Read on

What is “Read On”?

Peer tutoring of reading in the primary (elementary) school is now commonplace. For both same-age and cross-age tutoring, the structured “Paired Reading” method (P.R.) has been intensively researched and found to be effective, yielding gains in Reading ability for both tutors and tutees if organised correctly. This project seeks to extend the Paired Reading method to give a more conscious focus on higher order reading skills – “Paired Reading and Thinking” (P.R.T.). Ten and eleven year olds (P6 and P7 in Scotland) are deployed as peer tutors for 6 and 7 year olds (P2 and P3), in a within-school cross-age format.

Five pilot local education authorities (school districts) across Scotland were selected from a list of those interested, and within each, pilot schools similarly selected. In Phase 1, teachers from the 13 schools were trained in the P.R. method and to select, match, train and monitor their pairs in school. After 6-7 weeks of P.R., Phase 2 commenced – the teachers were trained to instigate the P.R.T. development. Implementation integrity of the programme was kept under review in the project schools.

The reading ability of the peer tutors and tutees was assessed immediately prior to training the children in P.R., again shortly after the start of the P.R.T. development, and at follow up at the end of the academic year. Six of the 13 schools also tested control or comparison groups of tutors or tutees or both.

Since the initial pilot project many other schools have taken up the approach in the “Next Steps” phase, and further intensive research is being conducted.

This project is supported by BP Amoco and The Scottish Executive, and was part of the National Year of Reading in Scotland.

On this site, you will find information targeted on teachers and researchers. This includes many of the resource materials used in training the participating teachers, tutors and tutees for both Phase 1 (Paired Reading) and Phase 2 (Paired Reading and Thinking) (as downloadable files in various formats). There are also sections recording the comments of participating teachers and children in the project schools, the latter intended for access by children themselves. A developing section on Evaluation is followed by a selection of Useful Links and Email contact facility.

“A book is made better by good readers and clearer by good opponents”

 Nietzsche (1879)

Resources for Teachers

BP Read On Video Resource Pack

The Paired Reading and Thinking text resources for teachers include detailed practical guidance and freely reproducible materials to help teachers in planning, operating, monitoring and evaluating a project, together with materials for children to use.

Many of these are available for free downloading from the University of Dundee Read On website (see below).

Master copies of all these materials in the form of a project co-ordinator’s handbook are also available in the BP Read On Video Resource Pack, together with a video, lively newsletters, and sample supplementary materials for children and parents (introductory leaflets, bookmarks, stickers, posters, etc).

The video is particularly useful for professional development activities with teacher colleagues, and for demonstration purposes when training children to participate in projects. Further copies of the newsletters and supplementary materials for children can be ordered at no extra charge as required.

(Note that the video is in PAL VHS format. Educators needing an NTSC VHS version for use in the USA will need to make their own transfer locally or use a multi-system tape player).

A DVD is available at a nominal charge (£15 + £5 p&p). Order from: Centre for Peer Learning, School of Education, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, tel 01382 383000, email k.j.topping@dundee.ac.uk. Payment by cheque is required with the order.

In addition to those listed below, resources for Paired Reading, Thinking, Writing and Spelling will be found on the Thinking, Reading, Writing web page.

Phase 1 Paired Reading Resource Materials

Phase 2 Paired Reading & Thinking Resource Materials

Additional Resource Materials

Paired Reading & Thinking Monitoring Checklist

Phase 1: Paired Reading – Teacher Observations Questionnaire

Peer Tutoring : A Brief Guide for Parents

Children are often excited to be involved in peer tutoring, and talk about it at home. Rather than leave parents to ask questions, schools often inform them before the project starts. A “brief guide” to peer tutoring is given below. This is a reproducible taken from “Peer Assisted Learning: A Practical Guide for Teachers” by Keith Topping (Cambridge MA: Brookline Books, 2001).

Peer Tutoring: A Brief Guide

Part of life at school asks children to try to do better than other children. But another very important part of school life is helping other people. Children learn well in both ways.

History

Peer tutoring means having children help other children to learn. Sometimes older children help younger children, and sometimes more able children help less able children of the same age. The idea is a very old one, first noted hundreds of years ago. In Britain, Bell and Lancaster used peer tutoring a lot about 200 years ago. By 1816, 100,000 children were learning in this way. Peer tutoring then caught on in quite a few parts of the world.

As more and more schools for everyone were set up, paid for out of taxes, peer tutoring was used less and less. Helping children learn was taken over by paid adult teachers. However, in the 1960’s it began to be used on a large scale again, especially in the United States. Teachers came to grasp that peer tutoring was a great ‘boost’ or extra help for all children. Today, peer tutoring is again spreading rapidly in many parts of the world.

Effects

Many peer tutor projects focus on reading, the most vital skill of all. But a wide range of other subjects have also been peer tutored, including mathematics, spelling, writing, languages and science. The tutors are not just being ‘used’, because they gain as much, if not more, than the tutees. To be able to tutor a subject, you have to really get to understand it well. So tutoring helps the tutors learn faster, too.

There is no doubt that peer tutoring ‘works’. There is a lot of research showing that in peer tutoring projects, the tutors improve as much, if not more than, the tutees. Many studies show that peer tutoring also improves how both tutor and tutee feel about the subject area – they get to like it more. Also, in many cases the tutor and tutee grow to like each other more, and get on better. There are many reports of both tutor and tutee showing more confidence and better behaviour. The research clearly shows that peer tutoring is one of the most effective ways of using school time.

