Peer-Assisted Learning

ARTICLES

205

JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, 2005, 24, 205-225 2005 HUMAN KINETICS, INC.

Peer-Assisted Learning in Physical Education: A Review of Theory and Research

Phillip Ward The Ohio State University Myung-Ah Lee Indiana State University
In this article we provide a review of theory and research on the use of peers to influence learning outcomes in physical education. First, we summarize the empirical literature on the use of peers in general education. Next, Piagets equilibration theory, Vygotskys sociocultural theory, and Skinners behavior analytic theory are discussed with particular reference to their implications for the use of peers in educational settings. This is followed by a review of findings from research studies using peers in physical education settings and includes suggestions for future research. We conclude with a discussion of implications for practice. Key Words: peer tutoring, cooperative learning, Vygotsky, Piaget, Skinner

Peers are commonly used in school settings to influence student-learning outcomes. The teaching strategies that use peers are generically labeled peer-assisted learning (PAL) and can be further classified into teaching strategies that use peers as a component of direct instruction (Rosenshine, 1979). These strategies include teaching by tutoring, modeling, and assessing, as well as approaches that involve structured and often sequenced collaboration such as cooperative learning strategies in order to achieve a common goal (Cohen, 1994). In the former, the instructional task for most students stays the same, whereas in the latter the task differs, often requiring each student to contribute a piece of the total task or to take on different roles. In physical education, PAL has been proposed as a best practice in pedagogy texts (e.g., Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000) and as an inclusive strategy for students with disabilities (Block, Oberweiser, & Bain, 1995). Although there is a growing knowledge base supporting PAL in physical education, to date no comprehensive review of the literature has been made that would provide guidance for researchers and practitioners. One purpose of this article is to review the theoretical literature supporting the use of peers in physical education. A second purpose is to evaluate research studies that have used some form of PAL in K12 physical
Ward is with The Ohio State University, Sport and Exercise Education, 305 Pomerene Hall, Columbus, OH. Lee is with Indiana State University, Department of Physical Education, Terre Haute, IN. 205

206

Ward and Lee

education in order to determine what is known about the use of peers in these settings. Our third purpose is to provide recommendations for research and practice. We begin with an overview of the effects of PAL in general education.

Empirical Effects of Peer-Assisted Learning in General Education

Though there is a long history of the use of tutors in education, one of the milestones occurred in 1984 when Bloom reported on two dissertations that compared learning under conventional instruction, mastery learning, and tutoring in fourth, fifth, and eighth grade math lessons. Conventional instruction was characterized by a 1:30 teacherstudent ratio in which tests were given periodically after instruction in order to measure student achievement. Students in the mastery learning condition were given the same tests as those used in the conventional instruction group, however, errors made by students who took the tests served as the focus for corrective techniques and further parallel tests (i.e., similar format and content as the original test). In the third condition, tutoring, the tutor worked one-on-one or at most one-on-three with students using the following procedure: instructiontest feedbackcorrective proceduresparallel formative tests. In reporting the results, Bloom (1984, p. 4) noted, the most striking of the findings is that under the best learning conditions we can devise (tutoring), the average student is two sigma above the average control student taught under conventional group methods of instruction. This led him to pose what he called the two-sigma problem: Can researchers and teachers devise teachinglearning conditions that will enable the majority of students under group instruction to attain levels of achievement that can at present be reached only under good tutoring conditions? (Bloom, 1984, p. 4). Seldom reported in studies that cite Blooms work is that the tutors in the studies described by Bloom were typically college education majors, not the peers of the tutees. This is an important caveat because generalizing adultchild effects to peer tutoring can be problematic for at least two reasons. First, college education majors bring knowledge and skills to instruction that peers typically do not. Second, children often behave differently in the presence of adults than in the presence of their peers. Despite these limitations, the two-sigma problem has remained for many an important goal in research using same-age PAL in educational settings. Reviews reporting the effectiveness of PAL include assessments of (a) tutoring in general education (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Walberg, 1990); (b) tutoring in special education (Greenwood, Maheady, & Carta, 1991; Osguthorpe & Scruggs, 1986); (c) tutoring in nonacademic subject areas (Heron, Welsch & Goddard, 2003); (d) peer assessment in higher education (Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000; Topping, 1998); (e) peer models (Schunk, 1987); (f) peer-group influence (Ide, Parkerson, Haertel, & Walberg, 1981); and (g) cooperative learning (Cohen, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Slavin, 1990a). Collectively, these reviews demonstrate the effectiveness and utility of PAL in a variety of educational settings. Despite this utility, PAL is not a magic solution. Merely placing students in groups is insufficient to ensure that learning will occur. Moreover, our reading of the literature suggests that PAL effects are not incidental, but rather part of formalized instructional

Peer-Assisted Learning

207

strategies. There is also evidence that PAL works differentially relative to the type of task, student grouping, grade level, and ability and giftedness of the students (Cohen, 1994; De Lisi & Goldbeck, 1999; Hogan & Tudge, 1999; Osguthorpe & Scruggs, 1986; Robinson, 1990). Unfortunately, little is known about why there are differential effects.

Review of Root Theories Supporting Peer-Assisted Learning

Few researchers in physical education have explicitly connected a learning theory to their research on PAL. Therefore, this review draws more on the literature of general education for its content. Previous reviews in general education have not included an assessment of peers in both direct instruction roles and in cooperative learning roles; instead, these strategies have been treated separately (e.g., Cohen, et al., 1982; ODonnell & King, 1999). Reasons provided for this distinction include: (a) the absence of specific error-correction techniques in cooperative learning (Heron, et al., 2003); (b) emphasis placed on the distinction between the knowledge held by the tutor in peer tutoring versus the shared learning role of students in cooperative learning arrangements (Slavin, 1991); and differentiation between competitive versus cooperative arrangements (Johnson & Johnson, 1982). In this review we have used the phrase PAL to encompass both peer teaching and cooperative learning strategies because the theories referenced are able to account for these different forms of PAL. Our reading of the general education literature suggests that most current explanations describing the role of peers are grounded in one of three root theories: Piagets equilibration theory, Vygotskys sociocultural theory, or Skinners behavior analysis. The term root theory is used here to indicate that the theory is a foundation for other theories or it is sufficiently complete in and of itself in terms of its explanatory power.

