artigo_de_revisao[1]

8/3/2019 artigo_de_revisao[1]

1/22

Peer-Assisted Learning 205

JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, 2005, 24, 205-225

2005 HUMAN KINETICS, INC.

ARTICLES

Peer-Assisted Learning in Physical Education:

A Review of Theory and Research

Phillip Ward

The Ohio State University

Myung-Ah LeeIndiana 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 ofimplications for practice.

Key Words: peer tutoring, cooperative learning, Vygotsky, Piaget, Skinner

Peers are commonly used in school settings to influence student-learningoutcomes. The teaching strategies that use peers are generically labeled peer-assistedlearning (PAL) and can be further classified into teaching strategies that use peersas a component of direct instruction (Rosenshine, 1979). These strategies includeteaching by tutoring, modeling, and assessing, as well as approaches that involve

structured and often sequenced collaboration such as cooperative learning strate-gies in order to achieve a common goal (Cohen, 1994). In the former, the instruc-tional 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 ondifferent roles. In physical education, PAL has been proposed as a best practice inpedagogy texts (e.g., Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000) and as an inclusive strategy forstudents with disabilities (Block, Oberweiser, & Bain, 1995). Although there is agrowing knowledge base supporting PAL in physical education, to date no com-prehensive review of the literature has been made that would provide guidance forresearchers and practitioners.One purpose of this article is to review the theoreti-

cal literature supporting the use of peers in physical education. A second purposeis to evaluate research studies that have used some form of PAL in K12 physical


2/22

Ward and Lee206

education in order to determine what is known about the use of peers in thesesettings. Our third purpose is to provide recommendations for research and prac-tice. 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 themilestones occurred in 1984 when Bloom reported on two dissertations that com-pared learning under conventional instruction, mastery learning, and tutoring infourth, fifth, and eighth grade math lessons. Conventional instruction was charac-terized by a 1:30 teacherstudent ratio in which tests were given periodically afterinstruction in order to measure student achievement. Students in the mastery learning

condition were given the same tests as those used in the conventional instructiongroup, however, errors made by students who took the tests served as the focus forcorrective techniques and further parallel tests (i.e., similar format and content asthe original test). In the third condition, tutoring, the tutor worked one-on-one or atmost one-on-three with students using the following procedure: instructiontestfeedbackcorrective proceduresparallel formative tests.

In reporting the results, Bloom (1984, p. 4) noted, the most striking of thefindings is that under the best learning conditions we can devise (tutoring), theaverage student is two sigma above the average control student taught under con-ventional group methods of instruction. This led him to pose what he called thetwo-sigma problem: Can researchers and teachers devise teachinglearningconditions that will enable the majority of students under group instruction to at-tain levels of achievement that can at present be reached only under good tutoringconditions? (Bloom, 1984, p. 4).

Seldom reported in studies that cite Blooms work is that the tutors in thestudies described by Bloom were typically college education majors, not the peersof the tutees. This is an important caveat because generalizing adultchild effectsto peer tutoring can be problematic for at least two reasons. First, college educa-tion majors bring knowledge and skills to instruction that peers typically do not.

Second, children often behave differently in the presence of adults than in thepresence 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. Re-views reporting the effectiveness of PAL include assessments of (a) tutoring ingeneral education (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Walberg, 1990); (b) tutoring inspecial 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 effec-tiveness and utility of PAL in a variety of educational settings Despite this utility


3/22


strategies. There is also evidence that PAL works differentially relative to the typeof 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 thereare differential effects.

Review of Root Theories Supporting

Peer-Assisted Learning

Few researchers in physical education have explicitly connected a learningtheory to their research on PAL. Therefore, this review draws more on the litera-ture of general education for its content. Previous reviews in general educationhave 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 thisdistinction include: (a) the absence of specific error-correction techniques in coop-erative learning (Heron, et al., 2003); (b) emphasis placed on the distinction be-tween the knowledge held by the tutor in peer tutoring versus the shared learningrole of students in cooperative learning arrangements (Slavin, 1991); and differen-tiation between competitive versus cooperative arrangements (Johnson & Johnson,1982). In this review we have used the phrase PAL to encompass both peer teach-ing and cooperative learning strategies because the theories referenced are able toaccount for these different forms of PAL.

Our reading of the general education literature suggests that most currentexplanations describing the role of peers are grounded in one of three root theo-ries: Piagets equilibration theory, Vygotskys sociocultural theory, or Skinnersbehavior analysis. The term root theory is used here to indicate that the theory is afoundation for other theories or it is sufficiently complete in and of itself in termsof its explanatory power.

Equilibration Theory

Piagets (1985) equilibration theory forms one of the foundations ofconstructivism. A central theme is that knowledge acquisition is a process of con-tinuous 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 develop-mental model consisting of four stages: sensorimotor (birth 2 years), preopera-tional (27 years), concrete operational (711 years), and formal operational (11years and older). Transition from one stage to the next occurs as a function of threeprocesses: assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration within and across stages.When students encounter events similar to what they know, the resulting informa-

tion is assimilated into their existing knowledge. When students encounter eventsdifferent from what they know, they might modify their thinking to accommodatethese new circumstances These two processes (i e assimilation and accommoda-


4/22

Ward and Lee208

equilibration. Teachers can support these three processes by creating environmentsin which students build knowledge through experiences focused on problems andcollaborative activities, both of which produce cognitive conflict in the student.

