We conducted a longitudinal investigation of differences in classroom ecological arrangements and student behaviors (processes) on low-SES and high-SES elementary students' growth in academic achievement (products). An experimental, low-SES group received Cla.ssv.ide Peer Tutoring implemented by their teachers during each grade from first through fourth, while a low-SES control group and a high-SES comparison group received teacher-designed instruction. Results indicated that the experimental group and the comparison group, with distinctly different ecological arrangements and significantly higher levels of academic engagement, produced significantly greater product gains than did the control group. The implications of these findings are discussed.Research has established the importance of classroom processes to students* academic development (e.g., Brophy, 1986). Such processes include specific teacher-student interactions (e.g., Brophy, 1979), specific teacher behaviors and teaching functions (e.g., Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986), time allocated to academic tasks (e.g., Gettinger, 1985), and time students are engaged in specific academic behaviors (e.g., Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1984).Teaching practices known to orchestrate these processes include direct instruction (e.g., Becker, 1977;Becker & Gersten, 1982), mastery learning (e.g., Stallings & Stipek, 1986), cooperative learning strategies (e.g., Slavin, Madden, & Leavey, 1984), and peer tutoring (e.g., Greenwood, Carta, & Hall, 1988). In experimental evaluations, these practices have produced academic growth effect sizes from 0.25 to 2.00 standard deviations above control groups (e.g., Becker, 1977;Bloom, 1984;Walberg, 1986). These practices have also correlated positively with improvements in students* self-esteem (e.g., Becker, 1977) and peer relations (e.g., Warring, Johnson, Maruyama, & Johnson, 1985).

A multiple baseline design across subjects with a reversal was used to examine the effects of classwide peer tutoring relative to traditional reading instruction on reading skills and social interaction time for 3 high-functioning students with autism and their typical peers in integrated, general education classrooms. Traditional reading instruction consisted largely of teacher-led instruction with individual student participation and seat work. Classwide peer tutoring consisted of 25 to 30 min of wellspecified instruction in which tutor-learner pairs worked together on a classwide basis on reading fluency and comprehension skills. All students participated in 15-to 20-min unstructured free-time activities immediately following reading instruction. Results of reading assessments demonstrated that classwide peer tutoring increased reading fluency and correct responses to reading comprehension questions for students with autism and their peers. The procedure further increased the total duration of free-time social interactions for students with autism and typical peers, with individual variation in performance.

The purpose of this article is to discuss classwide peer tutoring as an effective instructional procedure. The article is organized into three major sections: (a) general principles of instruction, (b) description of classwide peer tutoring procedures, and (c) review of effectiveness data concerning classroom process (i.e., ecological and behavioral factors) and student achievement outcomes. It concludes with a discussion of the procedure and areas of future research and application.

We investigated the use of social skills groups to facilitate increased social interactions for students with autism and their nonhandicapped peers in an integrated first-grade classroom. Social skills groups consisted of training students and peers in initiating, responding, and keeping interactions going; greeting others and conversing on a variety of topics; giving and accepting compliments; taking turns and sharing; asking for help and helping others; and including others in activities. Training occurred during the first 10 min of 20-min play groups, four times per week. Using a multiple baseline across subjects design, results demonstrated increases in the frequency of, time engaged in, and duration of social interactions, as well as the responsivity of students and peers to each other. Results were maintained when students were monitored and given feedback on social performance in play groups and during follow-up.

In three experiments, we compared the effects of instructional arrangements that varied in: (a) teacher versus peer mediators, (b) methods used, (c) levels of student academic responding generated, and (d) content taught and tested. Instructional arrangements (i.e., tasks, structure, teacher position, teacher behavior) and students' levels of academic responding were measured by an observation system which served as an index of the independent variables. Students' accuracy on weekly spelling, arithmetic, and vocabulary tests and pre-and post-standardized achievement tests (Experiments 2 and 3 only) were the dependent variables. Results indicated that the classwide peer tutoring, compared to the teacher's procedure, produced more student academic responding and higher weekly test scores, regardless of treatment order or subject matter content (Experiment 1). The four lowest performing students in each class, in particular, benefited from peer tutoring, often performing as well as the other students. These findings were replicated in Experiments 2 and 3 wherein content taught/tested was also manipulated. Standardized test score gains were higher in those areas in which peer tutoring was used longest. Issues related to the functional analysis of instruction and achievement gain are discussed.DESCRIPTORS: academic behavior, peer tutoring, classroom, elementary studentsOnly within the last 5 years have standardized achievement outcomes been causally attributed to teaching (Becker, 1977(Becker, , 1978Becker & Gersten, 1982;Brophy, 1979). Investigations of teaching practices that produce academic gains are beginning to yield exciting information on how to arrange lessons, how these arrangements affect student behavior, and in the long term, how they