Equilibration Theory
Piagets (1985) equilibration theory forms one of the foundations of constructivism. A central theme is that knowledge acquisition is a process of continuous reconstruction by the student. Piaget (1985) classified knowledge as physical (i.e., knowledge about objects), logicalmathematical (i.e., abstract knowledge), and socialarbitrary (i.e., culture-specific knowledge). Piaget proposed a developmental model consisting of four stages: sensorimotor (birth 2 years), preoperational (27 years), concrete operational (711 years), and formal operational (11 years and older). Transition from one stage to the next occurs as a function of three processes: assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration within and across stages. When students encounter events similar to what they know, the resulting information is assimilated into their existing knowledge. When students encounter events different from what they know, they might modify their thinking to accommodate these new circumstances. These two processes (i.e., assimilation and accommodation) often produce cognitive conflict in which the student holds two different views of the world. In order to reconcile these two views, the student constructs meaning by rethinking their position. This self-regulatory process Piaget called

208

Ward and Lee

equilibration. Teachers can support these three processes by creating environments in which students build knowledge through experiences focused on problems and collaborative activities, both of which produce cognitive conflict in the student. De Lisi and Goldbeck (1999) suggest that although assimilation often occurs when students practice alone, accommodation can be fostered by peer tutoring or modeling; in addition, cooperative peer environments in which students engage in questioning, explaining, and predicting provide opportunities for equilibrium to occur. For example, consider the context of an elementary sport-education unit in which each team of students has been given the task of creating a defense against a particular offensive strategy. In order to be successful in this task, students might engage in questioning, explaining, predicting, and practicing specific solutions in the process of solving the problem. Different groups might use different strategies to solve the problem. From a Piagetian perspective, however, it is the collaboration among students in completing the task that allows students to acquire knowledge (De Lisi, 2002). Piaget (1985) suggested that such interaction among students allows them to function as both agents and recipients of instruction. In their review of research on the role of peers from a Piagetian perspective, De Lisi and Goldbeck (1999) noted that though there is evidence that childrens logical and spatial reasoning improve using peer interactions, much less is known about the nature of those interactions relative to instructional tasks. Tasks that require reasoning among students and are developmentally challenging (i.e., relative to the stages of development) are likely to be more successful in facilitating learning than others that dont meet these criteria. De Lisi and Goldbeck suggest that the research to date has primarily occurred in laboratories rather than classrooms and, therefore, lacks ecological validity.

CulturalHistorical Theory
Vygotskys culturalhistorical theory is another pillar of modern constructivist practice (Matusov, 2001). Vygotskys theory views human development as a sociogenetic process by which children gain mastery over cultural tools and signs in the course of interacting with others in their environments (Hogan & Tudge, 1999, p. 39). This description recognizes that development is based on both biological maturation and cultural mediation. Though Vygotsky (1978) emphasized the importance of psychological tools in providing the means through which an individual converts social interactions into higher-order thinking, neo-Vygotskian theorists Lave (1988) and Rogoff (1990) argue that cultural mediation is itself not discrete but is embedded in the sociocultural activities in which students are engaged. Lave suggests students acquire knowledge best not through discrete, contrived learning activities (e.g., serving a volleyball to a wall), but through a process of acculturation into communities of practice which occur in real situations (e.g., deciding whether to pass the ball in soccer when approached by a defender in a four-on-four game in a sport-education unit). Glassman (1994), comparing Vygotskys culturalhistorical theory and Piagets equilibration theory, noted that although there are similarities, there is at least one important difference. For Piaget, instruction is presented at a students developmental stage, whereas for Vygotsky, instruction is placed ahead of the development of the child. The importance of this position for Vygotsky is described by Glassman (1995, p. 474475):

Peer-Assisted Learning

209

A central idea within Vygotskys paradigm of human development is that activity leads thinking. In establishing this idea he situates his theory as part of Marxist psychology, challenging the assumption of cerebral primacy: the idea that thinking precedes and controls activity. Vygotsky, of course, did not initiate this challenge to cerebral primacy. He was working within a social/philosophical/biological paradigm launched by Engels. . . . Engels challenged the assumption of cerebral primacy . . . [arguing instead, that] the ability to engage in collective labor (joint activity), was what pulled the development of thinking forward. [Italics added.] Vygotsky (1978) proposed that the learning activities a student confronts should occur at the edge of what he called the Zone of Promixal Development or ZPD. The ZPD is the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). The ZPD is a pedagogical tool in the Vygotskian model for both the enactment of social mediation in instruction and the determination of a developmental curriculum. Vygotskys definition of the ZPD has been interpreted to mean that in the context of social engagement, peers could contribute to individual student learning (e.g., Hogan & Tudge, 1999; Gillen, 2000). Vygotsky (1978) himself, however, cautioned about the limitations of using peers as instructors. Hogan and Tudge note his focus was much more on adultchild interactions rather than on knowledgeable peers. It has been neo-Vygotskian researchers who have focused attention on peer interactions. For example, King (2002) emphasized the role of the teacher in structuring peer interaction by explicitly teaching the roles and types of student interactions. Using an instructional strategy called Reciprocal Peer Questions (King), students are given scripted but open-ended questions that they can ask in order to facilitate interaction among students in a group trying to understand a problem or a task that is presented to them. Although it is easy to see the applications for adultchild tutoring and crossage tutoring using the ZPD, it is much more problematic for the teacher to use the ZPD for PAL strategies with students who might be more similar than different in terms of their level of cognitive development. Kirk and Macdonald (1998), drawing on Lave and Wegners (1991) situated learning theory, described how a community of learners might be developed within the sport-education model. In establishing such a community, teachers would need to consider social interaction and the culturalhistorical background of the participants. One way to develop a community of learners is to use flexible grouping arrangements and multi-age classrooms such as student-led common-interest groups (Hoffman, 2002). One of the best examples of this structure can be seen in Montessori schools in which multi-age classrooms spanning 3-year periods are the norm, and students often pursue different topics and tasks in small groups according to their interests. In their review of Vygotskian research focusing on PAL in educational settings, Hogan and Tudge (1999) report that, though there are few studies conducted in this area, there is initial evidence to support the effectiveness of adultchild dyadic interactions in improving cognitive skills. They note, however, that results are often mixed for peer interactions. Hogan and Tudge cite problems in which the more competent partner often failed to understand their role or, at times, provided

210

Ward and Lee

incorrect or less advanced reasoning and solutions to problems that then confused other students.