Some projects have tutors and tutees of the same age, and some have older children as the tutors. Any difference in age does not seem to matter, as long as the tutor is more able in the subject area than the tutee. If the tutors and tutees are not too far apart in age and ability, there may be even more chance of the tutor gaining as a result. Some schools are also now tutoring with pairs of the same ability, where the job of tutor switches from one to the other (this needs very careful planning).

Planning

Peer tutoring takes time and care to set up properly, and it is the professional teacher who has the skill to do this. Plans must be made about matching child pairs, finding the right sort of materials, training tutors and tutees, and lots of other points of organisation. However, this time is worthwhile, for peer tutoring is very effective. It is very cost-effective considering what is gained from a quite small amount of professional teacher time. For many pairs, peer tutoring also has good spin-off in terms of better social harmony and more interest in other subject areas. Teachers often start peer tutoring in reading, but then become more confident in using the method in other subject areas.

Scope

Some primary (elementary) schools are now offering all young children the chance to be a tutee, and all the older children the chance to be a tutor. This helps to settle the young children into the school socially, and gives a boost to the older children, who feel very grown-up and responsible. In high schools parents can lose touch with what their children are doing, but peer tutoring is often more and more popular with children as they move up through the school. Like any other way of effective teaching or managing learning, setting up peer tutor projects needs enthusiasm, careful planning and hard work on the part of the teacher. It would be a great mistake to think of peer tutoring as an easy option.

“A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices”

William James

Peer Assisted Learning: A Practical Guide for Teachers

Keith Topping

Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books (2000)

Peer Assisted Learning can be defined as the acquisition of knowledge and skill through active helping and supporting among status equals or matched companions. PAL involves people from similar social groupings who are not professional teachers helping each other to learn and learning themselves by so doing.

This book is a practical guide for teachers in how to plan and effectively implement different kinds of Peer Assisted Learning in any area of the curriculum – in a way which integrates with and complements direct teaching by professionals. It covers many different kinds of peer tutoring, and also other kinds of Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) such as peer modelling, peer monitoring of learning behaviour and peer assessment of learning products. It considers the use of PAL with students of all ages, abilities, and linguistic and cultural backgrounds, organized so that both helper and helped gain in achievement. It is solidly based on decades of research evidence and practical experience. It builds upon Keith Topping’s previous (1988) book for Brookline (“The Peer Tutoring Handbook”), but substantially updates and goes far beyond it.

The long history of Peer Assisted Learning and the mass of research evidence on its effectiveness are reviewed, but only briefly, since this is readily available in greater depth elsewhere if required. The advantages and disadvantages of Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) are summarized, and the processes through which it has its effects outlined. A typology of different kinds of Peer Assisted Learning then gives teachers a clear framework (or “menu”) for choosing the PAL method most appropriate for their needs and context. The core of the book is the extensive guide to planning and implementing the chosen PAL method effectively. This is coupled with a detailed reproducible Planning Format, useful for structuring preliminary thinking and subsequent planning meetings, and for recording organizational decisions. Reproducible information for parents is also included. Ways of evaluating PAL projects within limited time and resources are then reviewed, given the frequent need to demonstrate cost-effectiveness locally. Embedding and extending PAL so it is more than an ephemeral novelty is discussed. Further readings, sources and resources (both paper-based and from the Internet) are recommended.

Contents

1. Introduction
2. The History of Peer Assisted Learning (PAL)
3. Research Evidence for Effectiveness
4. How It Works
5. Types of Peer Assisted Learning
6. Planning and Implementing PAL
7. Structured Planning Format
8. Evaluating Your PAL Program
9. Embedding and Extending PAL
10. Sources and Resources 
    Information for Parents (Reproducible) 
    References

This book is published in the USA, and might be more readily available from www.Amazon.com than from www.Amazon.co.uk, for example. Or contact the publishers direct: http://www.brooklinebooks.com.

Teachers’ Voices and Research

Informal Feedback

Feedback from Schools at Phase 2 Training Days

Context and Organisation

In general, sessions are working very well with pupils highly motivated. Some children have asked for more sessions and for Paired Reading during playtime! Even reluctant readers are now more keen to read. Listening skills have improved and children are reading with more expression outwith the Paired Reading sessions. Tutors are very caring and good relationships are developing across different year groups and between sexes. In some cases this has generalised to the playground. The project is building confidence and self-esteem and there is an improvement in behaviour in classes in general. Other staff in schools are supportive of the project and specialist teachers have been flexible about timetabling.

Some teachers feel that they have underestimated the time Paired Reading would take from the normal curriculum, and in some cases sessions are lasting up to 40 minutes, which is too long. There has also been some difficulty in finding the physical space for the sessions in some schools.

Materials

There has been excellent support from the Schools’ Library Service. Children are enjoying the choice of books and even recommending books to others. The choice of books is perhaps limited at both ends of the spectrum, however. Selection of books by teachers was time consuming, and it was difficult to know what the children would like. Some teacher direction in choice of book has been necessary at times, often due to the tendency of girls to choose fiction all the time. Some children are racing through the books as if this is the aim of the session – there may be a need for more books. Some schools felt there should be some form of reward for tutors in recognition of their positive social behaviour.

Selection and Matching of Children

All children, regardless of ability, have been included in the project. In general, pairs are working well, with only a few needing teacher intervention. Some schools have paired pupils using 5-14 assessments as the basis for estimating reading ability. Due to absence, children have had to adapt to working with different partners. This has made a positive contribution to their social development. Absence and school closure due to bad weather have caused disruption, and it was suggested that the Autumn or Spring terms might have been a better time of year to implement the project.

