriate alternatives to meet the general guidelines. Training programs applying for certification must include at least 8 of the 15 topics in their training to meet the certification requirements (one choice is “other”).Thus, the possibility exists that two certified programs could select totally different topics to include within their tutor training programs.

Although the International Tutor Certification Program provides a variety of choices from which program directors can meet the needs of their individual programs, such a variety of alternatives means that there may be little, if any, uniformity among the programs they certify. This diversity confounds research design and thus makes research of tutor training among campuses and programs more difficult.

Maxwell (1990a) found that most of the related literature on adult peer tutoring and tutor training for post-secondary institutions was merely descriptive in nature. Case studies or student evaluations of the tutor or tutoring program were used to measure effects or describe methods or components of tutoring or training programs. The problem is that little empirical research exists which measures the effects of training on adult peer tutors, and none exists which investigates the effects of experience on adult peer tutors in post-secondary institutions. The question posed then is: Do tutors’ responses to tutoring situations change as a result of training or experience?

Purpose of the Study

The literature indicates that receiving tutoring by adult peer tutors makes a positive difference for students in their achievement, self-esteem, and motivation for continuing their education (B. E. Brown, 1981; Irwin, 1980; Maxwell, 1990a). The literature also posits that training for tutors is a critical component of successful tutoring programs (MacDonald, 1993; Materniak & Williams, 1987; Maxwell 1993). Only a few studies have investigated effects of training on the adult peer tutors. None of these studies has investigated the effects of tutoring experience, nor of other independent variables which might impact study results.

Importance of the Study

Though tutoring has been cited as a critical component of successful basic skill development programs at colleges or universities, and training for adult peer tutors has been cited as critical for successful tutoring programs, many programs have no formal training for their tutors (Mohr, 1991; Maxwell, 1990a; Zaritsky, 1989). Some program directors may believe that tutors will gain tutoring expertise through experience alone. Investigators have identified a need for more research in training adult peer tutors.

Training and experience will be discussed as two major independent variables to be investigated for improved tutor competence. What other factors should be examined for possible effects of improved tutor competence? Other factors will be researched in the literature review in Chapter II and will be selected and discussed in Chapter III.

A concern warranting investigation in this study was raised when a researcher-created multiple choice instrument was proposed. The concern was whether tutors’ abilities to recognize and select the appropriate response might be different from their abilities to create an appropriate response.

Research Questions

1. Does tutor training affect a tutor’s ability to identify an appropriate course of action with a student?
2. Does tutoring experience affect a tutor’s ability to identify an appropriate course of action with a student?
3. What other factors contribute to a tutor’s ability to identify an appropriate course of action with a student?
4. What are the relationships between the tutors’ abilities to identify an appropriate course of action and their abilities to construct an appropriate course of action?

Definition of Terms

Appropriate course of action
-the response choice which most closely matches the choices identified by field experts as the “most appropriate” on both researcher-created instruments described below (TSORA and TSFRA).

Learning Assistance Center
-the center providing tutorial services; a variety of other names are also used for the center providing tutorial services; these include Learning Center, Learning Enhancement Center, Math Lab, Writing Center, Information Commons. For the purposes of this paper, the center providing tutoring will be called the Learning Assistance Center.

Learning Assistance Center Directors
-the formal tutor supervisory position. Some colleges participating in the study use other titles for the tutor supervisory position (i.e., lead teacher, office supervisor, technician, or coordinator). In this study, the tutor supervisory positions will also be referred to as directors or program directors.

Training
-a formal session or set of sessions in which tutors are presented with information on techniques, strategies, or resources to use when tutoring students. It does not include any session or part of a session in which information on operational orientations is provided, i.e., information dealing with procedures, deadlines, or paperwork. In this study, training is used synonymously with tutor training.

Tutoring experience
-the number of hours a tutor has actually tutored students.

Tutor Situational Free Response Assessment (TSFRA)
– the researcher-created instrument used to assess tutors’ created responses to presented tutoring situations (see Appendix C)
Tutor Situational Objective Response Assessment (TSORA, pronounced soar-a; the t is silent)
– the researcher-created and expert-ranked instrument used to score tutors’ chosen responses to presented tutoring situations (see Appendix D).

Tutors
-adult peer tutors who are hired because of content knowledge and success in the subject area, either through superior coursework or work experience. Though they may have some background or interest in teaching or in education, this background or interest is not a hiring criterion. Often adult peer tutors are currently students themselves and may have recently completed the course(s) they have been hired to tutor. For the purpose of this study, peer tutors, study participants, and tutors will be used as synonymous terms for adult peer tutors.

Organization of the Manuscript

Chapter I contains the introduction of the topic of the dissertation, including background, a statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the importance of the study, research questions, definitions of terms, and the organization of the manuscript.

Chapter II is a synthesis of the literature reviewed, beginning with a brief history of tutoring. Constructivism and metacognition provide the theoretical foundation which establishes the need for training adult peer tutors. The chapter concludes with a review of research on tutor training.

In Chapter III, the hypotheses and the methodologies are presented which were used to design the study, to create the instrument, and to collect the data.

Chapter IV consists of the presentation of descriptive data of the sample, the statistical analysis of the hypotheses, and an exploration of the relationship between identifying and constructing appropriate courses of action.

Chapter V summarizes the study, states conclusions, and discusses recommendations.

This literature review will provide a brief history of tutoring and a brief overview of constructivism and metacognition as a theoretical foundation and justification for providing training to adult peer tutors. Current research and related studies on training for adult peer tutors will be reviewed, followed by a brief summary of the chapter.

History of Tutoring

Throughout recorded history, tutoring is referenced as a means for the wealthy to assure that their progeny gain the important knowledge required by that generation (P. C. Stahl, N. A. Stahl, & Henk, 1983). In this sense, tutoring by a private tutor has historically been positively associated with being for the elite and wealthy. Conversely, until recently, tutoring received in colleges and universities had been associated with a lack of success (Maxwell, 1990a). The first formal reference to tutoring in colleges and universities occurred when Harvard opened its doors in 1636 as described by Maxwell (1979). Many of the children of the Commonwealth could not read or speak Latin. As Harvard, at that time, required all its students to speak only Latin while within its halls, Harvard provided Latin tutors for these students. According to Dempsey (1979b), it was the nineteenth century before English was studied at the universities, first at a preparatory program now known as New York University. Shortly thereafter, the founding president of Wesleyan University called for the study of English in place of the traditional Greek and Latin.

During the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, the purpose for and access to higher education changed dramatically. Two major changes occurred 1) when Gallaudet College, originally named Columbia Institute for the Deaf, was established in 1857 with federal assistance; and 2) when President Lincoln signed the Morrill Act in 1862 which established land-grant colleges. Gutek (1986) notes that, during this period, national economic growth and development were related to educational innovation and development. Following the Civil War, Howard University was established to provide higher education opportunities for the newly freed slaves. In 1901, the first junior college, Joliet Junior College was established in Illinois. It provided post-secondary credits that could be transferred to the university, as well as vocational programs (Gutek, 1986). According to Maxwell (1979), students not meeting the entrance requirements were admitted to colleges and universities because

of the fierce competition for students. In 1907, over half of the students enrolled at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia failed to meet entrance requirements. Colleges and universities responded to the needs of a larger and more diverse student population by providing preparatory programs or courses in “How to Study.”

In 1947, Harvard’s Bureau of Study Counsel offered a formal tutoring program and a reading course as its two services to students (Walker, 1980). During the 1950’s, there was a change in the focus of tutoring and other services for students. The change was from strictly content-centered services toward more student-centered services (Walker, 1980). Until the 1960’s, tutoring at colleges and universities was poorly documented as it was mainly provided privately or as informal services offered by faculty or honor society students. Beginning in the 1960’s, colleges and universities received government aid to provide higher education to low-income groups, especially women and minorities, who were underprepared to enter college. Thus, colleges and universities began to establish learning assistance or tutorial services to provide formal tutoring services for the disadvantaged and minority students (Maxwell, 1979).

In California in 1972, funds were approved for an innovation in providing tutoring and other support services following a unique model which “mobilized” community and campus resources to provide what Frank Christ (1980) described as “a facility…where learners, learner data, and learning facilitators are interwoven into a sequential, cybernetic, individualized, people-oriented system to service all students (learners) and faculty (learner facilitators) of any institution for whom learning by students is important.” This innovation changed the goals and focus of tutorial support at colleges and universities. Instead of providing services to special populations only (as a stigma, focusing only on weaknesses), this innovation expanded tutorial and other instructional support services to all, including the staff, faculty, and administration of the college or university.

In the summer of 1972, Stanford opened a Learning Assistance Center aimed at providing service to students who had the potential to succeed at college but who needed some remedial support to realize this potential. Within its first year, other students wanting to enrich their learning skills also made use of the Learning Assistance Center services, and thus these services were expanded to provide assistance for all students (Walker, 1980). The growth of learning assistance or tutorial programs flourished through the 1970’s. By the end of the 1970’s, more than 75% of the public colleges and universities provided learning assistance programs (Dempsey, 1979b; Devirian, Enright, & Smith, 1975).

In the late 1970’s, Harvard’s Bureau of Study Counsel had grown to provide expanded services each semester that included: providing tutoring for three to four hundred students, mainly in mathematics and science classes; teaching reading improvement classes for five to six hundred students; providing individual counseling for over a thousand students, and offering a lecture series entitled “Seminars on University Experiences” to all in the freshman class (Walker, 1980). Stanford University provided tutoring for its students because “even the best and brightest students can often benefit from tutoring in reading, writing, math and study skills that will help them with their university level coursework” (Walker, 1980).

Maxwell (1990a) noted that almost all colleges and universities provided students with some form of tutoring: 1) some provided free tutoring to all students needing it, 2) while others limited free tutoring to those students who qualified for special programs, and 3) still others required fees from all students receiving tutoring.

Theoretical

Historically, there has been a need for providing tutors to supplement instruction for college students. In addition to academic gain, the emphasis today is on tutors helping students become self-directed or independent learners (Hartman, 1990). Training can “provide tutors with the information, strategies, and resources to help students become independent learners and attain their educational goals” (Rings and Sheets, 1991). Grounded in a theoretical framework of constructivism and metacognition, training can provide tutors with the problem-solving and self-monitoring strategies needed to empower students to accurately construct new information into their knowledge bases. Together, constructivism and metacognition build a foundation from which tutors can receive training to help students assess their own needs, identify needed strategies, and evaluate effectiveness in learning new information.

Constructivism, as a theory, provides a theoretical framework for both training and tutoring. Constructivism is the theory that all knowledge is constructed. Knowledge is not an entity that can be transmitted in a pure form and received and interpreted in exactly the same form; rather, knowledge is a process by which a person receives and constructs an interpretation of information. This information is received within the person’s own framework of understanding or “fit” of the new information. According to Blais (1988), constructivists perceive education as a process that transforms a novice into an expert. Likewise, tutors, usually hired because of their mastery of subject area content or study skills, are expected to help novices (students) move towards mastery of content.

As identified by Glasersfeld (1989b), the term constructivism is a recent term used to describe concepts that can be traced back more than a quarter of a millennium. Giambattista Vico is often credited with the earliest recorded idea of constructivism. In 1710, Vico had a treatise published in which he referred to knowledge as being constructed. Others noted as following constructivist views include Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Silvio Ceccato, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget. Piaget’s writings spanned more than 50 years. In his early writings, he is credited with providing foundations for cognitive psychology; in his later works, he is viewed as a constructivist.

In constructivism, experience provides the basis for gaining new knowledge. New experiences are interpreted through a filter consisting of what the learners believe to be real and true. If the new information is inconsistent with existing experience and beliefs, the learners may reject it, explore it, distort it so that it “fits” their views, or ignore it (R. J. Stahl, 1990a). New ideas, information, or concepts cannot simply be transferred from one person to another as is often assumed. However, without an adequate schema for the new information (R. J. Stahl, 1992a), the learner may construct completely or partially inaccurate knowledge or may construct something accurately, but not what was intended. Learning is described as a dynamic, active, problem-solving process in which existing knowledge is modified, added to, or reconstructed. Constructivists see the learners’ reality as changing to reflect an expansion of knowledge (R. J. Stahl, 1989, 1992a).

Kamii (1982b) likens the traditional perception of education to empty vessels run along an assembly line waiting to be filled with the same pre-measured amounts of the same information thus producing identical products. According to constructivist theory, learning cannot be assumed to have occurred simply because information was presented and individuals listened and said they understood. They may have understood part of it, none of it, or may have totally misunderstood what was intended. Then, as new information is presented, individuals will try to make it “fit” within their view of reality. Thus, receivers (learners) need to have or be provided with appropriate background information to accurately understand and construct what the sender (instructor or tutor) intends (Kamii, 1982b).