Behavior Analysis
Both Piagets equilibration theory and Vygotskys socialcultural theory are mediational in nature. They propose psychological processes that involve hypothetical but operationally defined constructs that the theorists suggest mediate and provide agency for overt action. In contrast, a behavior-analytic view is nonmediational, drawing instead on explanations developed through an analysis of the interaction between environment and behavior (Hineline, 1992). In this view the processes are defined by their effects on behavior that can be described in terms of the development of a new behavior, maintenance of a behavior, or the decrease or cessation of a behavior. The behavioral view includes consideration of private behaviors that occur within the person such as thinking (e.g., self-reflection, self-talk, and problem solving) and feelings (e.g., love, anxiety, and joy). Rather than seek to explain these behaviors in terms of mediational constructs or to attribute agency to them, behavior analysts look instead for explanations in the environment (e.g., current and historical determinants) as they would for behavior occurring outside of the skin (Skinner, 1974). Thus, the question is not Does thinking occur? but rather Why does thinking occur? and What are its distinguishing characteristics? (Skinner). Two key principles of behavior analysis involve discrimination and generalization. According to Hineline (1992), To discriminate is to behave differently in different situations and to generalize is to behave similarly in different situations (p. 1276). Examples of discrimination include when a tutor praises one students technique but corrects another, or when a student passes the ball in basketball to a player in the open but not to another who is being covered by an opponent. Examples of generalization include a tutor providing feedback to a student he or she has not previously worked with, or when a student performs a particular defensive tactic in a game that he or she has previously only practiced in a lesson. If a tutees differential feedback (e.g., praising correct performance but not incorrect performance) improves tutee performance, then the tutor becomes part of the instructional contingency because the tutors behavior functions to change or maintain the behavior of the tutee. Both the tutors and the tutees behavior can be further supported rules provided by the teacher or tutor and by prompts and cues. In physical education, tutors are taught to behave one way (e.g., to praise or to otherwise identify the performance as correct) when a certain performance occurs and to behave differently when that performance does not occur (e.g., to model or prompt a critical element). This differential behavior of the tutor functions as one consequence of the tutees behavior. Other consequences present in the environment might include positive outcomes such as successfully shooting a basket or acing a serve in tennis, or negative outcomes such as missing the basket or faulting on a tennis serve. Activities such as tutoring and cooperative learning involve discrimination and generalization by students, but the contingencies may be arranged in a variety of ways. In many collaborative activities (e.g., cooperative learning, small group work), the contingencies are arranged as group-oriented contingencies (Litow &

Peer-Assisted Learning

211

Pumory, 1975), which occur when positive reinforcement for the group is contingent on a particular behavior or set of behaviors being performed by a member or members of the group. In a dependent group-oriented contingency, an individual or small group must meet the criterion in order for all members to receive the reinforcement (e.g., points awarded to a team in a sport-education unit for good refereeing by a team member). In an independent group-oriented contingency, only those members of the group that complete the task receive the reinforcement (e.g., as each student completes their task, they can practice or engage in free play until the entire group is finished). In an interdependent group-oriented contingency, group members both individually and as a group must accomplish the task (e.g., the jigsaw cooperative learning strategy). Slavin (1991) reported that the largest effect sizes in cooperative learning strategies are those that employ interdependent group contingencies (i.e., both individual and group accountability). Behavioral research on tutoring is extensive in both general and special education settings (Greenwood, Delaquadri, & Hall, 1989; Greenwood, et al., 1991), as well as in nonacademic settings (Heron et al., 2003). Moreover, much of the research cited in reviews by Cohen et al. (1982) and Walberg (1990) were conducted by nonbehavioral researchers using group designs that validated behavioral analytic principles as components of their studies of tutoring. There is also a substantive literature on group contingencies (Tankersley, 1995), although there is much less research on specific cooperative learning strategies.

Method
In this section, we review research studies using PAL in physical education settings.

Article Selection, Search Procedures, Grouping, and Summarization

Articles were included in the review if they described research conducted in K12 physical education settings with intact classes using either (a) peers to tutor, model, or assess other students, or (b) structured cooperative learning strategies. These criteria excluded studies conducted in other settings (e.g., camps, after-school sport, and recreation), with other age groups (e.g., preschool, college, and adults), and those studies that examined the effects of peers in physical education but not as part of intact classes (e.g., one-on-one adapted physical education settings and adult childtutor arrangements). Computer searches of ERIC, Science Citation Index, and Sport Discus databases using the key words assessment, tutoring, and modeling combined with the words physical education and peers were conducted. In addition, the key words cooperative learning combined with physical education were used to search for studies. Articles generated from this list were read and included or excluded on the basis of the above inclusion criteria. The reference lists of included articles were read to identify additional articles that were not included in our search. Finally, the Dissertation Abstracts International database was searched using the same search strategy. After identifying potential dissertations, we read the abstracts. If the study could be excluded on the basis of information provided in the abstracts, we did so; otherwise, we obtained the dissertations from the host universities and read the

212

Ward and Lee

methods section to determine which dissertations met the inclusion criteria. If the study could be included, we then read the dissertation. Dissertations that were published as articles and already included in the review were excluded. Each study was then categorized in terms of its design as (a) within-group statistical comparisons using pretestposttest or repeated measures of the same sample; (b) between-group statistical comparisons in which independent samples were used for comparisons among treatments; (c) single-subject experimental designs; and (d) descriptive and qualitative designs. These studies were then grouped into two classes of research: intervention studies and nonintervention studies. Intervention studies were further coded to report the grade, setting, sample size, independent variable, dependent measures, experimental main effects, gender effects, ability effects, and whether evidence of benefits to tutors was reported. Nonintervention studies were coded for grade, setting, sample size, measures, whether the use of PAL was judged successful, indicators of gender and ability effects, and whether there was reported evidence of benefits to tutors.

Results and Discussion by Type of PAL Strategy

A total of 28 studies are included in this review with a combined sample size in excess of 2300 (Tables summarizing these studies are available from the first author). The studies have been grouped into those that used PAL in the form of direct instruction such as tutoring (n = 18) or assessing (n = 4), and those that used a cooperative learning strategy (n = 6). Studies in each group were further subdivided into intervention studies (group comparisons: n =12; single subject: n = 9; mixed design: n =1) and nonintervention studies (n = 6). This section of the review is organized into results by type of PAL strategy, results by context, and results by design.

Direct Instruction PAL Strategies

Twenty-two studies used tutors to teach peers in a direct instruction format. Eighteen were intervention studies and two were nonintervention studies. The studies were categorized as tutoring (n = 15), peer-mediated accountability (n = 2), class-wide peer tutoring (n = 1), and assessment (n = 4). Peer Tutoring. Peer tutoring (PT) occurs when students are arranged in pairs and instructed, often specifically trained, to assist their partner to complete instructional tasks. Six studies involved one-way PT environments designed to assess the effects of tutoring provided by one peer to another less-skilled peer (e.g., dArripe-Longueville, Gernigon, Huet, Cadopi, & Winnykamen, 2002) or a peer with a disability (e.g., Leiberman, Dunn, van der Mars, & McCubbin, 2000). Nine studies were reciprocal in nature, in which the participants exchanged roles of tutor and tutee during the course of the instruction. A typical PT study compared a control group or a baseline of regular instruction to one or more tutoring conditions. For example, a number of studies compared the effects of some of Mosstons (1981) spectrum of teaching styles. In these studies reciprocal teaching, Mosstons PT style, was often compared with his command style of teaching (Ernst & Byra, 1998; Goldberger & Gerney, 1986; Goldberger, Gerney, & Chamberlain, 1982; Moore, 1996; Virgilio, 1984).

