Peer Tutoring and Academic Achievement in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

A meta-analysis of findings from 50 independent studies of peer tutoring programs in Mathematics at multiple educational stages showed that 88% of these programs have positive effects on the academic performance of the participants (Hedge's g = 0.333). Some of the variables to be taken into account when developing a peer tutoring experience were analyzed. Results showed that variables such as the ages of the participants, roles, skills of the tutees (disabled or at academic risk vs non-disabled and not at academic risk), length of the sessions and frequency were not significant moderators of the academic achievement. Variables such as educational stage, design of the study, duration of the program, level of knowledge of the tutors, time of the day (school time vs out of school time) and sample size turned out to be significant moderators. Results are discussed and proposals for future research are suggested.

Effects of peer tutoring on middle school students’ mathematics self-concepts

“…The benefits of peer tutoring in mathematics have been widely largely documented during the last years [3,46,47,48]. Although psychological variables have not been studied as in depth as academic achievement, several meta-analysis in the field state that the expect effect sizes in a peer tutoring intervention may be considered as small to moderate [49,50]. Academic and psychological effects of peer tutoring may differ significantly across educational levels.…”

“…For example, academic effects are usually greater in primary education than in secondary education [47,48]. Nevertheless, effects within the same educational level are expected to be similar and, when analyzing differences across grades, significant differences are rarely reported [49,50].…”

Metasynthesis of Preservice Professional Preparation and Teacher Education Research Studies

“…Small group learning was compared to either traditional classroom instruction or individual student instruction. Peer tutoring was compared to no peer tutoring [98,99] and peer instruction was compared to faculty instruction [100]. One meta-analysis included the effect sizes for the comparison between peer instruction as part of traditional classroom instruction and traditional classroom instruction without peer instruction [101].…”

Effects of Constructivist and Transmission Instructional Models on Mathematics Achievement in Mainland China: A Meta-Analysis

“…Over the past 10 years, the innovation of teaching and learning methods has been a common theme or category among meta-analyses of experimental programs in the field of mathematics education. These existing meta-analyses has identified the following teaching interventions: cooperative learning (Seidel and Shavelson, 2007 ; Hattie, 2008 ; Slavin and Lake, 2008 ; Slavin et al, 2009 ; Rakes et al, 2010 ; Savelsbergh et al, 2016 ), inquiry-based learning (Hattie, 2008 ; Slavin and Lake, 2008 ; Slavin et al, 2009 ; Alfieri et al, 2011 ), context-based learning (Slavin and Lake, 2008 ; Slavin et al, 2009 ), problem-solving learning (Hattie, 2008 ; Walker and Leary, 2009 ), self-regulated learning (Hattie, 2008 ; Slavin et al, 2009 ; de Boer et al, 2014 ), direct instruction (Seidel and Shavelson, 2007 ; Hattie, 2008 ; Slavin and Lake, 2008 ), mastery learning (Hattie, 2008 ; Slavin and Lake, 2008 ; Slavin et al, 2009 ; Rakes et al, 2010 ), computer-assisted learning (Liao, 2007 ; Hattie, 2008 ; Slavin and Lake, 2008 ; Slavin et al, 2009 ; Li and Ma, 2010 ; Rakes et al, 2010 ; Cheung and Slavin, 2013 ; Belland et al, 2017 ), peer tutoring (Hattie, 2008 ; Leung, 2015 ; Alegre-Ansuategui et al, 2018 ), individualized programs (Seidel and Shavelson, 2007 ; Hattie, 2008 ; Slavin et al, 2009 ), and new-style assessment strategies (Hattie, 2008 ; Rakes et al, 2010 ). The overall effect sizes of interventions of teaching and learning methods ranged from −0.02 to +0.78.…”