An analogy by Flavell (1985) regarding the construction and reconstruction of new information into memory is to that of an archeological reconstruction of an ancient civilization. The archeologists begin with the individual fragments and artifacts that have been found and are believed to be connected. The archeologists then fill in gaps in knowledge with logical inferences based on their knowledge of the civilization. What individuals learn and remember is constructed based on how well it “fits” with previous experience and understanding. “We most emphatically do not simply take mental photographs of inputs at storage and then simply develop them at retrieval” (Flavell, 1985, p. 215). He also states that constructivists believe that spontaneous inferences and interpretations are constantly occurring in the processing, storing, and retrieving of information.

In discussing comprehension and recall from prose, Spiro (1980, p. 246) states “Constructed meaning is the interactive product of text and context of various kinds including linguistic, prior knowledge, situational, attitudinal, and task context, among others.” Meaning does not reside in individual words, sentences, or passages; instead language provides us with a skeleton from which to build. Thus the same word or set of words can have different meanings to different learners. Meanings are constructed based on learners’ experiences and prior knowledge, attitudes, interests, as well as the context of the task, which includes learners’ perceptions of the task and of the reason for or importance of the task. The learners become active rather than passive participants in their learning even while reading to learn new information (Spiro, 1980).

According to Narode (1989), metacognition is grounded in constructivist theory, and it provides the foundation upon which students can construct new information. Metacognition, a term credited to John Flavell, is defined by Flavell as “the active monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of [thinking and learning activities]” (cited in Krueger, 1986, pp. 16-17). Narode (1989) applies metacognition to a college setting in which students in lower-level algebra classes need to be provided with problem solving opportunities to help them develop critical thinking skills in applying mathematics, as opposed to the traditional focus on computational skills in “remedial” mathematics courses.

Hartman (1990) identifies two dimensions of metacognition in relation to helping students become self-directed learners: 1) Learning metacognitively involves executive management of learning through planning, monitoring, and evaluating; and 2) metacognition involves strategic knowledge of the repertoire of knowledge and skills the student has, when and why these skills are appropriate to use, and how to apply the selected knowledge and skills. “The final aspect of a self-directed learner concerns transfer. It emphasizes application of knowledge and skills across a range of contexts: within the same subject, across subjects, to everyday life experience, and to students’ future goals.” (Hartman, 1990, p.3). She also states that the goal of tutor training grounded in metacognition is to “prepare tutors to tutor themselves out of a job” (Hartman, 1990, p.2), which she describes as empowering students to become their own tutors.

One aspect of metacognition, termed comprehension monitoring, is defined by Weinstein & Rogers (1985, p.7) as “an active learning strategy necessary for success in any learning situation, but especially in cases where the learner is primarily responsible for his or her mastery of a task.” Thus tutors can help students learn and master strategies and skills for dealing with content. Metacognitive strategies can help tutors monitor their own understanding of the students’ needs and can help the tutor select an appropriate course of action in helping students construct and reconstruct new information appropriately.

Empirical Studies and Related Research

Constructivism and metacognition provide a theoretical framework for the training of tutors. Tutors can be provided with instruction in awareness of metacognitive strategies that can be used to help students become more effective and efficient independent learners. Metacognitive awareness of their own learning needs, selection of strategies, and evaluation of the effectiveness of their learning places students in charge of their own learning as they move from novices to masters of new information.

The remaining sections of this chapter will move from the theoretical constructs to focus on the literature regarding specific aspects of this study. It is divided into three parts: 1) the need for tutor training; 2) the topics for tutor training; and 3) the effects of training on tutors.

The Need for Tutor Training

In her article, “Factors affecting the tutoring process,” Hartman (1990) called for more research and attributes the dearth of research on the tutoring process for adult students to a lack of a solid theoretical foundation. In her review of research, she analyzed internal and external factors affecting the tutoring process. Internal factors were the cognitive and affective characteristics of both the tutor and the student tutored. External factors were comprised of variables in the academic context and the environment outside the academic setting. Drawing from “Characteristics of a self-directed learner” as described by Barrows (1988), Hartman (1990) identified the role of tutoring as both facilitating academic gain and empowering students to become self-directed or independent learners. The affective factors characteristic of an independent learner identified by Barrows and described by Hartman include: self motivates, builds self-confidence, values learning, feels control over educational destiny, regulates self-messages, and persists. The cognitive factors include: plans work, monitors and evaluates comprehension, uses feedback to improve performance, and knows when, why, and how to use knowledge and skills. The outcomes identified by Barrows (1988) are the student’s ability to retain, apply, and transfer knowledge and skills to existing and new situations (Hartman, 1990). Thus, training is needed to enable tutors to model and guide metacognition so their students can become independent learners who are aware of their own needs, identify strategies to employ, and take responsibility for evaluating their level of comprehension.

Rings and Sheets (1991) identified both student development and metacognition as theoretical foundations for providing tutor training. Student development challenges students to become autonomous, self-directed learners. Metacognition enables students to attain that goal by monitoring their own status regarding and progress toward becoming self-directed learners. Training for tutors is needed because tutors 1) may not have efficient study strategies, 2) may have developed their strategies and metacognitive abilities to the point that they may be operating on a sub-conscious level, thus being unaware of the strategies they use, or 3) may be both effective and efficient learners, knowledgeable about the strategies they employ, and may still not have the repertoire of strategies needed to help students select the learning strategies appropriate to their own learning needs. In all three scenarios, tutors need training to be able to model and guide their students in the use of metacognitive strategies (Rings & Sheets, 1991).

In her paper discussing training for peer tutors for college writers, Draper (1979) used the analogy that a lack of training may be “allowing the blind to lead the blind (or in some cases the arrogant leading the unknowing).” Condravy (1992), in citing several studies, identified the need for training because “simply placing two students together, one of whom has demonstrated better academic achievement, will not guarantee that effective tutoring will occur.” She also stated that without training, the tendency is for tutors to take on a more traditional hierarchical role of surrogate instructor using mainly a lecture mode instead of a more collaborative role. Maxwell (1990a) identified results of studies that indicated that tutors and students being tutored used different criteria for judging the success of a tutoring session. Tutors tended to feel more successful in an information giving role where less problem-solving occurred whereas students receiving tutoring felt more successful in sessions with more problem-solving and more collaborative efforts.

Though training for tutors has been identified in the literature as a critical component of tutoring programs, many programs still provide little or no formal training for their tutors. In a study conducted at two- and four-year institutions in New York, Zaritsky (1989) found that 96% of those responding to a survey (N=60) identified that they provide training. However, 25% responded that the total time for training was less than three hours, and 43% reported that they provided between three and five hours of training. She concluded that programs providing training to tutors often do not provide adequate training. Maxwell (1990a), in her review of the literature on tutoring, found that many tutoring programs lack the funds to provide “more than a brief orientation program and a set of guidelines.”

In an investigation measuring the effectiveness of training in improving tutor interpersonal behaviors, Williams (1980) measured three aspects: 1) the change in the tutor behavior, 2) the transfer of the behavior to “live” tutoring situations, and 3) the effect on the learner as a result of the change in interpersonal skills. Her conclusions were that even though levels of improvement were not as high as expected, there was improvement in the tutors’ interpersonal behaviors and that those changes did transfer to “live” tutoring situations. The changes in students as a result of changes in tutors’ behaviors were not consistent, though the researcher noted indications of a trend towards improvement. The contention is that training tutors in communication skills is critical to providing appropriate tutoring services for students. Van (1992, p. 33), in her study of successful college learning assistance programs, notes, “Successful programs train tutors in teaching strategies, interpersonal skills, and self-esteem development.”

In a published discussion with the authors of three papers on training programs for tutors (Beck, 1978; Hawkins, 1978; Silver, 1978), Bruffee (1978b) made the statement that existing research suggests that the success of a peer tutoring program hinges not only on providing training, but on how the tutors are trained. Training programs will be different depending on differing institutional needs. Two of the differences in the three training programs Bruffee referenced were topics of training for tutors and the amount of training received.

Topics of Training Programs

Once the need for training has been established, the questions become how much training and what topics should be included in the training for tutors. Decisions about the training should be made to meet individual program needs (B. E. Brown, 1981). The content of the tutor training should include decisions about the role that the tutor is expected to play, which can vary dramatically from institution to institution. Once the decision is made, that role should be clearly defined to the tutors, faculty, and students at the institution. In addition to the tutor’s role, B. E. Brown (1981) also feels that decisions should be made about 1) the need to teach tutors content specific skills; and 2) the emphasis between expertise in subject matter versus expertise in study skills. The model he discusses identifies seven topics to be included in tutor training programs: subject expertise, teaching strategies, diagnosis, student characteristics, human information processing, study skills and policies and procedures.

“Tutors frequently equate talking with teaching, and listening with learning” (B. E. Brown, 1981, p. 78), a stereotype that seems logical given their experiences in traditional classroom settings. He also suggests that training should be provided for defining learning and identifying student needs. Ashton-Jones (1988) identifies the defining of the role of the tutor and helping peer tutors understand that role as crucial for a tutoring program. She states that even though tutors may work to establish peer relationships, often they will fall back into the traditional and well-learned hierarchical role of a teacher lecturing. She cites both Bruffee’s reference to tutors becoming “little teachers” (Ashton-Jones, 1988, p. 30), and Hawkins’ cautions against tutors who view themselves as “shaman, guru, or mentor” rather than as “architects and partners of collaborative learning…shifting the responsibilities of learning onto the learner” (Ashton-Jones, 1988, p. 31). Ashton-Jones recommends that tutors be engaged in conversation as much as possible in training situations. Modeling problem solving and session planning are major facets of training that she proposes.

Modeling problem solving is the focus of what Mills (1982) referred to as a research-based tutor training program. She states that her training program is based on problem-solving research. Tutors and their students share the role of “expert.” First, the tutor models by verbalizing the thought process and details the steps involved in solving a problem while the student listens; then the roles are switched. Each has an opportunity to play each role, thus becoming partners in the learning process. This approach also promotes training in definition of the tutor role, communication skills, and session planning.

To evaluate the success of a tutor training program at North Carolina State University, Mills (1982, p. 25) studied “the Fall 1980 population of all Special Services’ students” for a comparison of the percentages of students who failed courses between those “using tutoring on a regular basis” and those who did not. The comparisons were made for English, math, and chemistry courses (see Table 1). Group A did not receive “tutoring on a regular basis” whereas Group B did receive tutoring “on a regular basis.”

As shown in Table 1, 50% of Special Services’ students who did not receive tutoring on a regular basis failed chemistry, whereas none of the Special Services’ students who received tutoring on a regular basis failed chemistry. The author concluded “Students who receive tutoring by the modeling method do better in their subsequent courses than those who do not receive tutoring.”

Unfortunately, few details were provided regarding the specifics of the design of the study or of the findings. No information was provided on the number of students participating, whether any students are counted more than once in the percentages among subject areas, the criteria used for determining the prediction that the student would not succeed, nor the criteria for “students receiving tutoring on a regular basis.” Students receiving tutoring by tutors modeling problem-solving was presented as the intervention responsible for fewer students failing the course. Other potential independent variables were not considered, such as, the experience of the tutor during the semester, the use of tutors who received no training, the amount of training tutors received, nor the tutor’s prior knowledge and experience. It is also unclear whether the sample included students in different classes with different instructors within each subject area reported.

Another topic identified in the literature is the importance of the tutor planning and setting goals for tutoring sessions. In a qualitative study of group tutoring techniques, MacDonald (1993) presented the implications for use in actual tutoring situations. He discussed the importance of training tutors, and suggested an activity for training that incorporates the following topics: the tutor’s role, setting goals and expectations, and modeling problem-solving skills. In the study, MacDonald interviewed 37 tutors from three colleges, categorized the concepts of the interviews, and then validated those concepts with research from which he could draw conclusions. He then offered recommendations for training tutors. On the basis of existing research on group dynamics and on information tutors provided in the interviews, MacDonald developed five categories related to providing group tutoring: 1) Tutor and tutee roles and group cohesion, 2) Identifying students’ needs, 3) A workable plan and time line, 4) Jumpstarting, and 5) Floor management. Two general implications for the training of tutors were identified. The first implication for training

Table 1
Reported Comparison of Percentage of Failures Within Groups by Course
———————————————————————————–

was that “tutoring is a complex, interactional task that can be improved by training” (MacDonald, 1993, p.16). Therfore, the need is to train tutors to train the students with whom they work, so that the students will be empowered to change their learning behaviors and become independent learners. The second implication for training was the need for specific recommendations for practitioners to follow when training tutors to work with groups of students. A training module was described in detail. MacDonald has clearly stated the need for specific topics in training to address specific needs for tutors to apply in tutoring sessions.