Peer-Assisted Learning

213

The vast majority of PT studies assessed psychomotor gains using PT. Though one study (Goldberger et al., 1982) showed no significant difference (NSD) among conditions, in the remaining 14 studies the gains by the PT group were statistically significant or, in the case of single-subject designs, the performance was functionally related to the presence of the intervention. Specifically, PT was shown to increase academic learning time (dePaepe, 1985; Murata, 1996; Webster, 1987), increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (Leiberman, et al., 2000), improve the percentage of correct performances of motor skills (Houston-Wilson, Dunn, van der Mars, & McCubbin, 1997), and increase scores in motor-skill tests (Ernst & Byra, 1998; Goldberger & Gerney, 1986; Goldberger et al., 1982; Moore, 1996; Virgilio, 1984). Only two studies directly assessed gender effectsdArripeLongueville et al. (2002) and Ward (1994). Both studies describe stronger gains by male participants than by females. Peer tutoring has also been successful in improving the performances of students with disabilities including deaf (Lieberman et al., 2000) and developmentally disabled students (Houston-Wilson et al., 1997), as well as developmentally disabled students with moderately severe disabilities (dePaepe, 1985; Webster, 1987). These studies have occurred in inclusive settings providing empirical support for PT as a strategy for inclusion in physical education. Affective outcomes are often espoused for PAL strategies. Several studies investigated the effects of PT on affective characteristics. Typically, these characteristics have been measured using psychometric inventories assessing constructs such as self-esteem and self-efficacy or by interviews and surveys designed to elicit the perceptions of students. In some cases the frequency and type of student interactions were measured. Studies by Goldberger et al. (1982) and Ernst and Byra (1998) reported that working with a peer was a positive experience and enhanced social interaction among students. Byra and Marks (1993) investigated the effects of self-selection on the provision of feedback by peers and the comfort level of recipients. Their findings show (a) that more feedback was given to friends than nonacquaintances and (b) that students felt more comfortable receiving feedback. Studies by Blomquist (1998) and Virgilio (1984), however, reported NSD results between different teaching styles and PT on affective measures. Some studies have assessed the effects of PT on knowledge-test scores. Although the studies report NSD among groups on test scores (e.g., Ernst & Byra, 1998; Virgilio, 1984), Ernst and Byra found that there were significant prepost gains for each group in their study; this indicates, at the very least, that pairing does not inhibit knowledge, and that the time to organize and structure pairs does not weaken knowledge gains. Class-Wide Peer Tutoring. Class-wide peer tutoring (CWPT) involves the whole class in reciprocal roles of tutor and tutee. It has demonstrated effectiveness in regular and special education, across elementary, secondary, and college settings, and with a variety of participants (Greenwood et al., 1991). In CWPT a class is divided into small groups of 46 students. In each team, students pair themselves. Instructional tasks are presented on task cards in text and with pictures after the teacher has demonstrated them. Students practice them and are then given a fixed amount of time to conduct a partner assessment. As the tutee performs each trial, the tutor provides feedback and records the number of correct performances. After all members of the team finish their assessment, a member of each team

214

Ward and Lee

posts the number of correct performances completed by the group under the team name on a poster board. At the start of subsequent lessons, the teacher establishes a goal for each group. Special activities are tied to meeting the daily goals set by the teacher. Further descriptions of this procedure can be found in Block et al. (1995), and Johnson and Ward (2001). The CWPT strategy uses an interdependent group contingency (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987) holding students accountable individually and as a group for performance. Only one study has assessed this strategy in physical education. Johnson and Ward (2001) assessed a third-grade striking unit. Effectiveness measures were reported as number of trials correct and as a percentage. The data show that CWPT was effective for both low- and high-skilled students and for both boys and girls. Most interesting was that the low-skilled male and female students made improvements similar to those of their average- and high-skilled counterparts. Peer-Mediated Accountability. Peer-mediated accountability is identical to CWPT except that students are provided with knowledge of the results but not feedback on technique. The PMA studies have been framed within Doyles (1983) task-system model. PMA studies have demonstrated that, compared with conventional instruction in physical education, students increase both the number of total trials and the number of correct trials as much as three- or fourfold over baseline performances (Crouch, Ward & Patrick, 1997; Ward, Smith, Makasci, & Crouch, 1998). A critical component in the use of PMA is that students must be able to perform the skill at a minimal level demonstrating some of the critical elements some of the time. The authors of the PMA studies concluded that PMA is an appropriate strategy to develop opportunities to practice newly acquired skills, but they caution that PMA is an inappropriate strategy to teach skills that students cannot perform (Ward et al.). Data from Ward et al., however, show that although low-skilled students did not improve, they did complete many trials. The authors concluded that the stereotype of the lower skilled student being less active than other class members was unsupported (p. 450). Peer Assessment. Although the peer assessment studies have much in common in with PT and PMA studies, the authors of each of the four studies in this category conceptualized their study specifically from the perspective of assessment. In this review we have chosen to describe the studies consistent with the conceptualization of the authors. Two of the studies were descriptive/qualitative studies and two were quasi-experimental studies. Butler and Hodge (2001) used a case study to describe the use of peer assessment during a softball unit for an ethnically diverse group of high school students. Butler and Hodge reported that students indicated that peer assessment enhanced feedback, increased trust, and that providing feedback was an important activity for them to engage in during class. Richard, Godbout, Tousignant, & Grehaigne (1999) described teacher perceptions of students in Grades 58 who peer assessed each other using a gameperformance instrument. Their results indicate that, though very time intensive and requiring constant prompting, teachers viewed peer assessment favorably. Two studies examined peer assessment using fitness tests. Moore and Falls (1970) examined a performance rating scale used by 538 students in fifth and sixth grade to assess the AAHPER 1965 fitness test. Moore and Falls concluded that peers could reliably and accurately assess peers using the performance rating scale. Similarly, Hill and Miller (1997) compared the effects of fifth-grade peer and parent assessment of fitness components; they had parents and students share the

Peer-Assisted Learning

215

roles of test taker, counter, and recorder. Hill and Miller (1997) concluded that upper elementary school students can assess their peers with accuracy.