Parental Involvement

Most parents are positive and supportive. A few parents, however, have expressed concern that their child may be missing some other aspect of the curriculum due to the project.

Training

Training has been effective, with most pairs needing only an occasional reminder. The training gave the P3 children confidence in the ability of P6 to follow the procedure. Training was more difficult with the less able readers, whereas the more able children picked it up quickly.

Support and Monitoring

The process of Paired Reading leaves the teacher free to monitor the children’s interaction. The less able readers need more close monitoring. A few children are finding discussion and praise difficult. Some are getting so involved in reading that they are forgetting to read alone. Pupil monitors are developing social skills and gaining insight into the reading process. Some schools have developed their own recording system (e.g. using stickers), which reflects the school’s method of rewarding good work.

Feedback

Circle Time has been used to find out how the children feel and to sustain their motivation. The project has encouraged communication between peers, and between child and teacher, through discussion of the books.

Evaluation

There was some concern over the validity of the Primary Reading Test and the correlation between it and other methods of assessment used by teachers. The test was too difficult for some less able children, who became anxious. Some of the pictures were too culture specific.

Summary compiled by Angela Bryce, with Stephanie Allan, Julie Horn, Rick Walsh, and Sarah Wyatt

Insch Primary School

“All of our children are very much enjoying the process and obviously feel that they are learning a lot. I’ve also surveyed their parents and all responses so far are very positive. Thank you for the chance to take part in this.”

“The experience of the Paired Reading project has been very worthwhile and we are very grateful that we were able to be included.”

Bainsford Primary School

” We found it a very positive experience and fully intend to continue with Paired Reading and Thinking in the Future. Can I thank you for supporting our involvement in this project.”

Sunnybank Primary School

“Factual books have been particularly useful in the Paired Reading and Thinking part of the programme, as they generate a tremendous amount of discussion between tutors and tutees. We have found it a very worthwhile experience.”

Woodside Primary School

“Staff and pupils have enjoyed being part of the project and have certainly found the experience worthwhile.”

Anon

“To start with, we were concerned about what the reading tests might show. But when we saw the social gains, we didn’t care what the test results said. We know they have improved.”

Children’s Voices

Langlees Primary School

At this school, the tutees and tutors take part in Circle Time activities to help explore how they are feeling about Read On and how it might be improved. These sessions are sometimes captured on video. Here are some of the thoughts of the tutors and tutees a few weeks into the project. 

TUTEES

“I like it when ….”

“I like it because there are lots of books to read.” 
“I like it when I get to choose my own books.” 
“I like it when I get all the words right” 
“I like it when we are reading.” 
“I like the books.” 
“I like it when I get smiley faces.” 
“I like drawing smiley faces” 
“I like filling in the sheet.”

“I don’t like it when ….”

“I don’t like it when we have to stop!” 
“I don’t like it when the P7s are going too fast and we can’t catch up with them.” 
“I don’t like it when your partner sometimes can’t read the words.” 
“I like it when I can read the book by myself.” 
“I don’t like it when I get muddled up.” 
“I don’t like it when it gets boring – when you do too much reading.” 
“I don’t like it when you’ve got to talk loud.” 
“I don’t like it when the teacher tells you to be quiet when you’re reading out loud.” 
“I don’t like it when you’ve got to sit on the floor.” 
“I don’t like it when my partner goes too slow.”

“Read On is ….”

“Read On is perfect and brilliant.” 
“Read On is fun.” 
“Read On is good.” 
“Read On is wonderful.” 
“Read On is great.” 
“Read On is excellent.” 
“Read On is the best thing in school. ” 
“Read On is fantastic.” 
“Read On is really, really good.”

TUTORS

“What I think about Read On….”

“I enjoy it. The new P7s need to try it next year. You make friends.” 
“I like the pair I’m in. It’s going well.” 
“It’s a good idea. You can laugh at the jokes together. Shouldn’t swap partners.” 
“The best readers in P7 should work with the worst readers in P3.” 
“The poor P7s should work with the poor P3s. You don’t want the P3s showing off.” 
“There should be stamps or stickers as rewards for the P3s.” 
“There should be a calendar to say who is off.” 
“Maybe they (the tutees) could draw pictures so they could remember the books. You 
could look at their understanding and their drawings then.” 
“People might make fun of their drawings though.” 
“Could do book review tests” 
“Could take turns choosing the books.” 
“Sometimes the tutees pick too easy books like pop-ups and they don’t learn new words.” 
“Get them to try harder books. You could help them with harder books.” 
“Sometimes the P3 chooses the same book all the time.”

“Read On is ….”

“Read On is learning.” 
“Read On is better for the tutees.” 
“Read On is enjoyable.” 
“Read On is super.” 
“Read On is magnificent.” 
“Read On is going well.” 
“Read On is progressing.” 
“Read On is brilliant.” 
“Read On is fun.” 
“Read On is all right.” 
“Read On is good.” 
“Read On is superb.” 
“Read On is co-operating.”

summary compiled by Whitney Barrett

Bankier Primary School

I enjoy Paired Reading because you get to read a lot of different kind of books including novels, information books or story books. I also think that P6s and P3s learn a lot because if they are stuck we can help if they ever have problems. My Paired Reading partner (Emma Gaitens) reads well, talks well about books and she has very good knowledge about things. I would enjoy Paired Reading much more if rather than 15 minutes a day maybe about 20-25 minutes. If it was, Paired Reading would be even better and I would enjoy it even more and so would everyone else.