Condravy (1992) describes a tutor training program she developed called “Learning together: An interactive approach to tutor training.” She cited research and articles that support the activities and topics she has chosen to include in her program. She reviewed the topics she had chosen, using the results of author-created evaluation forms which elicited tutors’ perceptions of the training they had received. These results were collected over a ten year period. The evaluations use a three-point rating scale for the first 17 items and include two open-ended questions. She also reported results from student evaluations that use a six-point scale to rate tutoring services. The training topics she chose included tutor roles, active listening, and study skills. She also described specific training activities to present the topics selected.

Effects of Training on Tutors

Only three studies attempted to measure the effects of training on adult peer tutors (Brandwein & DiVittis, 1985; Williams, 1980; Willis & Gueldenpfenning, 1981). Willis and Gueldenpfenning (1981) investigated differences in tutor behaviors based on the methods used to train the tutors (lecturing, modeling, and role playing). The groups studied were those receiving training through 1) lecturing (N=3), 2) modeling (N=4), and 3) role-playing (N=4). Seven tutoring skills (specifying, signaling, recognition, reinforcing, correcting, data collecting, and enthusiasm) were identified. These seven skills were taught in eight half-hour training sessions or units. Tutors were assigned to one of the three groups and given outlines of the remaining sessions during their first session of training. The tutors were evaluated by means of a five minute videotaped tutoring test on the last seven units, for which they were to respond to realistic, but simulated, tutoring situations.

One minute of the five minutes of the taped tests of each skill was scored for each tutor. The chosen minute was randomly selected for each of the eight sessions, and each tutor was scored on the same minute of the five for that session. (Note: The last skill of enthusiasm was not scored due to a lack of the rater’s ability to identify it as a behavior.) The appropriate and inappropriate behaviors were the dependent variables. Reliability was computed and ranged between 85% and 100% on appropriate behaviors (with a mean of 96%) and was 100% for inappropriate behaviors. The first unit provided no training and was used as a baseline to assess differences between groups; no significant differences were found.

Gains were identified for all groups. Significant differences were found among the three groups. The group that received lecturing had the lowest post-test mean and the lowest gain between pre-training and post-training scores. Modeling fell in the middle, and role-playing had the highest post-test score and the highest gain in scores. The differences between the first session and the last were significant for all groups.

Willis and Gueldenpfenning (1981) state that generalizations must be made cautiously because of 1) the specialized sample (full-time undergraduates serving as tutor trainees from one institution, 2) the size of the sample (N=11), and 3) the use of a simulated environment.

ref.html#

designed a study to determine if tutor training would improve the relationship between the tutor and the student so that learners would attain higher levels of success and have a higher completion rate. She completed one major pilot study and two small experimental follow-up studies. In her pilot study, 72 part-time tutors who provide long distance tutoring by telephone were invited to participate; only 31 expressed an interest in the pilot study. Three tutors were asked to serve as a control group, and after several others of the 31 interested tutors dropped out for various reasons, only 13 actually participated in the pilot study to varying degrees. Only five tutors completed all aspects of the pilot study: 1) the training, 2) the pre- and post-written tests, 3) the workshop evaluation, and 4) the pre- and post- training audio tapes of the telephone tutoring session.

The pre- and post-tests elicited responses from the participants describing how they would handle certain situations in tutoring. Their responses were rated from 5 (very effective) to 1 (very ineffective) in three areas: 1) ability to communicate understanding of student perspective, 2) ability to constructively communicate own perspective, and 3) level of sophistication of a tutoring strategy. In addition, participants made a five minute recording of a tutoring session before beginning training and were asked to make three additional recordings, one recording of a session of their choice in each of the following three months. These taped tutoring sessions were evaluated using an observer and an observation code. One minute was randomly selected, and that minute was scored for each tape on four areas: 1) the ratio of tutor and student talk, 2) direct or indirect methods, 3) demonstration of the presented tutoring skills, and 4) facilitative conditions (e.g., display of empathy, respect, and genuineness).

Williams noted that when reviewing the taped sessions it was evident that even though students desire to talk more in a telephone tutoring session, the untrained tutor is unable to generate a student-dominated conversation. She also noted that untrained tutors may actually detract from more than they add to the distance education learning experience. Thus, it was concluded that tutors did need skills training.

Gains for the pre- and post-tests were found for all trained tutors (N=5) in some areas and for most trained tutors in other areas. She concluded that the training was effective in raising the skill levels of tutors. She also reported that the changes in tutoring behaviors observed during recorded tutoring sessions did translate to live tutoring situations. However, she noted that though there were gains, the level of functioning fell short of minimal standards identified in the research used as a basis for this study. Thus, revisions to the content of the training were noted.

In discussing the results, Williams’ conclusions included: 1) tutors at her institution are in need of skills training; 2) tutors are interested in the prospect of learning skills; 3) tutors completing training view it positively; 4) training is effective in providing desired behavioral changes; and 5) gains made in training sessions do translate to live tutoring sessions.

In this study, problems existed with the sample selection; only 5 out of 72 tutors (7%) completed the whole study. These five tutors self-selected. The reliability of the rating of the taped tutoring sessions was also unclear.

In her two follow-up experimental studies, Williams studied personal and interpersonal skills of trained tutors. The results of both experimental studies were inconclusive. Her final recommendations included the ideas that more research was needed, more tutors should be paid for their training time, and training should focus more on problem-solving.

The third study on the effects of training on tutors (Brandwein & DiVittis, 1985) was designed to develop a model for quantitative analysis of the changes in tutor responses as a result of training. A multiple choice, pencil and paper test was developed based on a content analysis of a peer tutor training course. Ten tutoring situations were presented, and tutors were to select one of the three choices presented for each situation. Each of the three choices was ranked by the course instructor as to its “match” to the concepts of the course. The closest match was rated at “5” points, next closest at “3” points, and the one least like the the model presented in class was rated at a value of “1” point. Each tutor’s score was assumed to measure the tutor’s adherence to the guidelines presented in the training course, and a further assumption was made that this score reflected the peer tutor’s competency as a tutor.

Two groups were identified for comparison. The first group consisted of the 12 tutors who had taken the peer tutoring course during the Spring 1982 term. The second group was reported to be a comparable group of 13 newly hired tutors in the Fall 1982 semester who had not yet received any training. Both parametric (t test) and non-parametric (Mann Whitney U test) analyses indicated that the group who received training answered with more desired responses than the second group of newly hired tutors who had not yet received training. Tutors receiving training were also asked to: 1) rate the exercises used in the course, 2) identify the amount of time (in percentages) spent on different skill areas (increasing interpersonal skills, increasing teaching skills, and learning how to teach remedial English and math skills), 3) list their perception of the time (in percentages) that should have been spent in each of the three skill areas in 2, and 4) to rate and self-report their improvement in each of six areas related to their work with students (e.g., math, writing, sensitivity, and communication). The investigators concluded that the peer tutor training program studied was successful because tutors who received training responded in a more appropriate manner to the presented tutoring situations. They also concluded that the instrument enabled them to differentiate between trained and untrained tutors. After a review of the test items, it was noted that only four of the ten items significantly differentiated trained tutors from untrained tutors. Two explanations were offered: 1) the scale is not powerful enough to discriminate between the two groups and 2) untrained peer tutors may initially possess the skills investigated prior to receiving any training. It was stated that future research will need to address the scaling scheme and include tutors with diverse backgrounds.

The above study contained four possible limitations that were not identified: 1) No assessment of knowledge or skills prior to receiving training was made. The two treatment groups were comparable in number of participants (Group 1-tutors hired in Spring semester, N=13 and Group 2-tutors hired in Fall semester, N=12), but the groups’ tutoring skills may not have been comparable as was assumed. 2) Tutors may also have improved through gaining tutoring experience over a semester. 3) The responseson the instrument were ranked by the person providing the training. Though she was aware of her desired responses, it cannot be assumed other “experts” in the field would completely agree with her ranking, especially when it is also assumed that the scores indicated a level of tutor competency. 4) Though trained tutors were better able to identify a desired answer, no investigations were made to verify that those same tutors could construct a desired response on their own.

Summary of the Chapter

The need for providing tutors to supplement instruction for college students has been identified since Harvard first opened its doors in 1636. Tutors have been needed to provide both content and study strategy supportto help students reconstruct the new information being presented to them in colleges and universities. The emphasis today is on helping students become efficient and effective learners adept at dealing with volumes of new information.

Training for adult peer tutors can be grounded in a theoretical framework of constructivism, in which tutors’ metacognitive strategies are used to provide them with the problem-solving and self-monitoring strategies needed to empower students to accurately construct new information into their knowledge base. Together, constructivism and metacognition lay the groundwork for establishing the need, process, and outcomes in providing training to adult peer tutors.

Though providing training for tutors is now being recognized in the literature as a critical component of success for tutoring programs in colleges and universities, the process of helping tutors to gain the needed tools and strategies is often overlooked or left to happenstance. Training for tutors should be designed to support the needs of the students and the institution. A set of flexible national guidelines exists which is endorsed by several national organizations. It is the College Reading & Learning Association’s International Tutor Certification Program which provides guidelines for topics of training, formats of the training sessions, and amount of tutoring experience needed, as well as tutor selection criteria and evaluation of tutors. The literature supports and calls for more research into the effects of training and tutoring experience on tutors.

On the basis of the review of literature, research on the effects of training tutors should include the following: 1) larger numbers of tutors as participants, as this was a limitation of some of the studies reviewed (one study reported results with 5 tutors, another with 11, a third reported percentages without numbers), 2) investigations of differences in results based on the topics presented in training, 3) pre- and post-intervention assessment of tutor skills of all treatment groups to account for prior knowledge which might impact results, and 4) scoring of researcher-created instruments which is free of researcher biases.

Type of Research

This investigation was a field study. It was designed to investigate the effects of training and tutoring experience on adult peer tutors’ responses to presented tutoring situations. The degree to which other factors contributed to a tutors’ selection of an appropriate course of action was also investigated. The other factors included highest degree earned, age, reasons for becoming a tutor, rewards for being a tutor, grade point average, prior coursework in subject area(s) tutored, prior work experience in subject area(s) tutored.

Field studies, as described by Kerlinger (1986), are “nonexperimental scientific inquiries aimed at discovering the relations and interactions among sociological, psychological, and educational variables in real social structures…any scientific studies, large or small, that systematically pursue relations or test hypotheses, that are nonexperimental, and that are done in life situations like communities, schools, factories, organizations, and institutions…” Kerlinger (1986) identifies some of the weaknesses of using field studies. The foremost concern is that the researcher looks at existing groups and situations to design research and does not manipulate any independent variables. He also cautions that the field situation has a plethora of independent variables and variance not easily controlled, which would not be encountered in a laboratory setting. Lack of precision is a weakness inherent in field research studies as the effects of identified independent variables may not be recognized or other independent variables may not be identified.

However, Kerlinger (1986) holds that field studies are especially valuable in educational and other settings where randomization is impractical and would lower the realism of the situation. Field studies can be used effectively to investigate differences among existing “intact” groups in realistic or near to real-life settings. In addition to realism, Kerlinger (1986) notes that other strengths of field studies include social and scientific significance, strength of variables, and a heuristic quality. Field studies investigate existing settings by identifying and analyzing the effects of independent variables on dependent variables rather than manipulating them.

The purpose of this field study was to investigate the effects of training and of tutoring experience on adult peer tutors in post-secondary institutions. Two researcher-created instruments were developed. National and local experts in tutoring and/or training participated in the method of evaluating tutor responses on both instruments.

Research Questions

1. Does training affect a tutor’s ability to identify an appropriate course of action with a student?
2. Does tutoring experience affect a tutor’s ability to identify an appropriate course of action with a student?
3. What other factors contribute to a tutor’s ability to identify an appropriate course of action with a student?
4. What are the relationships between the tutors’ abilities to identify an appropriate course of action and their abilities to construct an appropriate course of action?

Hypotheses

The first research question was expanded into two hypotheses which investigate differences in the tutors’ mean scores on a researcher-created instrument (the TSORA). The TSORA is a multiple choice assessment comprised of questions in six topics: a) Definition of tutoring and tutoring responsibilities, b) Active listening and paraphrasing, c) Setting goals/planning, d) Modeling problem-solving, e) Referral skills, and f) Study skills.

The first hypothesis followed the International Tutor Certification Program (ITCP) guidelines for training: a minimum of 10 hours of training is needed for certification at the first level (see Appendix A). Study participants (tutors) were assigned to training levels based on the college at which they tutor and the amount of training offered by the program director at that college. The first hypothesis investigates differences in the total mean scores of the groups based on the amount of training offered at that college.

H0.1: There are no significant differences in the total mean score on the TSORA among three groups of tutors, those with 1) no training, 2) 0-9.9 hours of training, and 3) 10 or more hours of training, based on the amount of training offered during the study.

The second hypothesis examines differences in the sub-test mean scores of the groups based on the amount of training offered in each of the six sub-test topics.