Discussion of Direct Instruction PAL Strategies

The individual studies reviewed in this section, by and large, lack external validity in their designs. The single-subject designs focused much more on the internal validity of the particular interventions; though there were systematic replications of the PT and PMA strategies, there are too few to establish external validity. Although the group designs were often statistically significant, they did not use random selection. Despite these limitations, one cannot ignore the collective findings in these studies that have been conducted at a variety of grade levels (i.e., third grade through high school), with students of varying abilities, and with different instructional units. The findings suggest, regardless of the research methodology, that PT is an effective instructional strategy to help students, with and without disabilities, learn motor skills. Moreover, the findings obtained in the physical education studies are entirely consistent with the findings reported for general education (Cohen et. al., 1982; Walberg, 1990) and special education (Osguthorpe & Scruggs, 1986; Greenwood et. al., 1991). Two other promising strategies reviewed in this section were CWPT and PMA. Initial findings suggest that CWPT might be an appropriate strategy for learning new skills, and that PMA might be more appropriate for enhancing skills already in a students repertoire. Females do not benefit as much as their male counterparts from PT. Unfortunately, these gender effects have been reported for many instructional strategies (Siedentop, Doutis, Tsangaridou, Ward, & Rauschenbach, 1994). There is, however, some evidence that gender differences might not be as pronounced in more formally structured tutoring. An initial study using CWPT showed that third-grade females in a striking unit, regardless of ability, were able to perform similarly to their male peers (Johnson & Ward, 2001). Peer Assessment: Accuracy and Training. Central to these direct-instruction PAL strategies is the assumption that students can indeed observe and assess their peers accurately. Evidence to support this assumption is presented in a number of studies including Crouch et al. (1997), Hill and Miller (1997), Moore and Falls (1970), and Johnson and Ward (2001). In these studies the congruence between student assessment of peers and researcher agreement was examined through correlational analysis or interobserver tests of reliability. The data indicate that well-trained students from third grade through high school can assess their peers reliably (7096% agreement with researchers). The levels of accuracy reported in the studies were sufficient to demonstrate either significant or functionally related gains in student performance. Assessments range from fairly simple ones such as fitness measures to more complex game-performance instruments. The judgments asked of students include fairly simple tasks such as using checklists and rating scales for fitness tasks (Hill & Miller, 1997; Lieberman et al., 2000; Moore & Falls, 1970) and observing critical elements of motor skills (e.g., Crouch, et al., 1997; Houston-Wilson et al., 1997), to more demanding assessments such as complex observations using gameperformance instruments (Richard et al., 1999). Some studies directly compared the effects of trained tutors with untrained tutors. An early study by Webster (1987) found that there was little difference in the amount of academic learning time between trained tutors and untrained tutors.

216

Ward and Lee

In contrast, Houston-Wilson et al. (1997) showed substantive gains for students tutored by trained versus untrained tutors. The dependent measures and designs in each of these studies were quite similar, which leaves the question of trained versus untrained tutors a matter still to be resolved. This said, most studies indicated that they did train their tutors. Only a few studies, however, reported how peers were trained and for how long the training lasted. An analysis of those studies that did describe how peers were trained reveals that, typically, teachers taught and modeled the desired tutoring behaviors such as feedback or coding of assessments. Feedback was then provided to the students as they practiced these tutoring skills. The length of time for the training varied according to the complexity of the task being asked of the tutor but typically occurred for 12 class sessions (Byra & Marks, 1993; Crouch et al., 1997; Ernst & Byra, 1998; Johnson & Ward, 2001). A consistent finding of studies in which students with disabilities were the primary recipients of tutoring was that peers were trained for four to five 30-minute sessions (Houston-Wilson et al., 1997; Lieberman et al., 2000). How Best to Group Students. Many studies, with the exception of the disability studies, typically used self-selection as the criteria for grouping students. For studies in which a subset of the class received tutoring (e.g., students with special needs), the tutors who were selected were described as reliable in terms of their attendance and on-task behavior. Two studies specifically examined the grouping of students. Byra and Marks (1993) examined grouping students by degree of friendship and ability. They propose allowing students to self-select based on feedback provided at higher rates to friends versus nonacquaintances and because they found no difference in the rate of feedback on the basis of ability. DArripe-Longueville et al. (2002) examined the extent that low-, average-, and high-skilled performers acted as tutors for their peers for a tumble turn in swimming. DArripe-Longueville et al. found that higher-skilled performers as tutors produced the best results for males, whereas both high-skilled and averageskilled performers produced similar effects for females. In this study, students were grouped by same gender. At this stage in the research there is little to say about how best to group students. Benefits to Tutors. The majority of the studies reviewed in this section used students in reciprocal roles as both tutor and tutee. In such cases, data for both participants are included in the description of effects (e.g., Johnson & Ward, 2001). To date there have been no specific investigations of the effects of being a tutor.

Cooperative Learning Strategies

There are six studies that met the inclusion criteria that have used CL. Three are intervention studies and three are qualitative studies. Smith (1997) used a mixed methodology to assess a third-grade CL unit designed to increase social interactions among students. The CL unit included 20 lessons of specifically designed activities requiring problem solving and collaboration. Teacher assessment scales, sociometric assessment, participant observation, formal and informal interviews of students, and reflective logs were used to assess and describe the effects of the CL intervention. Smith reported that although, in general, proactive social interactions increased in frequency, the effects were varied among students. Moreover, social participation was varied with some students cooperating and sharing and other students less able to cope with the nature of the CL tasks. Despite the length