Daniel Henderson

I like Paired Reading because it helps everybody. My reader is Derek. He tries hard at words.

Zoe Parker

Paired Reading is fun. I like it. I like it because the books are funny.

John M

I like Paired Reading because I have a good partner. It is good and it is fun.

Karen

My reader is a very good reader. He tried very hard at difficult words. My reader’s name is Kris Ferguson.

Kayleigh Inglis

I like Paired Reading. You get to read on your own when you do a signal.

Kirstie

I like Paired Reading because it is fun. I have read all of the book.

Rachel Allan

I like Paired Reading because you get to read lots of books.

Ashleigh

I like the Paired Reading because it helps P3 and us too.

Sarah McGuire

I like Paired Reading because it is fun and you learn more words.

Rachel Carter

I like Paired Reading because it is fun and you get to choose what book you like. I also like my partner Lyndsey.

LeighAnn

I like Paired Reading because I learn new words.

Craig Ferguson

I like Paired Reading because you can learn to read better.

Debbie

I love Paired Reading because I learn to read more words then I will be able to read books by myself.

Thomas

I like Paired Reading because the pictures in the books are good.

Grieg

I like Paired Reading because it is fun and good.

Alan

I like the BP Read On project because I think it develops both classes’ reading skills.

Emma Robertson

I like Paired Reading because you have a helper to help you.

Johnny

I like Paired Reading because your helper is there to help you.

John Hixon

I like Paired Reading because the P6 helper is always there.

Francis

Reading Between The Lives: Paired Reading with Sibling Dyads in a Bilingual and Monolingual Infants School

Abstract

A brief (10 session) paired-reading project was carried at two Infants schools, involving 12 sibling (and 3 non-sibling) dyads in a bilingual school and 4 sibling (and 3 non-sibling) dyads in a monolingual school. A peer-tutoring approach was adopted, pairing Year 2 tutors with the Reception/Year 1 tutees. The initial cognitive focus on gains in word recognition and comprehension of simple text was expanded to accommodate the larger socio-cultural dimension that emerged during the process. Data collected through interviews with the children and Heads and questionnaires completed by some parents and teachers was qualitatively analysed using Atlas ti. Noticeable improvement was reported in reading on the part of tutors and tutees alike, with ‘SEN’ children benefiting the most. Raised self-confidence and improved behaviour were additional gains. Areas relating to home/school relationships were strengthened. The research process, explaining the evolving adaptations is included and limitations of the study discussed.

Bina Radia-Bond (BSc project, University of Luton, May 2001)

Bina comments informally: “I was highly inspired by my project (not least as I am Literacy governor of our an infants school and was delighted to witness its potential!) and would love to progress it further.”

Evaluation

Outcomes of the Pilot Phase

Paired Reading has previously been subject to a great deal of evaluative research. Indeed, it is one of the most thoroughly researched approaches in use in education. Reports on its use throughout the world, including in some extremely impoverished and chaotic contexts, will be found in the literature (see Topping, 1995, 2001). Many of these reports describe the use of Paired Reading with parents rather than peers as tutors.

Here we will confine ourselves to reporting the main evaluation results from the 13 Read On pilot schools, firstly from Phase 1 (Paired Reading) and secondly from Phase 2 (Paired Reading and Thinking). Details will be found in Topping, K. J. (2001), Thinking Reading Writing: A Practical Guide To Paired Learning with Peers, Parents & Volunteers, New York & London: Continuum International. (Click here for details)

Phase 1 Teacher Observation Results

At the end of Phase 1, each participating teacher was asked to record their summary observations of child behaviour relevant to the aims of the project. They were asked to comment only on children in their class whose reading they knew before Paired Reading started, and only indicate change if:

• you have observed it,
• it is significant,
• it has definitely occurred since PR started

The response rate was 33 out of 34 possible (97%). One teacher had left the school.

The summary results are displayed in Figure 1 for behaviour in the classroom during Paired Reading, and in Figure 2 for behaviour in other activities in the classroom and outside the classroom within school.

It is clear that regarding the former, very few teachers had not observed a positive shift in the majority of their children. Regarding generalisation of positive effects to other subject areas and outside the classroom, the effects are not as strong (as would be expected), but are still very positive. The improvement in motivation during the PR sessions was particularly striking. Especially worthy of note was the improvement in ability to relate to each other – and that their social competence improved both during PR and beyond it.

Figure 1: 
Teacher Observations: During The PR Sessions

Figure 2: 
Teacher Observations: Outside The PR Sessions

Phase 1 Teacher Feedback
At the Phase 2 training, teachers gave their views about the problems and opportunities of Phase 1. A summary was collated by group scribes, and will be found in the Teacher’s Voices section of this web site.

Phase 1 Child Feedback
At Langlees Primary School, the tutees and tutors take part in Circle Time activities to help explore how they are feeling about Read On and how it might be improved. These sessions are sometimes captured on video. Some of the thoughts of the tutors and tutees will be found in the Children’s Voices section of this web site.

The subjective evaluative responses of children from Bankier Primary School – expressed in their own concepts and language – will be found in the same location.

Circle Time was used in a similar way by Woodside Primary School. At the end of Phase 1, tutors and tutees met together to share their thoughts and feelings about Paired Reading. Comments related to reading skills and personal and social development.