H0.2: There are no significant differences in any one of the six sub-test mean scores on the TSORA among three groups of tutors, those with

1) no training, 2) 0-.9 hours of training, and 3) 1 or more hours of training, based on the amount of training offered during the study in each of the following six sub-test topics:

a) Definition of tutoring and tutoring responsibilities

b) Active listening and paraphrasing

c) Setting goals/planning

d) Modeling problem-solving

e) Referral skills

f) Study skills

The second research question was also expanded into two hypotheses. The third and fourth hypotheses investigate differences in the tutors’ mean scores on the researcher-created instrument (TSORA) based on experience acquired during the semester of the study.

The International Tutor Certification Program guidelines require a minimum of 25 hours of experience in addition to the training requirement to qualify for the first level of certification. However, in a discussion with the Learning Assistance Center Consortium (LACC) of the Maricopa Community Colleges, it was believed by the group that very few, if any, tutors would have acquired less than 25 hours after one semester of tutoring. One semester lasts 16 weeks, and even with an average of two hours per week, most tutors would acquire more than 25 hours. Many tutors spend 5-18 hours per week tutoring. Therefore, the three groups of experience investigated were:

1) 0-99.9 hours of tutoring, 2) 100-199.9 hours of tutoring, and 3) 200+ hours of tutoring.

The third and fourth hypotheses parallel the first two but investigate differences based on tutoring experience rather than on training. The third hypothesis investigates group differences in the total mean scores on the TSORA, based on the amount of experience received during the semester of the study.

H0.3: There are no significant differences in the total mean score on the TSORA among three groups of tutors, those who, during the study, acquired 1) 0-99.9 hours of tutoring experience, 2) 100-199.9 hours of tutoring experience, and 3) 200 or more hours of tutoring experience.

The fourth hypothesis examines group differences in each of the six sub-test mean scores based on the amount of tutoring experience acquired during the semester of the study.

H0.4: There are no significant differences in any one of the six sub-test mean scores on the TSORA among three groups of tutors, those who, during the study, acquired 1) 0-99.9 hours of tutoring experience, 2) 100-199.9 hours of tutoring experience, and 3) 200 or more hours of tutoring experience, for the following six sub-test topics:

a) Definition of tutoring and tutoring responsibilities

b) Active listening and paraphrasing

c) Setting goals/planning

d) Modeling problem-solving

e) Referral skills

f) Study skills

The fifth hypothesis was created in response to the third research question and identifies factors which are believed to contribute to a tutor’s ability to identify an appropriate course of action with a student. The literature identifies that class standing may be a factor. Findings indicated that students prefer tutors closer to their own class standing (Maxwell, 1990a). Other factors were identified by the researcher as potential independent variables which could affect the results of the field study if they were not considered. The more obvious factors were the age of the tutor and the tutor’s grade point average. Two other factors considered were any prior coursework or work experience that the tutors had acquired in the area related to the subject or skills they were tutoring. Finally, two last factors were taken into consideration: 1) motivations or reasons for becoming tutors or 2) the tutors’ perceived rewards of tutoring which might motivate them to continue tutoring. Tutors desiring to help others or feeling that they are a help to others might have a different level of motivation than tutors whose motivation is the money or the flexible hours. The differences in motivation might affect the total score on the researcher-created instrument, the TSORA.Thus, the fifth hypothesis expands the third research question to investigate the effects of the above-mentioned factors:

H0.5: None of the following factors contribute to a higher total mean score on the TSORA:

a) Age

b) Highest degree earned

c) Reasons for becoming a tutor

d) Perceived rewards of being a tutor

e) Grade point average

f) Prior coursework completed in subject area tutored

g) Prior work experience related to subject area tutored

Research question four was exploratory in nature, and thus, a hypothesis was inappropriate. The researcher will explore and report on potential relationships between the tutors’ abilities to select an appropriate course of action from presented choices and the tutors’ abilities to construct an appropriate course of action.

Description of Study Variables

Dependent Variables-

The mean score on the total TSORA or on each sub-test of the TSORA (Tutor Situational Objective Response Assessment, see Appendix D), the researcher-created instrument.

Independent Variables-

Tutor training
Ordinal variable; levels of treatment assigned based on the amount of tutor training offered during the study at the tutor’s college

Tutoring experience
Ordinal variable; levels of treatment assigned based on the amount of tutoring experience acquired during the study

Highest degree earned
Ratio variable-categorized by type and level of degree and translated into years of education

Age
Continuous variable (nothing under 16 expected)

Reasons for becoming a tutor
Continuous variables, range between 0-100

Perceived rewards of being a tutor
Continuous variables, range between 0-100

Grade point average
Continuous variable, range between 0-4

Prior coursework completed in subject area tutored
Continuous variable

Prior work experience related to subject area tutored
Continuous variable

Population and Sample

The population was that of adult peer tutors working in post-secondary institutions. The sample for this study was comprised of adult peer tutors working for the Maricopa Community College District (MCCD). MCCD consists of ten community colleges and one vocational training center located in Phoenix, Arizona. The study focused on the ten community colleges. The sample was chosen to lessen differences that might exist among various educational systems and levels (e.g., between different community college districts or between community colleges and other post-secondary institutions). Tutor participation for this study was coordinated through the tutoring supervisor at each site, also referred to in this study as the program director.

Setting

All adult peer tutors working at any of the ten campuses in the MCCD were to be invited to participate in this study. The program director at each campus agreed to be the contact through which the researcher would coordinate efforts at each campus. This study does not provide any interventions; instead, it investigates existing differences between groups of tutors working in one community college district. Levels for training will be based on requirements adopted for MCCD by the district’s Learning Assistance Center Consortium. These requirements, follow guidelines (see Appendix A) established by the College Reading & Learning Association’s (CRLA) International Tutor Certification Program (ITCP) for the first level of certification, and include 10 or more hours of tutor training. These guidelines have been approved as minimum training standards for tutors to be certified in MCCD. Competencies for a district-wide tutor training course are currently being developed by the Learning Assistance Center Consortium (LACC, a district-wide group of program directors and representatives).

The competencies will be proposed for district-wide acceptance in the Fall, 1994 semester. These proposed course competencies will also meet CRLA’s International Tutor Certification Program guidelines. Treatment levels for experience were established on expected levels of experience as discussed with MCCD’s LACC.

Instrumentation

Two researcher-created instruments were developed for this study. Both instruments, the TSORA and the TSFRA will be described below. The Tutor Situational Objective Response Assessment (TSORA) is a researcher-created instrument (See Appendix D) developed to score tutor responses

to presented tutoring situations. A draft form of the TSORA was tested by novices, trained tutors, and tutoring experts to validate the situations and response choices before it was presented to experts or study participants.

Each of the questions on the TSORA fall into one of following six sub-test categories (see Table 2). All six topics are supported by the literature and are included within CRLA’s International Tutor Certification Program guidelines (See Appendix A).

Table 2
Sub-test Categories and Question Number on the TSORA
———————————————————————————–———–

The TSORA (see Appendix D) was developed as a multiple choice test which presents three questions pertaining to each of six specific tutoring situations. Each of the eighteen questions (six situations with threequestions each) offered five actions and asked respondents to select the”most appropriate” response choice.

A second instrument was created to supplement the TSORA. The TSORA provided tutors with a question regarding a presented situation, tutors were then asked only to select the “most appropriate” response from multiple choices. The concern was raised that tutors may be able to “identify” an appropriate action, but might not be able to “construct” an appropriate action. Since this investigation was a field study, the opportunities were available to test hypotheses and to explore existing relationships that might be developed into potential hypotheses to be tested in later studies (Kerlinger, 1986). A second instrument was created, the Tutor Situational Free Response Assessment (TSFRA, see Appendix C). The TSFRA was designed to elicit tutor reactions to a presented tutoring situation by having them construct their own responses of actions that are “most appropriate” and “most inappropriate.” These responses could be investigated for relationships. If relationships were found, these could be developed into hypotheses for later studies.

One of the cautions identified in the summary of Chapter II was that the researcher be careful in assessing correct responses. The recommendation was that the scoring be free from the researcher’s own biases. To comply with this recommendation, local and national experts, in addition to the researcher, were invited to participate in ranking the responses in this study (see Appendix F: Expert Situational Reaction Packet). The Expert Situational Reaction Packet contained both instruments, the TSORA and the TSFRA. Twenty-one experts including the researcher responded. Table 3 lists the name, title, and institution of each of the experts participating in this study. Additional information as to each expert’s background, training, and experience can be found in Appendix G.

All twenty-one experts participated in ranking responses on the TSORA. The experts’ rankings formed the basis for scoring the participants’ responses. Experts were to rank each of the 90 response choices on the

TSORA (18 questions with five choices each) with a value of “0, 1, or 2” (see Expert Situational Reaction Packet, Appendix F). The experts were asked to use the following guidelines for ranking each response.

Each question has five responses (a-e):

“2” identifies the most appropriate response choice

(one per question)

“1’s” are in the middle as typical responses that are neither the most appropriate nor most inappropriate (two per question)

“0’s” are the most inappropriate response (two per question)

The experts’ ranked values were collected and averaged to establish an expert mean value between 0.00 and 2.00 that was assigned to each question response. This mean value became the score the participant would receive for that response.

Some of the experts only chose one response for each value while others assigned the value they felt each response ranked, independent of the number of that same value they had assigned for other responses on that question. A few experts chose to leave some responses blank. One expert assigned two values for a few responses (these were treated as missing).



Table 3
List of Experts Participating in Study
———————————————————————————–

Boylan, Hunter
Director, National Center for Developmental Education
Appalachian State University, NC

Carpenter, Kathy
Director of Tutoring Program
University of Nebraska at Kearney, NE

Christ, Frank
Retired Director, Learning Assistance Center-Cal. State, Long Beach
Coordinator, Winter Institute for Learning Assistance Professionals, AZ
(formerly Summer Institute for Learning Assistance Professionals, CA)

Fendley, Clara
Writing Center Coordinator & English Faculty
Scottsdale Community College, MCCD, AZ

Field, Betty
Mathematics instructor
Maricopa Center for Learning & Instruction, MCCD, AZ

Gerkin, David
Interim Director, Learning Assistance Center
Learning Technician, Learning Assistance Center
Paradise Valley Community College, MCCD, AZ

Gier, Tom
President, College Reading and Learning Association
Former Coordinator of International Tutor Certification Program Committee
University of Alaska-Anchorage

Hancock, Karan
Coordinator of International Tutor Certification Program Committee
Affiliate professor, English department
University of Alaska-Anchorage

Hartman, Hope
Director, City of New York Tutoring & Training Cooperative Program
City College of City University of New York

Kerstiens, Gene
Adult Learning Specialist
Andragogy Associates, CA

Kubasch, Cheryl
Executive Assistant in charge of Employee Development & Total Quality Management Training and Development
Paradise Valley Community College, MCCD, AZ

Lara, Ernie
Former Learning Assistance Center Director, Glendale Community College, MCCD, AZ
Estrella Mountain Community College Center, MCCD, AZ

Maxwell, Martha
Founder of Learning Services at Berkeley, the American University,
and the University of Maryland, Retired.

McGrath, Jane
Reading/English faculty (23 years)
Former Director of Learning Assistance Center, SMCC
Paradise Valley Community College, MCCD, AZ

Mosher, Donna
Counselor & Learning Assistance Center Counseling Faculty Liaison
Paradise Valley Community College, MCCD, AZ

Olsen, Marie
Lead Teacher/Tutoring Coordinator
Maricopa Skills Center, MCCD, AZ

Rings, Sally
Reading/English Faculty
Learning Assistance Center Faculty Liaison Coordinator
Paradise Valley Community College, MCCD, AZ

Rolinger, Jack
Director, Learning Center/Special Services
Phoenix College, MCCD, AZ

Sheets, Rick
Director, Learning Assistance Center
Paradise Valley Community College, MCCD, AZ

Stern, Craig
Program Coordinator, Learning Assistance Center
Northern Arizona University, AZ

Zeka, Yvonne
Director, Learning Center
GateWay Community College, MCCD, AZ


The frequencies of the values chosen by the experts for each response choice are shown in Appendix H. Each page in the appendix displays the descriptive statistics for all five response choices for one question. The frequency, percent, valid percent (percent of those who did not leave it blank) and a cumulative total of the valid percent are listed. The mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum value selected, maximum value selected, and the number of experts who assigned a value to that choice (N=) are also listed. Finally, the frequency of the values given for each response are graphically illustrated.

On each of the 18 questions, at least 17 (usually 19 or 20) of the 21 experts agreed on the “most appropriate” response for each question by giving it a value of “2.” There was less agreement among the experts as to what constituted a “1” or “0” value. Several of the response choices were evenly split between these two values (see Appendix H). Further investigation as to reasons for differences could have been conducted as most of the experts did list reasons for their responses on most questions. However, the concern for this instrument was of agreement for the “most appropriate” response because tutors are asked to select the “most appropriate” only of the multiple choices presented on the TSORA.