Peer-Assisted Learning

217

of the study and the nature of the activities, one conclusion from Smiths study is that for some students, learning the social skills necessary to complete the roles assigned in a CL unit requires more time. This raises the question of whether there are social skills that students must have in order to participate in a CL unit. Rattigan (1997) compared the effects of students randomly assigned into one of three instructional conditions in basketball: (a) competitive, in which students individually competed for prizes; (b) cooperative, which was very similar to CWPT; and (c) individualistic, in which students were rewarded for their individual progress. The dependent variables included checklist measures of of motor skills (e.g., chest pass), free-throw-skills test, and student scores on the classroom life questionnaire to assess social dimensions of CL. The group analysis revealed that the cooperative and competitive groups reported more group cohesion, more support from the teacher, and more support from classmates than the individualistic group. Barrett (2000) conducted two studies using physical education variations of CL with sixth-grade team-handball classes. In the first study, an A-B-A-B singlesubject withdrawal design was used to assess the effects of a new CL strategy, Performer and Coach Earn Rewards (PACER), on correct trials, the duration of social interactions, and measures of social behavior. PACER comprised heterogeneous, four-member teams. In PACER, students were held individually accountable using both peer assessment and teacher assessment. In a second study, a CL strategy called Jigsaw II-PE was used with a different class but with the same dependent measures as the first study. Jigsaw II-PE created student experts who helped their team progress through the content. In Jigsaw II-PE the emphasis is on group accountability. Results show that both PACER and JIGSAW II-PE increased the number of correct trials for the four students in each study. In particular, low-skilled students, both male and female, performed similarly to their higher-skilled counterparts. Barrett (2000) reported that the time spent engaged in social interactions focused on problem solving was functionally related to the interventions, but that the frequency of social behaviors used were not. He concluded that explanations for this difference related to both the definition of the social behavior and the sensitivity of the instrument used to collect the data. In a series of studies, Dyson (2001, 2002) and Dyson and Strachan (2000) examined dimensions of CL in elementary through high school settings. Dyson employed case studies using inductive analysis and constant comparisons to describe teacher and student experiences as they engaged in CL. Dyson and Strachan reported on the use of CL in 8th- and 11th-grade team-handball units. The students in both classes were all female. The CL strategies used included learning teams (Grineski, 1996), which placed students in small groups in which students were assigned specific roles such as recorder, encourager, and coach to complete tasks. In these groups students were encouraged to take responsibility for the teaching of other members of the group. Data included direct observation of lessons, interviews with teachers, and focus-group interviews with students. The teacher believed that CL improved motor skills, game strategies, active participation, and respect for peers, as well as interactions among students. Students reported that cooperative learning encouraged participation, was fun, and allowed them to develop motor skills and interpersonal skills. These findings were echoed in Dysons (2001) study of an elementary school fifth- and sixth-grade class conducted during a basketball unit using similar CL strategies.

218

Ward and Lee

In a particularly interesting study, Dyson (2002) followed third- and fourthgrade students and teachers through 2 years of CL instruction. Two CL strategies used here were (a) pairscheckperform, a CL strategy that is very similar to PT; and (b) learning teams. A significant feature of this study is that though many studies report on the first-time implementation of an intervention that typically lasts anywhere from 5 to 20 days, in this study the data represented a 2-year, in-depth analysis of established cooperative settings. This is a rare occurrence and adds a stronger sense of validity to these results. Dyson (2002) concluded that the multiple roles facilitated the quality of the interactions focused on both the motor and social goals of the teacher. Dyson (2002) observed that roles had to be explicitly taught to students. In particular, the use of task sheets was an important organizational tool to facilitate CL roles. Another important finding from this analysis is the amount of time that it took for students to function effectively in these roles. This finding supports the conclusions of Smith (1997) but is different from that reported by Barrett (2000), who measured the time spent on training students in his CL strategies. The different findings could possibly be explained by the nature of the CL strategies used (e.g., PACER versus learning teams) and thus the time taken for students to learn their roles. In Barretts PACER and Jigsaw II-PE, the role of the student remains much the same, requiring participants to learn two roles. During learning teams there are several different roles for students to learn in order to implement the strategy.

Discussion of Cooperative Learning Strategies

There are very few strategies in the CL literature for physical education. Those strategies (e.g., learning teams and JIGSAW II-PE), as used in PE settings, have been based on classroom procedures. The adaptations to the CL strategies made in physical education, however, make them substantively different from classroom versions, often reflecting a lack of permanent products (e.g., written documents) and the managerial and content demands that distinguish physical education settings from classrooms. At this stage in the research on CL in physical education there are more questions than answers. Some of these questions include: (a) What is the distinction between CL as a formal strategy and CL as an informal activity initiated by students? (b) What are the cooperative behaviors that students must learn? (c) How are students to be grouped in CL? By self-selection, heterogeneously, random assignment, convenience, or interest? (d) What size group is suitable for cooperative learning?; and (e) because the special education literature has strongly advocated CL as an inclusion strategy (McMaster & Fuchs, 2002): How is CL in physical education to be adapted to include students with disabilities? At least one thing is clear: there will be no universal answers to these questions. Because the term CL encompasses a cluster of strategies ranging from peer assistance to more sophisticated strategies such as jigsaw and learning teams, one of the key questions researchers must answer is: What are the criteria for the selection of a particular CL strategy? In particular the purpose of CL strategies should be more closely examined: Are strategies focused more toward social outcomes or psychomotor and cognitive outcomes? There is a dearth of outcome measures for CL in physical education. The primary measure has been perceived effectiveness, which might be a good place to

Peer-Assisted Learning

219

start, particularly from a professional development perspective. CL in physical education, however, needs student learning and social skill development outcome data if it is to be validated as an instructional method. There is also a need for implementation studies to determine the extent to which these models can be successfully implemented by teachers. Such studies should document the fidelity of implementation and show whether and how teachers modified CL in their gymnasiums. One area requiring elaboration by authors is more description of the actual cooperative learning strategies and what elements of these strategies represent the characteristics of CL. Johnson and Johnson (1994) suggest that five essential elements of cooperative learning are required for positive outcomes: (a) positive interdependence describes circumstances in which group members are dependent on each other for success; (b) face-to-face interaction; (c) individual accountability; (d) the learning of social skills; and (e) group processing, which refers to judgments made by group members about their progress toward goals. Meta-analyses of classroom research (e.g., Slavin, 1990a; 1995), as well as recent reviews (Antil, Jenkins, Wayne, & Vadasky, 1998; McMaster & Fuchs, 2002), do not strongly support more than two of these characteristics: positive interdependence and individual accountability.Whereas positive interdependence is supported in some studies, it requires the presence of individual accountability to demonstrate significant effect sizes (McMaster & Fuchs, 2002; Slavin, 1991; 1995). For example, in Slavins (1995) meta-analysis, treatments with both positive interdependence and individual accountability had a mean effects size of .30, but when individual accountability was omitted from the analysis, the effects were insignificant (i.e., mean effect size = .035). There are at least two reasons why identifying essential conditions in CL is challenging. The first is shared by most educational research, namely, aptitude treatment interactions (Snow & Lohman, 1984). This refers to interactions among learner characteristics, which in processproduct research Dunkin and Biddle (1974) called presage variables and treatments. The most oft-cited presage variable relative to cooperative learning is ability relative to gifted students (Robinson, 1990; Slavin, 1990b; VanTassel-Baska, Landrum, & Peterson, 1992) and ability relative to students with learning and developmental disabilities (McMaster & Fuchs, 2002; OConnor & Jenkins, 1996). Morever, Barretts (2000) subanalysis of Slavins (1995) meta-analysis identified that results for CL in classrooms vary by age group, ability, subject matter, and CL strategy. A second reason why essential elements of CL are difficult to identify beyond individual accountability is because of what has been called the free rider effect or more commonly social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1993). Social loafing refers to the observation that people tend to contribute less to a common effort when they are in groups than they do to their individual efforts (Karau & Williams). As group size increases and the likelihood of being held personally accountable decreases, social loafing increases. In contrast, as group size decreases and individuals are held accountable, the social loafing tends to decrease.