“I like Paired Reading because it helps you get harder reading books” (male tutee).
“I like Paired Reading because the books help you to get new knowledge” (male tutee).
“I like Paired Reading because I can get a lot of advice” (male tutee).
“I like Paired Reading because I like helping the little ones” (male tutor).
“I like Paired Reading because I think it makes you more mature” (female tutor).
“I like Paired Reading because it gives you more responsibility” (male tutor).

The tutors spoke a great deal about the enjoyment of being able to help:

“It helps the little ones to read more books”.
“I’ve learned that little ones are not just little kids, they can be really good”.
“I’ve learned more about reading skills and how not to just rush through books”.
“I’ve gained a lot. It gives you more responsibility and I think it’s encouraged the tutors to read more and to read a different variety of books – not just what you normally read”.

At Holy Cross Primary School, four pairs were interviewed together, and expressed their views confidently:

“Before the project, reading was boring … now it’s fun…”
“Helping the younger ones was good because we (tutors) got the chance to go back over ‘younger’ books…we wouldn’t normally be able to do this because people would say they were too easy for us or that we would be silly…”
“It’s easier than reading with the teacher”.
“We actually got to talk about the books, too”.
“It makes you shy when you read for the teacher, but not when you read with the P6s (tutors)”.
“I liked the project – it has helped my reading”.
“It makes you feel good, giving the wee ones some help”.
“Paired Reading got us out of doing some history”.
“It would be better if it lasted all year”.

At Bervie Primary School, tutors and tutees completed feedback questionnaires after their Phase 1 Paired Reading experiences.

TUTEES
Paired Reading has led to:

(a) Not liking all kinds of reading 
(b) Liking all reading better

(a) Getting better at all kinds of reading 
(b) Getting no better at all kinds of reading

(a) Go on peer tutoring as often as now 
(b) Go on tutoring, but not so often 
(c) Go on tutoring, but with a different tutee 
(d) Be tutored yourself, by someone better 
(e) Tutor reading, but in a different way 
(f) Tutor something else, like maths or spelling

Phase 1 Reading Test Results: Caveats

The Primary Reading Test used in the pilot is a relatively inexpensive and quickly administered norm-referenced multiple-choice group test of reading comprehension based on isolated incomplete sentences. It has been normed in Scotland as well as elsewhere in the UK, the manual gives evidence that it is adequately reliable and valid, and it has been widely used over many years. However, in part owing to its structure and brevity, it is not very sensitive to complex changes in reading capability. Some of the pilot teachers felt parts of it were rather dated.

Although the test raw scores yielded both reading ages and standardised scores, the reading ages were very undiscriminatory in the lower reaches (a “floor” effect), and standardised scores will be cited here. The Scottish norms consistently yielded lower scores than the English norms (because reading standards are higher in Scotland than England), but the two sets of standardised scores correlated very highly (0.99) and the Scottish will be cited here. When interpreting standardised scores, remember that no change in standardised score between testing indicates a normal rate of gain over that time, while gains in standardised scores indicate a greater than normal rate of gain. Also remember that the majority of children in this project were in relatively disadvantaged schools, and their average score before the project started was well below average in many cases – in other words, what was a “normal” rate of gain for most children was not normal for them.

Although the pilot tutors and tutees took the standard version at pre-test, a parallel form at post-test, and the standard version again at follow-up (to reduce content practice effects), the impact on child motivation of being required to take essentially the same test on three occasions within a seven month period is a source of concern. If only a few children in a class are unmotivated to re-take the test, their scores can show a sharp decline, so that on average the whole class appears not to have gained. The scores of some individuals in some schools were extremely erratic from one testing to the next, and pilot schools were counselled not to attach much significance to the results of individual children, and instead to consider the average (or “mean”) gains of groups of children. Additionally, where several classes in a school participated, results were often very different between different classes. This might reflect nothing more than differences in the circumstances in which the tests were given. There were a number of classes in which the teachers reported marked observational evidence of improved reading attainment where this was not apparent in the test results.

“Control” groups were available in a minority of schools, were often much smaller than “experimental” groups, and often proved to be of doubtful comparability, in that their mean pre-test scores were often very different on average to those of the experimentals (this sometimes came as a surprise to the schools).

The pilot project was essentially an action research effort carried forward by practising teachers within their own classrooms. A modest amount of process data on actual implementation was gathered for six schools, and analysis relating implementation integrity to test outcomes is in hand. Some schools were offered and accepted some consultative support from the Centre for Paired Learning, but this was by no means intensive, not least because one intention was to establish whether this type of project could operate successfully without a substantial injection of extra resources.

Finally, although statistical significance is mentioned below, statistical significance is notoriously hard to obtain with small sample sizes, and a change might be educationally significant even if it not statistically significant.

Phase 1 Reading Test Results

In Phase 1, gains were clearly seen for both tutees and tutors. A striking example of gains for tutors was at Insch school, where the mean gain for tutors in one term (lasting 3 months) equated to 13.56 months of reading age.

At Langlees school, gains for tutees were substantially greater than for their control group (see Figure 3 below).

Figure 3: 
Pre-Post Gains For Tutees & Tutee Controls

Figure 4: 
Pre-Post Gains For Tutees, Tutee Controls, & Tutors

In this school, the tutees’ average pre-test score was well below that of the controls, i.e. the two groups were not really exactly comparable. However, the tutees made substantial gains, while the controls stayed the same. So the tutees almost caught up with the controls.

In Sunnybank school in two participating classes, the picture was similar (see Figure 4).