Table 4 presents the number of experts who agreed on the “most appropriate” response for each question and the percentage of agreement among the experts responding to that choice. The lowest percentage of agreement on any one question was 81% with most questions having a percentage of agreement of over 90%. The average percentage of agreement among the experts on the “most appropriate” responses on the instrument was 93.6% (see Table 4).



Table 4
Agreement Among the Experts on Most Appropriate Response on TSORA
———————————————————————————–—————–

On the basis of the values assigned by the experts for each of the five choices on each question, an average was calculated (the mean). This value (between 0.00 and 2.00) was assigned as the score the participants who selected that response choice would receive. Table 5 lists the value assigned for each response choice.

The same questions for the TSORA were given on the pre-test (see Appendix D) as on the post-test (see Appendix E). The order of the questions and response choices was changed on the post-test to reduce testing effects in using a repeated measures instrument. Table 5 lists the question number and letter for both the pre-test response choice and the corresponding response choice for the post-test. It also lists the Response Value that is the mean score of the experts’ rankings.

Of the 21 experts participating, only 14 ranked all responses with a single value. Some experts chose to leave some response choices blank while others gave more than one value as a response. In both situations, the response choice was counted as missing. A list of the actual values assigned by each of the experts is listed in Appendix I.

In Table 5, note that the lowest score for the “most appropriate” response on any question occurred once and was 1.81 (out of a possible 2.00). Five of the 18 questions had a mean of 2.00, the highest score possible (all experts who ranked this response were in agreement that it was the “most appropriate” response). The highest score possible from a total of the experts’ mean scores is 34.83 out of a possible 36 (18 questions at “2” each); thus the experts were 93.6% in agreement for the “most appropriate” response.

The first part of this chapter presents descriptive data of the sample in text, table, and graphic forms. The descriptive data includes, as appropriate, the frequencies, means, medians, modes, standard deviations, minimum values, maximum values, and percentages. The second part of this chapter will present the results of the statistical analysis of the data for each of the three hypotheses. The third part of this chapter explores possible relationships between the tutors’ abilities to select the “most appropriate” actions and their abilities to create the “most appropriate” actions.

The levels of treatment groups for training for this study were created using the International Tutor Certification Program guidelines for Level One. A minimum of 10 hours of training is required for certification. The tutors were assigned to treatment groups for training based on the training offered at the tutors’ colleges as reported by the program directors. Treatment groups for experience were assigned based on the reported number of hours of tutoring experience acquired during the study. Other factors suspected of affecting the tutors’ post-test scores were investigated. The hypotheses for this study included:

H0.1: There are no significant differences in the total mean score on the TSORA among three groups of tutors, those with 1) no training, 2) 0-9.9 hours of training, and 3) 10 or more hours of training, based on the amount of training offered during the study.

H0.2: There are no significant differences in any one of the six sub-test mean scores on the TSORA among three groups of tutors, those with

1) no training, 2) 0-.9 hours of training, and 3) 1 or more hours of training, based on the amount of training offered during the study in each of the following six sub-test topics:

a) Definition of tutoring and tutoring responsibilities

b) Active listening and paraphrasing

c) Setting goals/planning

d) Modeling problem-solving

e) Referral skills

f) Study skills

Treatment groups for experience were assigned based on the reported number of hours of tutoring experience the tutor acquired during the study. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed on the third and fourth hypotheses to assess differences on the post-test scores among the groups as a result of recent experience acquired while adjusting for initial differences in the groups as measured by the pre-test scores. Additional tests were performed as appropriate. The third hypothesis investigated differences in the total TSORA mean scores, and the fourth hypothesis investigated differences in each of the six sub-test scores on the TSORA:

H0.3: There are no significant differences in the total mean score on the TSORA among three groups of tutors, those who, during the study, acquired 1) 0-99.9 hours of tutoring experience, 2) 100-199.9 hours of tutoring experience, and 3) 200 or more hours of tutoring experience.

H0.4: There are no significant differences in any one of the six sub-test mean scores on the TSORA among three groups of tutors, those who, during the study, acquired 1) 0-99.9 hours of tutoring experience,

2) 100-199.9 hours of tutoring experience, and 3) 200 or more hours of tutoring experience, for the following six sub-test topics:

a) Definition of tutoring and tutoring responsibilities

b) Active listening and paraphrasing

c) Setting goals/planning

d) Modeling problem-solving

e) Referral skills

f) Study skills

A multiple regression analysis was used to test for significance at the .05 level on the other factors being investigated as independent variables in the fifth hypothesis. The multiple regression was performed to investigate significant relationships between other variables and the tutors’ total post-test scores.

H0.5: None of the following factors contribute to a higher total mean score on the TSORA:

a) Age

b) Highest degree earned

c) Reasons for becoming a tutor

d) Perceived rewards of being a tutor

e) Grade point average

f) Prior coursework completed in subject area tutored

g) Prior work experience related to subject area tutored

Research question four, as decribed previously, was not translated into a hypothesis. Relationships between the tutors’ abilities to select an appropriate course of action from presented choices and the tutors’ abilities to construct an appropriate course of action were explored and will be dicussed in the last part of this chapter.

Descriptive Data

Out of approximately 200 tutors district-wide, 70 participated in this study (101 tutors did take the pre-test, and 70 of those also completed the post-test). Eight of the ten colleges within one community college district were represented in the sample. The following profiles of descriptive data are described in the text and are supported by the tables and figures provided.

Number and Percentage of Tutors by College Value (see Table 8)

A number was assigned to each participating community college, and the participating colleges are named only by the assigned number. Two tutors identifed two campuses as the college where they worked; they were placed in a separate group called “Mixed colleges.” Numbers of participants per campus ranged from a low of 1 (at two campuses) to a high of 19. In fact, half the tutors (N=35) represent only two of the eight colleges in the study. Almost two-thirds (N=45) of the tutors are represented by three of the eight colleges.

Gender of Tutors (see Table 9)

The gender of the sample was almost evenly split. Females comprised 51.4% (N=36) of the sample, leaving males at 48.6% (N=34).

Grade Point Average of Tutors (see Table 10)

A common hiring criterion for tutors is their success as students. Often they are required to have received a grade of “A” or “B” in the subjects they tutor and may be required to have a 2.5 or 3.0 overall grade point average (GPA). It is no surprise that almost two-thirds (N=40) of the tutors responding (9 did not respond) reported a GPA of 3.5 or above. Fewer than 7% of tutors reported a GPA less than 3.0. The Mean is 3.54, the Median is 3.50, and a Bimodal distribution was observed (at GPAs of 3.5 and 4.0). The column graph (in Figure 3) of the frequencies of the GPAs provides a more accurate view of the distribution than the descriptive statistics of the mean, median, and mode as reported in Table 10.

Figure 1. Percentage of tutors by college.

Figure 2. Percentage of tutors by gender.

Figure 3. Frequency of tutors by GPA

Tutor’s Highest Degree Earned (see Table 11)

When the data was gathered, 21 tutors had left this answer unanswered. Because the hiring criterion for tutors is that of at least a high school graduate or equivalent, the researcher assigned the lowest value to those missing.

Sixteen different types of degrees were listed. For the purpose of creating succinct groups for statistical analysis, all degrees and levels were collapsed into four levels of degrees:

1) High School (N=29) & Certificate (N=1),

2) Associate (N=13),

3) Bachelor (N=14), and

4) Master (N=11) & Doctor (N=2).

Year Highest Degree Earned (see Table 12)

Of the 70 tutors participating in this study, 23 left this blank. Although the degree could be set at the lowest level of acceptance, the year could not be estimated. Thus, almost a third of the data is missing (32.9%). The years were divided into five-year increments to present the data graphically. Of the 47 who responded, almost half earned their highest degree within the last five years and another 23% within the previous five years.

Age of Tutors (see Table 13)

Among ages of participants, there was a range of 66 years, from 18 to 84 years old. The Mean was 36.27, the Median was 33, and the Mode was 23; these ages are similar to the ages of the students at the community colleges participating in the study. The ages were also split into five-year increments to display the information graphically.

Table 12 is missing.

Figure 4. Percentages of highest degree earned by tutors.

Figure 5. Percentage of highest degree earned by tutors in 5-year increments.

Figure 6. Frequency of tutors by age group.

Comparison of Central Tendencies of Reasons and Rewards of Tutoring (see Table 14)

On the pre-test, tutors were asked to allocate 100 points among the following seven reasons they chose to become a tutor:

1) Like helping people

2) Need the money

3) Want to keep up on subjects/skills learned

4) Going into education–wanted the experience

5) I received help and wanted to give something back

6) Flexible hours

7) Other:____________________________

On the post-test, tutors were asked to allocate 100 points among the following seven similar choices to reflect their feelings on the level of reward each choice represents (the order was changed to reduce ranking based on the sequence presented):

1) Going into education–the experience

2) Giving something back

3) The flexible hours

4) Helping people

5) The money

6) Keeping up on subjects/skills learned

7) Other: ___________________________________

This weighted rank-ordering method of scoring was valuable in identifying which factor or factors an individual tutor felt was important as a reason for becoming a tutor and as a reward for being a tutor. However, this method of scoring eliminated the independence of these variables and increased the range of each answer as compared to a 5-point scale. The range on some of the reasons or rewards reached 90 or 100. The scores for some cases varied greatly, and thus, the means were not reflective of the distribution.

For analyzing these data, the median was more descriptive of the central tendencies and was compared between the two groups. The mean, median, mode, SD (standard deviation), range, minimum, and maximum are listed in Table 14. To represent changes in central tendencies between the two instruments, the median is graphically displayed for each of the seven categories in Figure 7. Frequencies of responses for each of the reasons for becoming a tutor are listed in Appendix K. Frequencies of responses for each of the rewards for being a tutor are listed in Appendix L.

In Figure 7, there are changes in the medians from “Reasons for becoming a tutor” to “Perceived rewards for being a tutor.” “Making Money” and “Updating Skills” dropped slightly while “Helping Others” and “Flexible Work Hours” increased slightly. There was a dramatic increase in the values for “Career in Education” and “Giving Back of Self.” Note that there was no change in “Other”(or Reason Not in List). There were a few responses in the “Other” category. However, consistent responses were noted; therefore, the choices offered seemed to be appropriate for this group of tutors. The highest ranked category on both the pre-test and the post-test was “Helping Others.” It was ranked more than twice the value of any other category and at least three times the value of most of the category ratings on the post-test. Ranked next highest was “Making Money;” which was followed by a three-way tie among “Update Skills,” “Give Back of Self,” and “Flexible Work Hours” on the post-test. Even though there was a dramatic increase on the post-test in the category of “Career Goal in Education,” it still ranked next to last (Other).

T14_ttr_rwds

Image07

Figure 7. Medians of reasons and rewards of tutoring.

Summary of Descriptive Data

The seventy tutors participating in this study represented eight of ten community colleges in one district. The demographics of the sample were presented in text, table, and graphic forms.

Tutors were not evenly distributed among the colleges. Two of the eight colleges represented 51.4% of the sample (N=36). The numbers of tutors per college ranged from 1 (1.4%) at two colleges to a high point of 19 (27.1%) at one college.

The gender of the tutors was nearly equal (51.4% were female compared to 48.6% males). The tutors represented a diverse age range of 66 years, with a median of 33. The greatest number of tutors fell in the five-year increment of 23-27 years old (N=16). The youngest tutors were 18 (N=3), and the two oldest tutors were 70 and 84.

As expected from the literature, tutors were above average students. A bimodal distribution was noted at GPAs of 3.5 and 4.0. Of the 61 tutors self-reporting, 65.6% had a GPA of 3.5 or above (N=40). Less than 7% (N=5) had less than a 3.0 grade point average.

Almost one-third of the data was missing in response to the “Year Highest Degree Earned.” Of the 47 tutors responding, 53% (N=25) received their highest degree after 1987. The “Highest Degree Earned” category was collapsed into four sub-categories by the level of the degree: High School/Certificate (42.9%), Associate (18.6%), Bachelor (20%), and Master/Doctor (18.6%).

The values in the categories of stated “Reasons for Becoming a Tutor” (pre-test) and “Perceived Rewards of Being a Tutor” (post-test) varied greatly from 0 to 100. The highest ranked reason and reward was to “Help others” (the median was 31.1 as a reason and 33.4 as a reward), followed by “Making Money” (a median of 15.0 as a reason and of 16.6 as a reward). Changes were noted between reasons and rewards in the categories of wanting to “Give Back of Self” (a median of 0 as a reason and of 10.0 as a reward) and “Career in Education” (median 0 as reason and 7.5 as a reward).