Recommendations for Teachers

What are our recommendations for the physical education teacher? Training. Whether the focus is on task accomplishment in a CL strategy such as jigsaw, or in sport education on learning team roles, successful PAL requires

220

Ward and Lee

that teachers take the time to train their students in the strategy. Because training takes time, it ought to be routinized and incorporated into the structure of lessons rather than used as a one-shot deal. Such training can focus on different tasks such as social or assessment skills, but regardless, it should involve sufficient rehearsal and feedbackmost studies reviewed involved 13 days of training. Ideally, if teachers wanted to use a PAL strategy on and off throughout the year, students could learn it in the first unit of the year and develop enough proficiency to be able to use it at other times to complement existing pedagogies. Inclusion. The direct PAL strategies reviewed, particularly PT, are certainly an appropriate accommodation in inclusion settings for students with intellectual and physical disabilities in physical education. There is no evidence at this stage about the role of CL strategies and inclusion. There is some evidence that for students with poor social skills, CL might, in some cases, exacerbate stress among students. There is an important caveat to add here: We still know little about any PAL strategy from a social inclusion perspective. Use of Strategies. It is possible to situate the direct forms of PAL on a continuum of use beginning with PT, which can be used to assist individual members of the class who need extra help such as low-skilled students or new students, to CWPT, which can be used as an instructional strategy for students learning new skills, to PMA, which can be used as an effective instructional strategy for students who have basic skills and need opportunities to practice, to peer assessment, in which students observe and record their partners performance. There is too little data at this point to talk directly about specific CL strategies. How Best to Group Students. There is little to say at this stage in the research about how best to group students. Most studies used self-selection, so in the absence of any strong data to the contrary and until we know more, there is no reason not to continue using either self-selection or grouping strategies specific to the goals of the strategy, such as pairing low-skilled students with more skilled students in PT or representing the heterogeneity of the class in CL groups. Accountability. One thing that is very clear from the research is the importance of creating both individual and group accountability. Regardless of whether the research is a direct method or CL strategy, classroom based or gymnasium based, the authors of such studies consistently note that the most effective strategies are those that by their design both hold individuals accountable and also held the group accountable. For example, in Jigsaw each student holds a piece of the puzzle for the project to be completed. The group cannot accomplish the task without the individual students completing their tasks.

Conclusions
The primary limitation of this review and its recommendations are the lack of outcome evidence and the number of studies that focused on a particular PAL strategy. Our analysis shows that the rationale for the use of peers to facilitate learning among students has not been as theoretically grounded as it has been practical. Regardless of methodology, the studies have focused principally on validating a PAL strategy by demonstrating its effectiveness compared with traditional instruction rather than elucidating the underlying theoretical elements demonstrated in the strategy.

Peer-Assisted Learning

221

Despite the lack of outcome data, the findings reviewed make this one of the more thoroughly researched areas in physical education. The studies have used a variety of methodologies and have generally concluded that the PAL strategies used in these studies are appropriate and often effective strategies to use in physical education. The evidence from the studies reviewed shows that children as young as third grade can be taught to assess each others performance, to provide feedback to peers, and to participate in collaborative group activities. It is clear that such outcomes are tied to the quality of the students training. Considerably more studies are necessary to assess the generalizability of the PAL strategies. Also needed are component analyses of the essential elements of a PAL strategy. In this review, we have shed little light on the social dimensions of PAL; interestingly, this might be the most common reason why teachers begin to use PAL strategies in their classes. There is also little discussion in the papers we have reviewed about the theories underlying a particular PAL strategy or its use. There is a clear need to remedy this omission in future research. Finally, we note that one of the most interesting discussions one can have about PAL is to ask teachers and researchers what primary outcomes they expect from it. For some, the outcomes are social. That is, the development of social interaction skills, which often include conflict resolution skills. For others it is the primary focus of the content, which tends to be driven either in terms of knowledge or psychomotor outcomes. Much of the future research ought to address the specific purposes of the PAL strategy being investigated.

References
Antil, L., Jenkins, J., Wayne, S., & Vadasy, P. (1998). Cooperative learning: Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the reflection between research and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 419-454. Barrett, T.M. (2000). Effects of two cooperative learning strategies on academic learning time, student performance, and social behavior of sixth-grade physical education students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 1781. Block, M., Oberweiser, B., & Bain, M. (1995). Using class-wide peer tutoring to facilitate inclusion of students with disabilities in regular physical education. Physical Educator, 52, 47-56. Blomquist, M. (1998). The effect of the reciprocal approach to teaching on the process of self-discovery for beginning modern dance students at the secondary level. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Brigham Young University. Bloom, B. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 4-16. Butler, S., & Hodge, S. (2001). Enhancing student trust through peer assessment in physical education. Physical Educator, 58(1), 30-39. Byra, M., & Marks, M. (1993). The effect of two pairing techniques on specific feedback and comfort levels of learners in the reciprocal style of teaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12, 286-300. Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-36. Cohen, P.A., Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A metaanalysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237-248.