Again, tutee controls were more able at pre-test than tutees, and therefore not strictly comparable. The Tutee pre-post gain was statistically significant at p<0.005. (In research, statistical analysis allows you to work out how probable it is that the gain happened just by random chance. In this case, the probability that this gain happened just by random chance was 5 in one thousand, or 0.5%. Researchers usually consider a probability of p<0.05 or 5% to be enough to consider the gain “statistically significant”, but the smaller the probability, the stronger the confidence in the result). The difference in change between tutees and controls was significant at p<0.010.

The tutor pre-post gain was significant at p<0.014. Reading ages for the tutors indicate average gains of 1.02 years of reading age in one term (lasting 3 months) (p<0.010).

At Bainsford school, control groups were available for both tutees and tutors (see Figure 5), (results given in reading ages on this occasion):

Figure 5: Pre-Post Gains For Tutees & Tutors, & Their Controls

All 13 schools and 34 classes were then considered in aggregate (in 4 classes not all children were involved, often because they were mixed-age classes, so the equivalent of 32 full classes participated).

For Tutees in 16 full classes, 9 classes showed gains which reached statistical significance, 6 classes showed gains which did not reach statistical significance, and one class did not show a gain (remember zero gain on standardised score = a “normal” rate of progress).

For Tutors in 16 full classes, 7 classes showed gains which reached statistical significance, 8 classes showed gains which did not reach statistical significance, and one class did not show a gain.

For tutees the gain in standardised score was from a pre-test average of 90.4 to a post-test average of 94.0 (full data available for n=342 tutees). This gain was highly statistically significant (p<0.000) (the probability was so small that when giving results only to three places of decimals, as we have done here, it doesn’t seem to exist at all). The control children also gained on average, but only from 91.3 to 93.9 (n=61).

For tutors the gain in standardised score was from a pre-test average of 91.6 to a post-test average of 95.4 (full data available for n=344 tutors). This gain was highly statistically significant (p<0.000). The control children also gained on average, from 90.6 to 95.7, but there were only 29 control children in aggregate.

Overall, the results of comparisons with control groups were patchy. There were Tutor control groups in 4 schools, and Tutee control groups (CGs) in these and another two schools (totalling 7 classes). All CGs were very small (n=5-13). CG and Experimental groups rarely equivalent at pre-test. Ten out of 11 CGs showed signs of regression to the mean. For Tutors, in four out of four cases the experimental gain was not significantly different from the control gain. For the tutees, in four out of seven cases the experimental group gained more than the control group, but in only one case did this difference reach statistical significance.

Phase 1 Reading Test Results: Effect of Reading Ability

An analysis was conducted of the relationship between pre-test reading ability and amount of gain in Phase 1. Overall, the least able tutees gain most, and the least able tutors gain most.

Low ability tutors produced tutee gains at least equivalent to those produced by high ability tutors. Low ability tutors themselves gained more than high ability tutors, irrespective of the ability of their tutee. Low ability pairings were good for both tutees and tutors in terms of test outcomes.

Pairing low ability tutees with high ability tutors was good for the tutees but not for the tutors, in terms of test outcomes. Pairing high ability tutees with low ability tutors was good for the tutors but not for the tutees. High ability tutors gained more if paired with a high ability tutee, but this was no better for the tutee.

These findings suggested that exact pair matching was perhaps less important than pre-project ability.

However, the statistical phenomenon of regression to the mean might have influenced these findings (however improbable such artefacts seem to teachers who find it very difficult to raise the test scores of the weakest pupils).

Phase 1 Reading Test Results: Effect of Gender

An analysis was conducted of the relationship between pre-test reading ability and gender of the child in Phase 1. Overall, female tutees did better than male tutees, but male tutors did better than female tutors.

Pilot teachers had been encouraged to match children by ability differential, disregarding gender, but nevertheless cross gender matching proved to be less usual. However, cross gender matching actually yielded better tutee gains than same-gender matching, and was good for tutors as well.

Male-Male pairs appeared very good for the tutor, but not for the tutee (contrary to previous findings of high gains for both partners in this constellation). Female-Female pairs did least well on aggregate.

Phase 2 Reading Test Results

Not all the Phase 1 pilot schools felt able to mount the extension to Paired Thinking in Phase 2, although the majority did. However, in those schools implementing Paired Thinking, practice was very various. Some schools continued with three sessions per week, but some only had one session per week, which was unlikely to yield a measurable difference. As noted earlier, the group test of reading comprehension used was expected to show some correlation with increases in thinking skills, but Paired Thinking actually involved less time reading and more time discussing than Paired Reading, so a paradoxical effect was possible. Additionally, some schools ended their Paired Thinking experiment quite early in the summer term, while others continued almost to the end of the academic year. In short, it is far from clear what the Phase 2 Reading Test Results are actually measuring. These difficulties were further compounded when not all of the 13 schools managed to complete the follow-up test before the end of the academic year.

A further complication is that reading test norms typically track the progress of children over a full calendar year, while the school year is shorter, and progress over the school year might well be uneven. For instance, it is possible that most of the growth in reading ability occurs in the Autumn and Spring terms, as the Summer term is often devoted to wider ranging activities and little reading might be done by children during the long summer holiday. If this is the case, to show no change in standardised score (i.e. to sustain a “normal” rate of growth in reading) during the Summer term might be construed as a “good” outcome.

Considering the follow-up results available at the time of writing, it is striking that 70 per cent of the control groups showed a fall in standardised scores from post-test levels. This suggests that to have showed no change at follow-up is indeed a good outcome.