This chapter will provide a summary of the purpose, methodology, and results of this study. Then, conclusions will be discussed based on researcher insights gained regarding study findings and limitations. In addition, two sets of recommendations are presented. The first set of recommendations is directed toward practitioners in the field, described in this study as program directors. Finally, a set of recommendations is presented for professionals interested in pursuing additional research to exceed the scope and findings of this study.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of training on tutors. This manuscript began with a brief history of tutoring to dispel the common myth that the need to provide tutoring for college students is a new phenomenon. Several studies and organizations posit that tutoring is a critical component of successful post-secondary educational programs and that training tutors is a necessary component of any tutoring program. However, very few tutoring programs offer more than a brief orientation of program policies and procedures.

Constructivist theory is briefly defined and described. Constructivism provides the theoretical framework which enables tutors to help students learn to utilize problem-solving, self-monitoring, and metacognitive strategies to accurately construct new information into their knowledge bases. Metacognition is described as the active monitoring, regulation, and orchestration of learning activities. Together, constructivism and metacognition lay the foundation for establishing the need, developing a process, and identifying outcomes for tutor training.

A review of the literature related to tutor training revealed repeated requests for more research on the need for and effects of training adult peer tutors. The literature review also provided insights into the reasons for the dearth of comprehensive investigations on adult tutors in post-secondary institutions. Stated reasons for the lack of research by those working with tutoring programs included the lack of: 1) funding, 2) theoretical foundations, 3) training and expertise in research design or methods, 4) time, and 5) rewards for research. Several of the studies reviewed identified a lack of adequate sample size and control over variables as reasons for confounded study results. Many of the studies used informal comments or evaluations by tutors to assess the effects of the training provided.

The design and limitations of the studies reviewed provided the impetus for the research design and for the researcher-created instruments used in this study. One study (Brandwein & DiVittis, 1985) provided valuable insights into the research design, the design of the instruments developed, and the methodology used for this study. Brandwein and DiVittis (1985) investigated the effects of training using a researcher-created multiple choice instrument. The scoring of the instrument was based on the tutor coordinator’s biases as to the “most desired” responses, and the scores tutors received were reported as a measure of their competence as tutors. Each question provided only three multiple choice responses. Brandwein and DiVittis (1985) reported findings between two groups of tutors. One group of tutors who had received training was given the instrument as a post-test at the end of one semester. At the beginning of the following semester, the next group of tutors was given the instrument as a pre-test before any training was provided. Training was the only variable investigated, and thus, training was credited with the difference in scores. Tutoring experience acquired or other variables were not considered as possible factors affecting the study’s results.

Based on the studies reviewed, it was concluded that investigations into the effects of training tutors for this study should include:

1) an adequate sample size (some studies reported findings from a sample size of 3, 5, or 11 tutors)

2) consideration of experience and other potential independent variables which might affect study results

3) consideration of the amount of training provided

4) consideration of the topics provided in the training

5) pre- and post-intervention assessments

6) assessment scoring free of researcher-biases

The methodology of this investigation was that of a field study design. Variables were not manipulated; instead, existing variables and interventions were investigated. Four research questions guided the study:

1) Does tutor training affect a tutor’s ability to identify an appropriate course of action with a student?

2) Does tutoring experience affect a tutor’s ability to identify an appropriate course of action with a student?

3) What other factors contribute to a tutor’s ability to identify an appropriate course of action with a student?

4) What are the relationships between the tutors’ abilities to identify an appropriate course of action and their abilities to construct an appropriate course of action?

Each of the first three research questions was expanded as hypotheses were developed for them. The first two research questions were expanded to investigate effects on total scores and on sub-test scores by topic. The third research question was expanded to include identified variables for investigation. Research question one was expanded to include the following hypotheses:

H0.1: There are no significant differences in the total mean score on the TSORA among three groups of tutors, those with 1) no training, 2) 0-9.9 hours of training, and 3) 10 or more hours of training, based on the amount of training offered during the study.

H0.2: There are no significant differences in any one of the six sub-test mean scores on the TSORA among three groups of tutors, those with

1) no training, 2) 0-.9 hours of training, and 3) 1 or more hours of training, based on the amount of training offered during the study in each of the following six sub-test topics:

a) Definition of tutoring and tutoring responsibilities

b) Active listening and paraphrasing

c) Setting goals/planning

d) Modeling problem-solving

e) Referral skills

f) Study skills

Research question two was expanded to include the following two hypotheses (H0.3 and H0.4).

H0.3: There are no significant differences in the total mean score on the TSORA among three groups of tutors, those who, during the study, acquired 1) 0-99.9 hours of tutoring experience, 2) 100-199.9 hours of tutoring experience, and 3) 200 or more hours of tutoring experience.

H0.4: There are no significant differences in any one of the six sub-test mean scores on the TSORA among three groups of tutors, those who, during the study, acquired 1) 0-99.9 hours of tutoring experience, 2) 100-199.9 hours of tutoring experience, and 3) 200 or more hours of tutoring experience, for the following six sub-test topics:

a) Definition of tutoring and tutoring responsibilities

b) Active listening and paraphrasing

c) Setting goals/planning

d) Modeling problem-solving

e) Referral skills

f) Study skills

Research question three was expanded to include the following hypothesis.

H0.5: None of the following factors contribute to a higher total mean score on the TSORA:

a) Age

b) Highest degree earned

c) Reasons for becoming a tutor

d) Perceived rewards of being a tutor

e) Grade point average

f) Prior coursework completed in subject area tutored

g) Prior work experience related to subject area tutored

The fourth research question was created to explore possible existing relationships which could be developed into a hypothesis in a later study. Thus, it was left as a research question to be explored.

The setting for the study was that of ten community colleges in the Maricopa Community College District (MCCD). Directors of the tutoring programs at each of the ten campuses agreed to participate in the study. The sample for this study was comprised of the 200+ adult peer tutors working at the community colleges in MCCD. Adult peer tutors were defined as tutors who were hired because of possession of content knowledge and success in the subject or skill area to be tutored demonstrated by superior coursework or work experience. Though the tutors hired may have had some background or interest in teaching or education, this background was not a hiring criterion. Often, adult peer tutors (also referred to as tutors in this study) are students themselves and have just completed the courses they have been hired to tutor.

Two researcher-created instruments were developed for the study. One instrument, the TSORA, was an 18 item multiple choice test with five choices for each question. Tutors were presented with six situations and asked three questions about each situation. Tutors were asked to select the “most appropriate” choice. The second instrument, the TSFRA, was a free response test in which tutors were asked to construct the “most appropriate” and “most inappropriate” responses.

Twenty local and national field experts participated in identifying the “most appropriate” and “most inappropriate” responses for each instrument. The mean of the experts’ ranking of each of the five response choices for each question was the score the tutors received for each response choice they selected on the TSORA. The experts’ constructed actions for the TSFRA were used to compare with selected groups of tutors’ constructed responses on the TSFRA.

The tutors were given both instruments in the beginning of one semester as a pre-test and a different form of both instruments at the end of the same semester as a post-test. Participation was completely voluntary as noted in the cover letter to each participant. Approximately half (N=101) of the tutors in the district participated initially by completing the pre-test, and 70 of those in the initial group completed the post-test.

Demographic information on the participating tutors was collected. There was almost equal representation in the gender of the tutors (51.4% were female). There was a wide range of diversity in age and education. Tutors ranged in age from 18-84, though more than a third (37.5%) were between 18-27, inclusive. Only two tutors were 70 or above. Education was defined by the highest degree earned which ranged from no degree (high school graduate-42.9%) to a doctorate (2.9%). The grade point average (GPA) of the tutors was above average. Almost two-thirds (65.6%) had a GPA above 3.5 and less than 7% fell below a 3.0 GPA.

In reviewing the results of the study, it can be observed that three of the five null hypotheses were rejected. The first null hypothesis was rejected; thus, significant differences were found among groups based on the amount of training that was provided at their colleges during the semester. Significant differences in the total TSORA mean scores were found between the group provided with more than 10 hours of training and each of the two groups with less than 10 hours or no training being provided.

The second null hypothesis was also rejected. Significant differences also existed between groups based on training for at least one of the TSORA sub-test topics. A significant difference in the sub-test TSORA mean scores was found between the groups: one group with one or more hours of training in “Active listening and paraphrasing” and another group with no training in “Active listening and paraphrasing.”

The third and fourth null hypotheses investigated the effects of tutoring experience acquired during the study on the tutors’ abilities to select the most appropriate response. These two hypotheses were not rejected. No significant differences were found for either the tutors’ total scores or their sub-test scores on the TSORA as a result of experience acquired during the study.

The last null hypothesis was rejected. It investigated other factors which might increase tutors’ total post-test scores on the TSORA. Four of the factors investigated appeared to affect the tutors’ post-test scores. Two variables, with values from the pre-test form of the TSORA, were found to have a significant positive effect on post-test scores: 1) the number of years of work experience related to subject and skill tutored and 2) the value of “Other” as a “Reason for becoming a tutor.” Two variables, with values from the post-test form of the TSORA, were found to have a significant negative effect on the post-test scores: 1) the value of “Making money” as a “Perceived reward for tutoring” and 2) the value of “Give something back” as a “Perceived reward for tutoring.”

Research question four was explored, and a perceived relationship was found between the tutors’ abilities to identify the “most appropriate” action from presented choices on the TSORA and their abilities to construct a “most appropriate” action in a free response form on the TSFRA. More research is needed to test the significance of the relationship.

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to investigate the question of whether training for tutors increases their ability to choose an appropriate action in a tutoring situation. Other variables were investigated which might also increase the tutors’ abilities to choose an appropriate action.

The theoretical framework of constructivism laid the foundation for the role of the tutor, that is to help each student move toward mastery of new information. Constructivism forms the basis of the needed interactions between the tutors and their students. The application of constructivism is probably most evident when tutors are trained to employ “Active listening and paraphrasing” techniques (see conclusion 2 below).

Metacognition provides a theoretical framework for tutors to help their students learn to help themselves. Tutors can help students become aware of and use metacognitive strategies to assess their own needs, develop a plan to meet those needs, and evaluate the effectiveness of their plan. In short, metacognition can help students gain autonomy and take responsibility for their own learning and learning needs.

Limitations of the study, in addition to those mentioned in Chapter III, were identified after data collection and analysis. The first limitation was the lack of participation from and uneven representation of the sample population. Approximately one-third of the tutors (N=70) in the community college district completed both the pre-test and the post-test. The known reasons for non-participation include 1) voluntary tutor participation, 2) length and complexity of the pre-test instrument, 3) lack of promised administration of the instrument by two program directors, 4) loss of approximately five of the instruments, and 5) loss of employment of approximately 12 tutors during the study between the administration of the pre-test and of the post-test. Approximately half of the tutors in the study were represented by two colleges while two of the colleges had only one tutor each to represent them in this study.

The final limitation of the study was that the TSORA, the multiple choice instrument, followed a mastery test model. The mean of the entire sample was 30.21 which was 86.7% of the total possible. During the analysis of the data in Chapter IV, it was noted that a group of tutors scored at the top of the instrument (received a 34.83 or 100%). From a program director’s standpoint, that means success, that these tutors attained the level of mastery desired. From a researcher’s standpoint however, it is of concern because there is no way to distinguish individual differences at the top end of the group, and there is no information as to how much higher these tutors might have been able to score on an instrument that would have allowed them to do so.

Following are the conclusions which have been drawn from this study and a brief discussion regarding each conclusion:

Conclusion 1: Ten or more hours of training enables tutors to select more appropriate responses to presented tutoring situations.

Discussion: This study supported CRLA’s International Tutor Certification Program guidelines which state that a minimum of 10 hours of training be required for the initial level of certification. The twenty-one field experts in the study identified the appropriateness of the tutor responses. The confidence level of this finding was above 97% and assumptions of normality and variance were met; thus, this finding can be generalized to a similar population of adult peer tutors in post-secondary institutions.

Conclusion 2: Training in “Active listening and paraphrasing” enables tutors to select more appropriate responses to presented tutoring situations.

Discussion: Constructivism as an underlying framework for tutor training is most evident in the findings on the sub-test topic “Active listening and paraphrasing.” When using active listening and paraphrasing skills, tutors ask students to state their understanding and perceptions about the new information being learned; then tutors paraphrase what they perceive the students have said. Tutors also use questioning and restating the students’ words to identify areas of concern regarding the students’ understanding of the new information. In this way, tutors using active listening and paraphrasing skills help students more accurately construct new information into their knowledge bases.

“Active listening and paraphrasing” may have been the sub-test topic in which a significant difference was found as a result of the amount of training received because it measures the one skill (of the six sub-test topics) tutors are less likely to possess without having received training. Tutors who are or have been successful students are more likely to possess some ability in defining responsibilities, solving problems, setting goals, referencing appropriate resources, and utilizing study skills.

