The purpose of this article is to synthesize the extant research on peer-mediated interventions (PMIs) with English language learners (ELLs) in kindergarten through Grade 12. Fourteen studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals from 1983 to 2013 were examined in terms of study characteristics, the effects on academic outcomes, study quality, and overall effectiveness. Structured, heterogeneous grouping was used in the 10 peer pairing and 4 collaborative/cooperative grouping PMIs with ELLs. Eight of the 14 studies included high methodological quality. Overall, PMIs with ELLs are associated with medium to large effects on measures of phonemic awareness, vocabulary, and comprehension when compared to teacher-mediated comparison conditions. More research on PMIs with ELLs in high school and across core content areas, particularly mathematics, is warranted. Implications and future research for PMIs with ELLs are discussed.
AllorJ. H.FuchsD.MathesP. G. (2001). Do students with and without lexical retrieval weakness respond differently to instruction?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 264–275. doi:10.1177/002221940103400306
2.
*AlmaguerI. (2005). Effects of dyad reading instruction on the reading achievement of Hispanic third-grade English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 29, 509–526. doi:10.1080/15235882.2005.10162849
3.
AugustD. L. (1987). Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition of Mexican American children in elementary school. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 717–736. doi:10.2307/3586991
4.
BakerS.GerstenR.LeeD. S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. Elementary School Journal, 103, 51–73. doi:10.1086/499715
5.
BakerS.LesauxN.JayanthiM.DiminoJ.ProctorC. P.MorrisJ.. . . Newman-GoncharR. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
6.
BallardW. S.DaltonE. F.TigheP. L. (1995). IDEA Oral Language Proficiency Test in English (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Ballard & Tighe.
7.
Bowman-PerrottL. J.GreenwoodC. R.TapiaY. (2007). The efficacy of CWPT used in secondary alternative school classrooms with small teacher/pupil ratios and students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education & Treatment of Children, 30, 65–87. doi:10.1353/etc.2007.0014
8.
*CalderónM.Hertz-LazarowitzR.SlavinR. (1998). Effects of Bilingual Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition on students making the transition from Spanish to English reading. Elementary School Journal, 99, 153–165. doi:10.1086/461920
9.
*CalhoonM. B.Al OtaibaS.CihakD.KingA.AvalosA. (2007). Effects of a peer-mediated program on reading skill acquisition for two-way bilingual first-grade classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 169–184. doi:10.2307/30035562
10.
*CalhoonM. B.Al OtaibaS.GreenbergD.KingA.AvalosA. (2006). Improving reading skills in predominantly Hispanic title 1 first-grade classrooms: The promise of peer-assisted learning strategies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 261–272. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00222.x
11.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
12.
Cárdenas-HaganE.CarlsonC. D.Pollard-DurodolaS. D. (2007). The cross-linguistic transfer of early literacy skills: The role of initial L1and L2 skills and language of instruction. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 249–259. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2007/026)
13.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
ColeM. (2013). Rompiendo el Silencio: Meta-analysis of effectiveness of peer-mediated learning at improving language outcomes for Ells. Bilingual Research Journal, 36, 146–166. doi:10.1080/15235882.2013.814609
15.
CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
16.
De AvilaE. A.DuncanS. E. (1984). Language Assessment Scales. Monterey, CA: CTB Macmillan McGraw-Hill.
17.
DiCerboP. A.AnstromK. A.BakerL. L.RiveraC. (2014). A review of the literature on teaching academic English to English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 84, 446–482. doi:10.3102/0034654314532695
18.
EchevarriaJ.ShortD.PowersK. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: An instructional model for English language learners. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 195–210. doi:10.3200/JOER.99.4.195-211
19.
FrancisD.RiveraM.LesauxN.KiefferM.RiveraH. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
20.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BurishP. (2000). Peer-assisted learning strategies: An evidence-based practice to promote reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 85–91. doi:10.1207/SLDRP1502_4
21.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.MathesP. G.SimmonsD. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206. doi:10.3102/00028312034001174
22.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.KarnsK. (2001). Enhancing kindergarteners’ mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. Elementary School Journal, 101, 495–510. doi:10.1086/499684
23.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.YazdianL.PowellS. R. (2002). Enhancing first-grade children’s mathematical development with peer-assisted learning strategies. School Psychology Review, 31, 569–583.
24.
GeneseeF.Lindholm-LearyK.SaundersW.Si ChristianD. (2005). English language learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 363–385. doi:10.1207/sl5327671esprl004_2
25.
GerstenR.BakerS. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454–470. doi:10.1177/001440290006600402
26.
GerstenR.BakerS. K.ShanahanT.Linan-ThompsonS.CollinsP.ScarcellaR. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
27.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164. doi:10.1177/001440290507100202
28.
GoldenbergC. (2008). Improving achievement for English language learners. In NeumanS. B. (Ed.), Educating the other America (pp.139–162). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
29.
GottliebM. (2006). Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language proficiency to academic achievement. New York, NY: Corwin Press.
30.
*GreenwoodC. R.Arreaga-MayerC.UtleyC. A.GavinK. M.TerryB. J. (2001). Classwide peer tutoring learning management system: Applications within elementary-level English language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 34–47. doi:10.1177/074193250102200105
31.
GreenwoodC. R.CartaJ. J.KampsD. (1990). Teacher-mediated versus peer-mediated instruction: A review of educational advantages and disadvantages. In FootH. C.MorganM. M.ShuteR. H. (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 177–205). New York, NY: John Wiley.
32.
GreenwoodC. R.DelquadriJ. C.HallR. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371–383.
33.