Of those schools which implemented Paired Thinking, for Tutees seven classes showed no gain, two showed gains which did not reach statistical significance, and one showed gains which did reach statistical significance. For Tutors five classes showed no gain, three showed gains which did not reach statistical significance, and one showed gains which did reach statistical significance. This suggests that tutors benefited most consistently from the Paired Thinking phase, in terms of the crude measure of reading comprehension.

Of those schools which did not implement Paired Thinking, for previous Tutees one class showed no gain, one showed gains which did not reach statistical significance, and one showed gains which did reach statistical significance. For previous Tutors one class showed no gain, and two showed gains which did not reach statistical significance. Overall, it was difficult to see consistent differences between PR only and PRT classes.

The Phase 2 test results are reported in greater detail in Topping (2001).

Phase 2 Child Feedback

The tutors and tutees at Langlees Primary School expressed their thoughts separately about the transition to Paired Thinking in two Circle Time sessions, held in May and June.

At the first session, each group split into pairs to discuss how Paired Thinking is different from Paired Reading. The facilitator emphasised that there were no right or wrong answers to this question. When the whole group reconvened, each child was invited to share some of the things they had been discussing with their partner. After this, each child was asked to offer a single word to describe Paired Thinking.

At the second session, each group split into pairs to discuss what they like best, Paired Reading or Paired Thinking. They were also asked to discuss why they chose the answer they did. The facilitator emphasised that there were no right or wrong answers to these questions. When the whole group reconvened, each child was invited to share some of the things they had been discussing with their partner. After this, each child was asked to offer a single word to describe Paired Thinking.

TUTEE FIRST SESSION

Paired Thinking is different from Paired Reading because….

“Paired Thinking is different from Paired Reading because you get different books.” (boy) 
“Paired Thinking is different from Paired Reading because you get new questions and more questions.” (girl) 
“Paired Thinking is different from Paired Reading because you get new partners.” (boy) 
“Paired Thinking is different from Paired Reading because you are with different teachers all the time.” (girl) 
“Paired Thinking is different from Paired Reading because you get to ask your partner questions.” (girl) 
“Paired Thinking is different from Paired Reading because you get to do the five finger test.” (girl) 
“Paired Thinking is different from Paired Reading because you get a new sheet with answers on it (Tips for Tutors).” (boy) 
“Paired Thinking is different from Paired Reading because you get prompt cards.” (girl) 
“Paired Thinking is different from Paired Reading because you get 21 top tips.” (girl) 
“Paired Thinking is different from Paired Reading because you get different sheets to fill in.” (girl) 
Three children chose to Pass.

Paired Thinking is….

“good”, “brilliant”, “excellent”, “brilliant”, “extra-good”, “fantabulous”, “extra-fantastic”, “good”, “superb”, “triple good”, “extra-fabulous”, “hard”.

TUTEE SECOND SESSION

I like Paired Reading best because ….

“I like Paired Reading best because you don’t get questions.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Reading best because you don’t get as much questions.” (boy) 
“I like Paired Reading best.” (boy) 
“I like Paired Reading best because you don’t get to answer questions and I liked the partner I had for Paired Reading.” (boy) 
“I like Paired Reading best because you get less questions.” (boy)

I like Paired Thinking best because ….

“I like Paired Thinking best because you get new books and a new partner.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Thinking best because you get more questions.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Thinking best because you get new partners and new sheets to fill in.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Thinking best because you get prompt cards and sheets for your tutor to fill in. You also get a bigger range of books.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Thinking best because you get prompt cards and a change of partner.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Thinking best because you get harder books and asked more questions than Paired Reading.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Thinking best because I got a new partner, prompt sheets and more questions and sometimes, you can laugh at the questions.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Thinking best because I got the partner I wanted.” (boy)

Paired Thinking is ….

“good”, “excellent”, “brilliant”, “fantastic”, “fabulous”, “excellent”, “good”, “great”, “fabulous”, “excellent” , “brilliant”, “fabulous”, “brilliant”.

TUTOR FIRST SESSION

Paired Thinking is different from Paired Reading because ….

Answers included: that Paired Thinking involves more questioning than Paired Reading, there are prompt cards and other new materials such as Tips for Tutors and a revised diary, and that pairs do not do as much actual reading in Paired Thinking as they do during Paired Reading. Problems included the difficulty some tutors and tutees had understanding some of the prompt questions and also that not all these were appropriate for the book being read.

Paired Thinking is ….

Most acknowledged that Paired Thinking was more difficult than Paired Reading for both the tutees and the tutors. Some tutors thought this was an advantage because it ‘stretched’ all those involved more, while others thought this was a distinct disadvantage!

TUTOR SECOND SESSION

I like Paired Reading best because ….

“I like Paired Reading best because there’s not so many questions.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Reading best because there’s some questions, but not so many as Paired Thinking.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Reading best because Paired Thinking has too many questions and sometimes the tutors don’t understand the questions themselves.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Reading best because there’s not as much questions.” (boy) 
“I like Paired Reading best because my tutee now (for Paired Thinking) is too bossy.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Reading best because the Paired Thinking questions are a bit hard for the younger ones and sometimes I don’t understand the questions.” (boy) 
“I like Paired Reading best because when you do Paired Thinking you have to interrupt the book you’re reading, but you don’t have to with Paired Reading.” (boy)
“I like Paired Reading best because with Paired Thinking you don’t get as far with the book. You can’t get onto the next chapter.” (boy) 
“I like Paired Reading best because when you’ve got a good book you don’t like a sking questions because you won’t get it finished.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Reading best because it’s much easier for everyone.” (boy) 
“I like Paired Reading best because it’s helpful.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Reading best because there’s not as much questions to ask the younger ones.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Reading best because you can chat to the child and it’s more socialising.” (girl)

I like Paired Thinking best because ….