The small range of scores was a limitation in the analyses of the six sub-test topics as only three questions on the TSORA determine the total sub-test score. With the maximum score assigned to each of the three questions being approximately two, the score range was limited to between 0 and 6. With such a limited range, significant differences are difficult to detect without a large sample from which to draw. If more questions had focused on each of the six sub-test topics, or if there had been a larger sample from which to draw, significant differences resulting from the amount of training received may have been found for other topics as well.

Conclusion 3: Reported experience alone does not enable tutors to select more appropriate responses to presented tutoring situations. Interactions may exist between training and experience; further research is warranted.

Discussion: According to the literature, some program directors may believe that tutors will gain needed expertise through experience alone. The results of this study suggest otherwise as no significant differences were found among groups based on levels of experience acquired during the study on either the total or sub-test topic scores on the TSORA.

Due to sample size and cell size, the results of a post hoc analysis on interaction between training and experience were inconclusive.

Conclusion 4: Tutors with years of related work experience or tutors who place a high value on “Other” as a “Reason for becoming a tutor” on the pre-test, tend to respond more appropriately to presented tutoring situations.

Discussion: The values assigned by the tutors to each of these two variables has a positive effect on the tutor’s total post-test score. Approximately 30% of the variance in the tutors’ post-test scores can be explained by the values assigned to these variables when they include the negative effects of the two variables identified in conclusion five.

Conclusion 5: Tutors who place a high value on “Making money” or “Giving something back” as a “Perceived reward of being a tutor” on the post-test tend to have less appropriate responses to presented tutoring situations.

Discussion: The values assigned by the tutors to each of these two variables has a negative effect on the tutor’s total post-test score.

Approximately 30% of the variance in the tutors’ post-test scores can be explained by the values assigned to these variables when they include the positive effects of the two variables identified in conclusion four. Thus, the four variables of conclusion four (two from the pre-test) and conclusion five (two from the post-test) have a significant effect on the appropriateness of a tutor’s responses to presented tutoring situations.

Conclusion 6: Tutors in this sample who score well on the TSORA are better able to construct a more appropriate response on the TSFRA. Further investigation will be needed to generalize this conclusion.

Discussion: There appeared to be a strong and consistent match between the responses of the tutors and those of the experts’ in appropriate courses of action between the two researcher-created instruments. The tutors’ abilities to select the “most appropriate” action from presented choices on the TSORA had a perceived relationship with their abilities to create or construct a “most appropriate” action in a free response form on the TSFRA. This study explored that relationship to gain insight into potential existing relationships between the two instruments. This perceived relationship cannot be generalized without further investigation and thus, is limited to the tutors in the sample of this study.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are divided into two sections. The first section presents a set of recommendations to tutoring program directors. The second section offers a set of recommendations providing suggestions for future researchers in exceeding the scope of this study. Recommendations are based on the results of this study.

Recommendations for tutoring program directors:

1) A minimum of ten hours of training should be provided to every new tutor hired. This study can be used to validate the need to provide training for tutors as training was found to make a significant difference in the appropriateness of tutors’ responses in tutoring situations.

2) The CRLA International Tutor Certification Program guidelines (see Appendix A) should be used to develop or revise a training program for tutors. The amount of training recommended and one of the topics listed (Active Listening) were found to make significant differences in the appropriateness of tutors’ responses.

3) Tutoring program directors should begin to investigate and report on the effects of training with their tutors to validate the findings of this study and to add to the body of knowledge in the field.

Recommendations for Future Research on Tutor Training

This study provided the first step towards the evaluation of the effects of training and experience on adult peer tutors. Two researcher-created and expert-scored instruments were developed. The first instrument was found to measure tutors’ abilities to identify the “most appropriate” action among presented choices. The second instrument was designed to measure how well tutors could create a “most appropriate” action. Additional studies could:

1) confirm the potential relationship found between the two instruments developed for this study.

2) with a larger sample of tutors, explore the topics of training and the possible interaction between training and experience.

3) evaluate the effects of training on tutors’ responses to students in simulated or “live” situations.

4) include evaluation (in addition to scoring) of the instruments by field experts.

5) expand or tailor the TSORA to cover all 15 of the topic areas listed in the CRLA’s International Tutor Certification Program guidelines (see Appendix A).

6) expand or revise the TSORA to investigate continued training for tutors using CRLA’s International Tutor Certification guidelines for certification levels 2 or 3 (only the level 1 certification guidelines were investigated in this study).

Ahrendt, K. M. (1971). The training and use of paraprofessionals in the college reading program. In F. L. Christ (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference of the Western College Reading Association, IV, 8-14.

Arkin, M. & Shollar, B. (1982). The tutor book. New York: Longman.

Arndt, J. R., Morales, M. F., & Olgin, M. J., Jr. (1975). Dynamics of a successful tutorial program. In R. Sugimoto (Ed.). Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Western College Reading Association, VIII, 19-23. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 117 680)

Ashton-Jones, E. (1988). Asking the right questions: A heuristic for tutors. The Writing Center Journal, 9, 29-36.

Beck, P. (1978). Peer tutoring at a community college. College English, 40, 437-439.

Blais, D. (1988). Constructivism–A theoretical revolution in teaching. Journal of Developmental Education, 11(3), 2-7. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 365 130)

Boylan, H. R. (1981). Program evaluation: Issues, needs, and realities. In C. C. Walvekar (Ed.), New directions for college learning assistance: Assessment of learning assistance services (pp. 3-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brandwein, A. C., & DiVittis, A. (1985). The evaluation of a peer tutoring program: A quantitative approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 15-27. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 314 655)

Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development of reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.). Theoretical issues in reading Comprehension (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brown, B. E. (1979). Probing skills for tutors. In G. Enright (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Western College Reading Association (WRCA), XII, 68-74. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 247 537)

Brown, B. E. (1981). A model university tutor training program. In F. L. Christ & M. Coda-Messerle (Eds.), New directions for college learning assistance: Staff development for learning support systems (pp. 75-85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, R. (1980). Evaluating Learning Centers. In O. T. Lenning & R. L. Nayman (Eds.), New directions for college learning assistance: New roles for learning assistance (pp. 75-92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bruffee, K. A. (1978a). The Brooklyn plan: Attaining intellectual growth through peer-group influence. Liberal Education, 64, 447-468.

Bruffee, K. A. (Ed.). (1978b). Discussion: Training and using peer tutors. College English, 40(4), 443-449.

Bruffee, K. A. (1980). Two related issues in peer tutoring: Program structure and tutor training. College Composition and Communication, 31, 76-80.

Burns, M. E. (1992). A study to formulate a learning assistance model for the California community college (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International 52, 2830A.

Carpenter, K. (1992). Evaluating a tutor program: Decision points and methodologies. In J. L. Mullen (Ed.), Journal of College Reading and Learning, 24(2), 11-16.

Christ, F. L. (1980). Learning assistance at a state university: A cybernetic model. In K. V. Lauridsen (Ed.), New directions for college learning assistance: Examining the scope of learning centers (pp. 45-56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Christ, F. L. (1984). Learning assistance at California State University-Long Beach, 1972-1984. Journal of Developmental Education, 8(2), 2-5.

Christ, F. L., & Coda-Messerle, M. (Eds.). (1981). New directions for college learning assistance: Staff development for learning support systems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clowes, D. A. (1981). Evaluation methodologies for learning assistance programs. In C. C. Walvekar (Ed.), New directions for college learning assistance: Assessment of learning assistance systems (pp. 17-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, D. (1978). A training program for student mathematics tutors. (Report No. 62-4003-A). Cobbleskill, NY: State University of New York, Ag-Tech College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 168 870)

Colligan, J. T. (1975). Achievement and personality characteristics as predictors of observed tutor behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International 35, 4293A.

Condravy, J. C. (1992). Learning together: An interactive approach to tutor training. (Pennsylvania Act 101 FIPSE Grant for Pennsylvania State Department of Education). Harrisburg, PA: Slippery Rock University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 341 323)

Creamer, D. (Ed.). (1980). Student development in higher education: Theories, practices, & future directions. Cincinnati, OH: American College Personnel Association.

Creamer, D., & Associates. (1990). College student development: Theory and practice for the 1990s. Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.

Cross, K. P. (1981). Adults as Learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dempsey, J. (1979a). A videocassete mastery learning tutor training course. In G. Enright (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Western College Reading Association (WRCA), XII, 81-86.

Dempsey, J. (1979b). An update on the organization and administration of learning assistance programs in the U.S. senior institutions of higher education (Report No. HE-018-362). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 257 334)

Devirian, M. C., Enright, G., & Smith, G. D. (1975). A survey of learning program centers in U.S. institutions of higher education. In Sugimoto, R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Western College Reading Association, VIII, 19-23. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 117 680 )

Drake, M. (1986). An annotated bibliography of the literature dealing with the educational and social benefits of tutoring programs (Report No. PS-01-6330). South Bend, IN: Indiana University, Exit Project. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 279 404)

Draper, V. (1979). Training peer tutors for college writers: Respect, response, dialogue (Report No. CS-205-547). Moraga, CA: St. Mary’s Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 279 404)

Ender, S. C., McCaffrey, S. S., & Miller, T. K. (1979). Students helping students: A training manual for peer helpers on the college campus. Athens, GA: Student Development Associates.

Enright, G. (1975). College learning skills: Frontierland-origins of the learning assistance center. In R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Proceedings of the VII Annual Western College Reading and Learning Association (WCRLA), VII, 81-92. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 117 680)

Enright, G., & Kerstiens, G. (1980). The learning center: Toward an expanded role. In O. T. Lenning & R. L. Nayman (Eds.), New directions for college learning assistance: New roles for learning assistance (pp. 1-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive Development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Glasersfeld, E. von. (1989a). Abstraction, re-presentation, and reflection: An interpretation of experience and Piaget’s approach (Report No. SRRI-209). Amhearst, MA: University of Massachussetts, Scientific Reasoning Research Institute and University of Georgia, Institute for behavioral research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 306 120)

Glasersfeld, E. von. (1989b). An exposition of constructivism: Why some like it radical (Report No. SRRI-224). Amhearst, MA: University of Massachussetts, Scientific Reasoning Research Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 309 935)

Glasersfeld, E. von. (1989c). Knowing without metaphysics: Aspects of the radical constructivism position (Report No. SRRI-208). Amhearst, MA: University of Massachussetts, Scientific Reasoning Research Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 304 344)

Gourgey, A. (1992). Tutoring developmental mathematics: Overcoming anxiety and fostering independent learning. Journal of Developmental Education, 15(3), 10-14.

Gutek, G. L. (1986). Education in the United States: An historical perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hartman, H. (1990). Factors affecting the tutoring process. Journal of Developmental Education, 14(2), 2-6.

Harris, M. (1980). The roles a tutor plays: Effective Tutoring techniques. English Journal, 69, 62-66.

Hawkins, T. (1978). Training tutors in the art of teaching. College English, 40, 440-443.

Holder, B., & Lister, B. (1982). Peer tutoring (Report No. 13). Concord, NH: Task Force for the Improvement of Secondary Special Education of New Hampshire.

Irwin, D. E. (1980). Effects of peer tutoring on academic achievement and affective adjustment. In G. Enright (Ed.), Proceedings of the XIII Annual Western College Reading and Learning Association (WCRLA) Conference, XIII, 42-45. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 247 536)

Irwin, D. E. (1981). Final statistics grade as a function of the amount of tutoring received. In G. Enright (Ed.), Proceedings of the XIV Annual Western College Reading and Learning Association (WCRLA) Conference, XIV, 55-58. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 247 535)

Johnson, D. S. (1981). A selection and training program for student paraprofessionals. In F. L. Christ & M. Coda-Messerle (Eds.), New directions for college learning assistance: Staff development for learning support systems (pp. 87-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kamii, C. (1980). The scientific foundation of education (Report No. PS-01-2072). Chicago: University of Illinois. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 198 948)

Kamii, C. (1982a). Autonomy: The aim of education envisioned by Piaget (Report No. PS-01-3176). Chicago: University of Illinois. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 224 561)

Kamii, C. (1982b). Constructivist education: A direction for the twenty-first century (Report No. PS-01-3070). Chicago: University of Illinois. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 221 297)

Kerlinger, F. (1986). Foundations of behavior research (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Klausmeier, H. J. (1980). Tutoring to increase achievement and motivation. Theory Into Practice, 19(1), 51-57. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 233 092)

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Krueger, S. R. (1986). Comprehension monitoring among community college developmental readers: The importance of prior knowledge (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2524A.

Kusunoki, K. K. (1979). A survey of learning centers/laboratories in Hawaii. In G. Enright (Ed.), Proceedings of the XII Annual Western College Reading and Learning Association (WCRLA) Conference, XII, 19-24. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 247 537)

Lauridsen, K. V. (Ed.). (1980). New directions for college learning assistance: Examining the scope of learning centers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lenning, O. T. & Nayman, R. L. (Eds.). (1980). New directions for college learning assistance: New roles for learning assistance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

MacDonald, R. B. (1986). Position paper: 1) Second generation tutoring model; 2) Evaluation plan for second generation tutoring program; 3) Training plan for second generation tutoring program (Report No. JC-900-296). Pittsburg, CA: Los Medanos College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 319 447)

MacDonald, R. B. (1991). An analysis of verbal interaction in college tutorials. Journal of Developmental Education, 15(1), 2-12.