HarperG. F.MalletteB.MaheadyL.ParkesV.MooreJ. (1993). Retention and generalization of spelling words acquired using a peer-mediated instructional procedure by children with mild handicapping conditions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 25–38. doi:10.1007/BF00947143
34.
HeronT. E.HarrisK. C. (2001). The educational consultant: Helping professionals, parents, and students in inclusive settings (4th ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
35.
HeronT. E.WelschR. G.GoddardY. L. (2003). Applications of tutoring systems in specialized subject areas. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 288–300. doi:10.1177/07419325030240050401
36.
HornerR. H.CarrE.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179. doi:10.1177/001440290507100203
37.
HudsonP.Lignugaris/KraftB.MillerT. L. (1993). Using content enhancements to improve the performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in content classes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 106–127.
38.
KenaG.Musu-GilletteL.RobinsonJ.WangX.RathbunA.ZhangJ.. . . Dunlop VelezE. (2015). The condition of education 2015 (NCES 2015-144). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
39.
KindlerA. L. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available education programs and services, 2000-2001 summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs.
40.
*KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. Elementary School Journal, 96, 275–293. doi:10.1086/461828
41.
*KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS. (2000). The helping behavior of fifth graders while using collaborative strategic reading during ESL content classes. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 69–98. doi:10.2307/3588097
42.
KlingnerJ. K.VaughnS.SchummJ. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99, 3–22. doi:10.1086/461914
43.
LouY.AbramiP. C.SpenceJ. C.PoulsenC.ChambersB.d’ApolloniaS. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458. doi:10.3102/00346543066004423
44.
MacArthurC. A.FerrettiR. P.OkoloC. M. (2002). On defending controversial viewpoints: Debates of sixth graders about the desirability of early 20th-century American immigration. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 160–172. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00042
45.
*MadridL. D.CanasM.Ortega-MedinaM. (2007). Effects of team competition versus team cooperation in classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Research, 100, 155–160. doi:10.3200/JOER.100.3.155-160
46.
*MadridL. D.CanasM.WatsonD. (2003). A comparative study of effective instructional strategies with low-achieving Hispanic bilingual children. Research for Educational Reform, 8, 25–37.
47.
MaheadyL.HarperG. F.MalletteB.WinstanleyN. (1991). Training and implementation requirements associated with the use of a classwide peer tutoring system. Education & Treatment of Children, 14, 177–198.
48.
MaheadyL.HarperG. F.SaccaM. K. (1988). Peer-mediated instruction: A promising approach to meeting the diverse needs of LD adolescents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 108–113. doi:10.2307/1510988
49.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT.NorlandJ. J.BerkeleyS.McDuffieK.TornquistE. H.ConnersN. (2006). Differentiated curriculum enhancement in inclusive middle school science: Effects on classroom and high-stakes tests. Journal of Special Education, 40, 130–137. doi:10.1177/00224669060400030101
50.
MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E.SpencerV.FontanaJ. (2003). Promoting success in high school world history: Peer tutoring versus guided notes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 52–65. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00057
51.
*McMasterK. L.KungS.HanI.CaoM. (2008). Peer assisted learning strategies: A “tier 1” approach to promoting English learners’ response to intervention. Exceptional Children, 74, 194–214. doi:10.1177/001440290807400204
52.
MercerC. D.MercerA. R. (2001). Teaching students with learning problems (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
53.
National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
54.
OkilwaN. S. A.ShelbyL. (2010). The effects of peer tutoring on academic performance of students with disabilities in grades 6 through 12: A synthesis of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 450–463. doi:10.1177/0741932509355991
55.
*PraterD. L.BemudezA. B. (1993). Using peer response groups with limited proficient writers. Bilingual Research Journal, 17, 99–116. doi:10.1080/15235882.1993.10162650
56.
PuzioK.ColbyG. T. (2013). Cooperative learning and literacy: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6, 339–360. doi:10.1080/19345747.2013.775683
57.
Ruiz-de-VelascoJ.FixM.ClewellB. C. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
58.
*SáenzL. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 231–247. doi:10.1177/001440290507100302
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.MarshakL. (2012). Peer-mediated instruction in inclusive secondary social studies learning: Direct and indirect learning effects. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 12–20. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00346.x
61.
SlavinR. E. (1987). Cooperative learning and the cooperative school. Educational Leadership, 45, 7–13.
62.
SlavinR. E.KarweitN. L. (1985). Effects of whole-class, ability-grouped, and individualized instruction on mathematics achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 351–367. doi:10.3102/00028312022003351
63.
SnyderT. D.DillowS. A. (2009–2013). Digest of education statistics 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
64.
StenhoffD. M.Lignugaris/KraftB. (2007). A review of the effects of peer tutoring on students with mild disabilities in secondary settings. Exceptional Children, 74, 8–30. doi:10.1177/001440290707400101
65.
SullivanP.YeagerM.ChudowskyN.KoberN.O’BrienE.GaylerK. (2005). States try harder, but gaps persist: High school exit exams 2005. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
66.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002–2013). National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013 reading assessments. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
67.
*VaughnS.MartinezL. R.Linan-ThompsonS.ReutebuchC. K.CarlsonC. D.FrancisD. J. (2009). Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade English language learners: Findings from two experimental studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 297–324. doi:10.1080/19345740903167018
68.
WexlerJ.ReedD. K.PyleN.MitchellM.BartonE. (2015). A synthesis of peer-mediated academic interventions for secondary struggling learners. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 451–470. doi:10.1177/0022219413504997
WoodcockR. W. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
75.
WoodcockR. W.Muñoz-SandovalA. F. (1993). Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey comprehensive manual. Chicago, IL: Riverside.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