“I like Paired Thinking best because the children don’t just pick up any book they think will be easy, because you’ve got a sheet with questions on that you must ask them.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Thinking best because you get a different tutee and you get harder books.” (girl) 
“I like Paired Thinking best because it will be better for us when we go to high school and it’s better for the little ones too.” (boy) 
“I like Paired Thinking best because it encourages both the tutor and the tutee to read more.” (boy)

Paired Thinking is …

“hard”, “sociable”, “okay”, “wonderful”, “easy”, “more harder”, “superb”, “okay”, “difficult”, “hard”, “all right”, “difficult”, “brilliant”, “excellent”, “tempting”, “educational”, “a wee bit harder although sometimes it’s OK.”

Overall, it seems that Paired Thinking was most popular with tutees, but less popular than Paired Reading with the tutors, for whom it involved a lot of strenuous thinking.

Summary & Conclusions

In Phase 1 Paired Reading, teachers reported that most pairs worked well together and adhered to the method in which they had been trained, with evident social benefits. Very few teachers had not observed a positive shift in the majority of their children, especially in reading motivation and including in social competence, and generalisation of positive effects to other subject areas and outside the classroom had been observed. The feedback from the children was also generally very positive.

On a group reading comprehension test, 15 out 16 classes of tutees showed gains above the “normal” rate of progress, and 15 out 16 classes of tutors gains above the “normal” rate. Average tutee gain in standardised score was from 90.4 to 94.0 (highly statistically s ignificant, p<0.000); average tutor gain in standardised score was from 91.6 to 95.4 (highly statistically significant, p<0.000). Results of comparisons with control groups (which were often very small) were patchy. For Tutors, experimental gain was generally not significantly different from the control gain. For Tutees, in four out of seven cases the experimental group gained more than the control group, but in only one case did this reach statistical significance.

From test results overall, the least able tutees gained most, and the least able tutors gained most. Low ability tutors produced tutee gains at least equivalent to those produced by high ability tutors. Low ability pairings were good for both tutees and tutors in terms of test outcomes. Overall, female tutees did better than male tutees, but male tutors did better than female tutors. However, cross gender matching yielded better tutee gains than same-gender matching, and was good for tutors as well.

In Phase 2 Paired Reading and Thinking, many schools implemented only one session per week. Test gains were modest, with tutors doing best, but control groups tended to fall. Tutors appeared to have benefited most consistently from the Paired Thinking phase, in terms of the crude measure of reading comprehension. Overall, it was difficult to see consistent differences between PR only and PRT classes. Paired Thinking appeared more popular with tutees, but less popular than Paired Reading with the tutors, for whom it involved a lot of strenuous thinking.

The testing undertaken in Phases 1 and 2 was brief and superficial, and the scores of individual children were often very erratic. There is a need for a more intensive and rigorous study, assaying implementation integrity in detail using a range of ethnographic process measures, and using multiple outcome measures to triangulate assessment of Thinking gains in particular. Such a study is in hand, and will be reported in due course.

References & Further Reading

Topping, K. J. (1988) 
The Peer Tutoring Handbook 
Cambridge MA: Brookline Books

Topping, K. J. (1995) 
Paired Reading, Spelling & Writing: The handbook for teachers and parents. 
London & New York : Cassell

Topping, K. J. (1998) 
The Paired Science Handbook: Parental Involvement and Peer Tutoring in Science. 
London : Fulton; Bristol PA : Taylor & Francis

Topping, K. J. (2001) 
Peer Assisted Learning Click here for details) 
Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Topping, K. J. (2001) 
Thinking Reading Writing: A Practical Guide To Paired Learning with Peers, Parents & Volunteers. (Click here for details) 
New York & London: Continuum International.

Topping, K. J. & Bamford, J. (1998) 
Parental Involvement and Peer Tutoring in Mathematics and Science: Developing Paired Maths into Paired Science. 
London : Fulton; Bristol PA : Taylor & Francis

Topping, K. J. & Bamford, J. (1998) 
The Paired Maths Handbook: Parental Involvement and Peer Tutoring in Mathematics. 
London : Fulton; Bristol PA : Taylor & Francis

Topping, K. J. & Ehly, S. (eds.) (1998) 
Peer Assisted Learning. 
Mahwah NJ & London UK : Lawrence Erlbaum

Wolfendale, S. W. & Topping, K. J. (eds.) (1996) 
Family Involvement in Literacy: Effective partnerships in education. 
London & New York : Cassell

Useful Links

• Relevant Publications by Keith Topping (Co-Director of the ReadOn Project)
• Scottish Office Education and Industry Department
• Scottish Book Trust
• National Literacy Trust 
• Critical Thinking Community
• Dialogue Works: Transforming teaching and learning through dialogue and philosophy
• Reading & Writing for Critical Thinking Project
• Society for the Advancement of Philosophical Enquiry and Reflection in Education
• Teaching Thinking (Robert Fisher’s site) 
• Brainquest (games and activities linking reading and thinking)
• Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children

Contact

Please let us know of any related work or other interesting literature or links.

Email : Read On project staff at the Centre for Paired Learning

Those involved in the pilot project were: Keith Topping, Joe Hogan, Anna Fisher, Stephanie Allan, Fiona Anderson, Whitney Barrett, Angela Bryce, Julie Horn, Mary Taylor, Rick Walsh and Sarah Wyatt.