MacDonald, R. B. (1993). Group tutoring techniques: From research to practice. Journal of Developmental Education, 17(2), 12-18.

MacDonald, R. B. (1994). The Master Tutor: A Guidebook for More Effective Tutoring. Williamsville, New York: Cambridge Stratford.

Majer, K. & Myers, C. (1981). Using research designs to evaluate learning assistance programs. In C. C. Walvekar (Ed.), New directions for college learning assistance: Assessment of learning assistance services (pp. 51-64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Materniak, G., & Williams, A. (1987). CAS standards and guidelines for learning assistance. Journal of Developmental Education, 11(1), 30-32.

Matthews, J. M. (1981). Becoming professional in college level learning assistance. In F. L. Christ & M. Coda-Messerle (Eds.), New directions for college learning assistance: Staff development for learning support systems (pp. 1-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maxwell, M. (1979). Improving student learning skills: A comprehensive guide to successful practices and programs for increasing the performance of underprepared students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Maxwell, M. (1990a). Does Tutoring Help? A Look at the Literature. Review of Research in Developmental Education, 7,(4), 1-5.

Maxwell, M. (1990b). When tutor meets student: Experiences in collaborative learning. Kensington, MD: M. M. Associates.

Maxwell, M. (1991). The effects of expectations, sex, and ethnicity on peer tutoring. Journal of Developmental Education, 15(1), 14-18.

Maxwell, M. (1993). Evaluating academic skills programs: A sourcebook. Kensington, MD: M. M. Associates.

Medway, F. J. (1991). A social psychological analysis of peer tutoring. Journal of Developmental Education, 15(1), 20-32.

Mills, J. S. (1982). Ideas in Practice: The modeling method of tutoring. Journal of Developmental Education, 5(3), 24-25.

Mohr, E. (1991). A study of peer tutor training programs: A league report (Report No. JC-910-305). Kansas City, KS: Johnson County Community College & The League for Innovation in the Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 332 777)

Moore, R. L. (1981). Role and scope of evaluation. In C. C. Walvekar (Ed.), New directions for college learning assistance: Assessment of learning assistance services (pp. 33-50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Myers, L. B. (1990). Becoming an effective tutor: A tutor training handbook. Los Altos, CA: Crisp Publications.

Narode, R. (1989). A constructivist program for college remedial mathematics at the University of Massachussetts, Amherst (Report No. SE-050-830). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Scientific Reasoning Research Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 309 988)

Norusis, M. J. (1990). The SPSS/PC+ statistics 4.0 for the IBM PC/XT/AT and PS/2. Chicago: SPSS.

Norusis, M. J. (1991). The SPSS guide to data analysis for SPSS/PC+ (2nd ed). Chicago: SPSS.

Podis, L. A. (1980). Training peer tutors for the writing lab. College Composition and Communication, 31, 70-75.

Prager, C. (1991). Learning centers for the 1990s (Report No. EDO-JC-91-03). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 338 295)

Richardson, R. C., Jr., Martens, K. J., & Fisk, E. C. (1981). Functional literacy in the college setting (AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research No. 3). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Rings, S., & Sheets, R. A. (1991). Student development and metacognition: Foundations for tutor training. Journal of Developmental Education, 15(1), 30-32.

Roueche, S. D. (1983). Elements of program success: Report of a national study. In J. E. Roueche (Ed.), New directions for college learning assistance: A new look at successful programs (pp. 3-10). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sakley, E. (1980). Training and supervising student tutors for college reading programs. Reading World, 19(4), 339-344. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 221 431)

Schmelzer, R. V., Brozo, W. G., & Stahl, N. A. (1984). Using a model to integrate study skills into a peer-tutoring program (Technical Report No. 84-03). Atlanta: Georgia State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 256 244)

Shaw, J. W. (1980). Learning Centers and the faculty: Improving academic competence In O. T. Lenning & R. L. Nayman (Eds.), New directions for college learning assistance: New roles for learning assistance (pp. 25-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Silver, M. (1978). Using peer critiques to train peer tutors. College English, 40, 433-436.

Singley, C. J., & Boucher, H.W. (1988). Dialogue in tutor training: Creating the essential space for learning. The Writing Center Journal, 88, 11-22.

Spiro, R. J. (1980). Constructive processes in prose comprehension and recall. In R. J. Spiro (Ed.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 245-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stahl, N. A., Simpson, M. L., & Hayes, C. G. (1992). Ten recommendations from research for teaching high-risk college students. Journal of Developmental Education, 16(1), 2-10.

Stahl, P. C., Stahl, N. A., & Henk, W. A. (1983). Historical roots, rationales, and applications for peer and cross-age tutoring: A basic primer for practitioners and researchers (Report No. PS-01-6694). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 284 660)

Stahl, R. J. (1989, November). A model of understanding in social studies education: An information-constructivist perspective. Paper presented at the annual College and University Faculty Association meeting & the National Council for Social Studies, St. Louis, MO.

Stahl, R. J. (1990a, April). What students need and do to become successful learners: An information-constructivist perspective on school learning, Part I. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Atlanta, GA.

Stahl, R. J. (1990b, April). What students need and do to become successful learners: An information-constructivist perspective on school learning, Part II. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Atlanta, GA.

Stahl, R. J. (1992a). A context for “higher order knowledge”: An Information-Constructivist perspective with implications for curriculum and instruction. Part I. Journal of Structural Learning, 11(3), 189-218.

Stahl, R. J. (1992b). The acquisition and a range of cognitive abilities: The TIPIOA as a viable educational outcomes taxonomy. Part II. Journal of Structural Learning, 11(3), 219-245.

Starks. G. (1984). A successful peer tutor program to improve retention (Report No. JC-850-584). Canadaigua, NY: Community College of the Finger Lakes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 263 938)

Swanson, C. C. (1985). Activating metacognitive reading strategies in college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 23, 28-36.

Van, B. (1992). College learning assistance programs: Ingredients for success. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 24(2), 27-39.

Walker, C. (1980). The learning assistance center in a selective institution. In K. V. Lauridsen (Ed.), New directions for college learning assistance: Examining the scope of learning centers (pp. 57-68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Walvekar, C. C. (1981). Evaluating learning: The buck stops here. In C. C. Walvekar (Ed.), New directions for college learning assistance: Assessment of Learning Assistance Services (pp. 75-94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weinstein, C. E., & Rogers, B. T. (1985). Comprehension monitoring: The neglected learning strategy. Journal of Developmental Education, 9(1), 6-29.

Williams, V. (1980). Research and evaluation of tutor skills training project: Redeal research report #4 (Report No. CE-042-351). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Athabasca University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 261 194)

Willis, J., & Gueldenpfenning, J. (1981). The relative effectiveness of lecturing, modeling, and role-playing in training paraprofessional reading tutors. Psychology in the Schools, 18(3), 323-329. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 249 647)

Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 297-314). New York: Macmillan.

Yerian, J. M. (1989). Putting the CAS standards to work (Report No. CG-021-557). College Park, MD: Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services/Development Programs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 305 547)

Zaritsky, J. S. (1989). Peer tutoring: Issues and concerns, results of a survey (Report No. JC-900-123). NY: LaGuardia Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 315 134)

Table 1
Reported Comparison of Percentage of Failures Within Groups by Course
———————————————————————————–

Table 2
Sub-test Categories and Question Number on the TSORA
———————————————————————————–———–

Table 3
List of Experts Participating in Study
———————————————————————————–

Boylan, Hunter
Director, National Center for Developmental Education
Appalachian State University, NC

Carpenter, Kathy
Director of Tutoring Program
University of Nebraska at Kearney, NE

Christ, Frank
Retired Director, Learning Assistance Center-Cal. State, Long Beach
Coordinator, Winter Institute for Learning Assistance Professionals, AZ
(formerly Summer Institute for Learning Assistance Professionals, CA)

Fendley, Clara
Writing Center Coordinator & English Faculty
Scottsdale Community College, MCCD, AZ

Field, Betty
Mathematics instructor
Maricopa Center for Learning & Instruction, MCCD, AZ

Gerkin, David
Interim Director, Learning Assistance Center
Learning Technician, Learning Assistance Center
Paradise Valley Community College, MCCD, AZ

Gier, Tom
President, College Reading and Learning Association
Former Coordinator of International Tutor Certification Program Committee
University of Alaska-Anchorage

Hancock, Karan
Coordinator of International Tutor Certification Program Committee
Affiliate professor, English department
University of Alaska-Anchorage

Hartman, Hope
Director, City of New York Tutoring & Training Cooperative Program
City College of City University of New York

Kerstiens, Gene
Adult Learning Specialist
Andragogy Associates, CA

Kubasch, Cheryl
Executive Assistant in charge of Employee Development & Total Quality Management Training and Development
Paradise Valley Community College, MCCD, AZ

Lara, Ernie
Former Learning Assistance Center Director, Glendale Community College, MCCD, AZ
Estrella Mountain Community College Center, MCCD, AZ

Maxwell, Martha
Founder of Learning Services at Berkeley, the American University,
and the University of Maryland, Retired.

McGrath, Jane
Reading/English faculty (23 years)
Former Director of Learning Assistance Center, SMCC
Paradise Valley Community College, MCCD, AZ

Mosher, Donna
Counselor & Learning Assistance Center Counseling Faculty Liaison
Paradise Valley Community College, MCCD, AZ

Olsen, Marie
Lead Teacher/Tutoring Coordinator
Maricopa Skills Center, MCCD, AZ

Rings, Sally
Reading/English Faculty
Learning Assistance Center Faculty Liaison Coordinator
Paradise Valley Community College, MCCD, AZ

Rolinger, Jack
Director, Learning Center/Special Services
Phoenix College, MCCD, AZ

Sheets, Rick
Director, Learning Assistance Center
Paradise Valley Community College, MCCD, AZ

Stern, Craig
Program Coordinator, Learning Assistance Center
Northern Arizona University, AZ

Zeka, Yvonne
Director, Learning Center
GateWay Community College, MCCD, AZ




Table 4
Agreement Among the Experts on Most Appropriate Response on TSORA
———————————————————————————–—————–

Table 6
Summary of Experts’ Responses to Most Appropriate Actions
in Tutoring Situations (see Appendix J for complete listing of comments)
———————————————————————————-
1) Listen actively to the student
– show empathy and interest in what she is saying
– support student
– build rapport
– lower anxiety
– do not interrupt nor interject own discussions
2) Help student clarify problem and terms she has used (e.g., not doing well, feeling frustrated, needs a better job)
– rephrase and reiterate
– try to determine student’s perception of cause and scope of problem
– help student identify needs and prioritize them
– help student identify the most critical need
3) Provide student with information about appropriate resources
– e.g., counseling, workshops, support groups, classes, tutoring
4) Have student determine need for remainder of session
– needs to continue venting frustrations, not ready for tutoring
– develop plan of action for most critical need
– use remainder of session to begin working on identified course content or study skills
– help student with an appropriate referral for her, i.e., walk over with her to make an appointment with a counselor–introduce her to the counselor if possible
5) Reassure student
– reassure her about her ability
– reassure her about your desire to help her reach her goal
– help her set up a short term goal to complete before her next tutoring appointment with you
– set up next appointment
In general, the appropriate actions are the actions taken by the tutor that focus the session on the student, her perceptions, and her needs.


Table 7
Summary of Experts’ Responses to Most Inappropriate Actions by Tutors
(see Appendix J for complete listing of comments)
———————————————————————————-
Blaming someone or making excuses
e.g., “the problem is ….” (your instructor, the system, your spouse, your parents, your boss, etc.)
Tutor setting themselves up as the “savior of the students,”
saving them from the big, bad … (instructor, system, parents, spouse, etc.)
Tutor telling student what to do or feel, or
interjecting stories or points on how to “fix” the situation
Dismissing the student or her feelings
Putting the student down accidentally or intentionally
Telling the student to try harder or to work harder
Basically, the inappropriate actions are the actions in which:
– the tutor becomes the focal point rather than the student and her needs
– the tutor is not actively listening
– the tutor is making decisions
– the student becomes dependent on the tutor

Table 12 missing

No Table 46

Figure 1. Percentage of tutors by college.

Figure 2. Percentage of tutors by gender.

Figure 3. Frequency of tutors by GPA.

Figure 4. Percentages of highest degree earned by tutors.

Figure 5. Percentage of highest degree earned by tutors in 5-year increments.

Figure 6. Frequency of tutors by age group.

Figure 7. Medians of reasons and rewards of tutoring.