222

Ward and Lee

Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Crouch, D., Ward, P., & Patrick, C. (1997). The effects of peer-mediated accountability on task accomplishment during volleyball drills in elementary physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 26-39. DArripe-Longueville, F., Gernigon, C., Huet, M., Cadopi, M., & Winnykamen, F. (2002). Peer tutoring in a physical education setting: Influence of tutor skill level on novice learners motivation and performance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 105-123. De Lisi, R. (2002). From marbles to instant messenger: Implications of Piagets ideas about peer learning. Theory into Practice, 41, 5-12. De Lisi, R., & Golbeck, S.L. (1999). Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning. In A.M. ODonnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 337). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DePaepe, J. (1985). The influence of three least restrictive environments on the content motor-ALT and performance of moderately mentally retarded students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, 34-41. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159-199. Dunkin, M., & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Dyson, B. (2001). Cooperative learning in an elementary physical education program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 264-281. Dyson, B. (2002). The implementation of cooperative learning in an elementary physical education program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 69-85. Dyson, B., & Strachan, K. (2000). Cooperative learning in a high school physical education program. Waikato Journal of Education, 6, 19-37. Ernst, M., & Byra, M. (1998). Pairing learners in the reciprocal style of teaching: Influence of student skill, knowledge, and socialization. The Physical Educator, 55(1), 24-37. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A metaanalysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70, 287-322. Gillen, J. (2000). Versions of Vygotsky. British Journal of Educational Studies, 48, 183198. Glassman, M. (1994). All things being equal: The two roads of Piaget and Vygotsky. Developmental Review, 14, 186-214. Glassman, M. (1995). The difference between Piaget and Vygotsky: A response to Duncan. Developmental Review, 15, 473-482. Goldberger, M., & Gerney, P. (1986). The effects of direct teaching styles on motor skill acquisition of fifth grade children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57(3), 215-219. Goldberger, M., Gerney, P., & Chamberlain, J. (1982). The effects of three styles of teaching on the psychomotor performance and social skill development of fifth grade children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 53(2), 116-124. Greenwood, C.R., Delquadri, J.C., & Hall, V.R. (1989). Longitudinal effects of class-wide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371-383. Greenwood, C.R., Maheady, L., & Carta, J.J. (1991). Peer tutoring programs in the regular education classroom. In G. Stoner, M.R. Shinn, & H.M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 179-200). Washington, DC: National Association for Psychologists.

Peer-Assisted Learning

223

Grineski, S. (1996). Cooperative learning in physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Heron, T.E., Welsch, R.G., & Goddard, Y.L. (2003). Tutoring programs applied in nonacademic subject areas: An analysis of skills, methodology, and results. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 288-300. Hill, G., & Miller, T. (1997). A comparison of peer and teacher assessment of students physical fitness performance. Physical Educator, 54(1), 40-46. Hineline, P. (1992). A self-interpretative behavior analysis. American Psychologist, 47, 12741286. Hoffman, J. (2002). Flexible grouping strategies in the multiage classroom. Theory into Practice, 41, 47-52. Hogan, D.M., & Tudge, J.R. (1999). Implications of Vygotskys theory for peer learning. In A.M. ODonnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 3965). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Houston-Wilson, C., Dunn, J., van der Mars, H., & McCubbin, J. (1997). The effect of peer tutors on motor performance in integrated physical education classes. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 14, 298-313. Ide, J.K., Parkerson, J., Haertel, G.D., & Walberg, H.J. (1981). Peer group influence on educational outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 472-484. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp.23-38). New York: Praeger. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, M., & Ward, P. (2001). Effects of class-wide peer tutoring on correct performance of striking skills in 3rd grade physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 247-263. Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. (1982). The effects of cooperative and individualistic instruction on handicapped and non-handicapped students. Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 257-268. Karau, S., & Williams, K. (1993) Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706. King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory into Practice, 41, 33-39. Kirk, D., & Macdonald, D. (1998). Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 376-387. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lieberman, L., Dunn, J., van der Mars, H., & McCubbin, J. (2000). Peer tutors effects on activity levels of deaf students in inclusive elementary physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17, 20-39. Litow, L., & Pumory, D.K. (1975). A brief review of classroom group-oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 341-347. Matusov, E. (2001). Vygotskijs theory of human development and new approaches to education In N.J. Smelser & P.B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 16,339-16,343), Amsterdam: Elsevier.

224

Ward and Lee

McMaster, K., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic achievement of student with learning disabilities: An updated of Tateyama-Sniezeks review. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 107-117. Moore, G., & Falls, H. (1970). Functional classification for physical education in the upper elementary grades by peer assessment. The Research Quarterly, 41, 519-522. Moore, R. (1996). Effects of the use of two different teaching styles on motor skill acquisition of fifth-grade students (Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 2940. Mosston, M. (1981). Teaching physical education. Columbus: C.E. Merrill. Murata, N. (1996). The effects of physical educators, teacher assistants and peer tutors on the academic learning time of students with and without disabilities in regular physical education (Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 3502. OConnor, R., & Jenkins, J. (1996). Cooperative learning as an inclusion strategy: A closer look. Exceptionality, 6(1), 29-51. ODonnell, A.M., & King, A. (1999.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Osguthorpe, R., & Scruggs, T. (1986). Special education students as tutors: A review and analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 7(4), 15-25. Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem in intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rattigan, P. (1997). A study of the effects of cooperative, competitive and individualistic goal structures on skill development, affect, and social integration in physical education classes. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 1637. Richard, J., Godbout, P., Tousignant, M., & Grehaigne, J. (1999). The try-out of a team sport performance assessment procedure in elementary and junior high school physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 336-356. Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9-27. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content time and direct instruction. In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications (pp. 28-53). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Schunk, D.H. (1987). Peer models and childrens behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57, 149-174. Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical education. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Siedentop, D., Doutis, P., Tsangaridou, N., Ward, P., & Rauschenbach, D. (1994). Dont sweat gym: An analysis of curriculum and instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13, 375-394. Skinner, B.F. (1974). About Behaviorism. London: Jonathan Cape. Slavin, R.E. (1990a). Comprehensive cooperative learning models: Embedding cooperative learning in the curriculum and school. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research (pp. 261-288). New York: Praeger. Slavin, R.E. (1990b). Point counterpoint: Ability grouping, cooperative learning and the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(1), 3-8.

Peer-Assisted Learning

225

Slavin, R.E. (1991). Cooperative learning and group contingencies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 105-115. Slavin, R.E., (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Smith, B. (1997). The effect of a cooperative learning intervention on the social skills enhancement of a third grade physical education class. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Idaho, 1996) Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 4306. Snow, R., & Lohman, D. (1984). Toward a theory of cognitive aptitude for learning from instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 347-376. Tankersley, M. (1995). A group-oriented contingency management program: A review of research on the good behavior game and implications for teachers. Preventing School Failure, 4, 19-24. Topping K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276. VanTassel-Baska, J., Landrum, M., & Peterson, K. (1992). Cooperative learning and gifted students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2(4), 405-414. Virgilio, S. (1984). The effects of command and reciprocal teaching styles on the cognitive, affective and psychomotor behavior of fifth grade pupils. Australian Journal of Science & Medicine in Sport, 16(3), 16-19. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes (A. R. Luria, M. Lopez-Morillas, M., Cole & J. Wertsch, Trans). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walberg, H.J. (1990). Productive teaching and instruction: Assessing the knowledge base. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 470-478. Ward, P. (1994). An experimental analysis of skill responding in high school physical education. (Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 2950. Ward, P., Smith, S., Makasci, K., & Crouch, D. (1998). Differential effects of peer mediated accountability in elementary physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 470-478. Webster, G. (1987). Influence of peer tutors upon academic learning time-physical education of mentally handicapped students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 393-403.