De Lisi and Goldbeck (1999) suggest that although assimilation often oc-curs when students practice alone, accommodation can be fostered by peer tutor-ing or modeling; in addition, cooperative peer environments in which studentsengage in questioning, explaining, and predicting provide opportunities for equi-librium to occur. For example, consider the context of an elementary sport-educationunit in which each team of students has been given the task of creating a defenseagainst a particular offensive strategy. In order to be successful in this task, stu-dents might engage in questioning, explaining, predicting, and practicing specificsolutions in the process of solving the problem. Different groups might use differ-ent strategies to solve the problem. From a Piagetian perspective, however, it is the

collaboration among students in completing the task that allows students to ac-quire knowledge (De Lisi, 2002). Piaget (1985) suggested that such interactionamong students allows them to function as both agents and recipients of instruc-tion.

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 childrenslogical and spatial reasoning improve using peer interactions, much less is knownabout the nature of those interactions relative to instructional tasks. Tasks thatrequire reasoning among students and are developmentally challenging (i.e., rela-tive 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 suggestthat the research to date has primarily occurred in laboratories rather than class-rooms and, therefore, lacks ecological validity.

CulturalHistorical Theory

Vygotskys culturalhistorical theory is another pillar of modern constructivistpractice (Matusov, 2001). Vygotskys theory views human development as a so-ciogenetic process by which children gain mastery over cultural tools and signs inthe course of interacting with others in their environments (Hogan & Tudge, 1999,

p. 39). This description recognizes that development is based on both biologicalmaturation and cultural mediation. Though Vygotsky (1978) emphasized the im-portance of psychological tools in providing the means through which an indi-vidual converts social interactions into higher-order thinking, neo-Vygotskiantheorists Lave (1988) and Rogoff (1990) argue that cultural mediation is itself notdiscrete but is embedded in the sociocultural activities in which students are en-gaged. Lave suggests students acquire knowledge best not through discrete, con-trived learning activities (e.g., serving a volleyball to a wall), but through a processof 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

Pi t ilib ti th t d th t lth h th i il iti th i t


5/22


A central idea within Vygotskys paradigm of human development is thatactivity leads thinking. In establishing this idea he situates his theory as partof Marxist psychology, challenging the assumption of cerebral primacy: the

idea that thinking precedes and controls activity. Vygotsky, of course, didnot initiate this challenge to cerebral primacy. He was working within asocial/philosophical/biological paradigm launched by Engels. . . . Engelschallenged the assumption of cerebral primacy . . . [arguing instead, that] theability to engage in collective labor (joint activity), was what pulled the de-velopment of thinking forward. [Italics added.]

Vygotsky (1978) proposed that the learning activities a student confrontsshould occur at the edge of what he called the Zone of Promixal Development orZPD. The ZPD is the distance between the actual development level as deter-mined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development asdetermined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration withmore capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). The ZPD is a pedagogical tool in theVygotskian model for both the enactment of social mediation in instruction andthe determination of a developmental curriculum.

Vygotskys definition of the ZPD has been interpreted to mean that in thecontext of social engagement, peers could contribute to individual student learn-ing (e.g., Hogan & Tudge, 1999; Gillen, 2000). Vygotsky (1978) himself, how-ever, cautioned about the limitations of using peers as instructors. Hogan and Tudgenote his focus was much more on adultchild interactions rather than on knowl-edgeable peers. It has been neo-Vygotskian researchers who have focused atten-tion on peer interactions. For example, King (2002) emphasized the role of theteacher in structuring peer interaction by explicitly teaching the roles and types ofstudent interactions. Using an instructional strategy called Reciprocal Peer Ques-tions (King), students are given scripted but open-ended questions that they canask in order to facilitate interaction among students in a group trying to understanda problem or a task that is presented to them.

Although it is easy to see the applications for adultchild tutoring and cross-age tutoring using the ZPD, it is much more problematic for the teacher to use theZPD for PAL strategies with students who might be more similar than different in

terms of their level of cognitive development. Kirk and Macdonald (1998), draw-ing on Lave and Wegners (1991) situated learning theory, described how a com-munity of learners might be developed within the sport-education model. Inestablishing such a community, teachers would need to consider social interactionand the culturalhistorical background of the participants. One way to develop acommunity of learners is to use flexible grouping arrangements and multi-ageclassrooms such as student-led common-interest groups (Hoffman, 2002). Oneof the best examples of this structure can be seen in Montessori schools inwhich multi-age classrooms spanning 3-year periods are the norm, and stu-dents often pursue different topics and tasks in small groups according to

their interests.In their review of Vygotskian research focusing on PAL in educational set-

tings Hogan and Tudge (1999) report that though there are few studies conducted


6/22

Ward and Lee210

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

Behavior AnalysisBoth Piagets equilibration theory and Vygotskys socialcultural theory are

mediational in nature. They propose psychological processes that involve hypo-thetical but operationally defined constructs that the theorists suggest mediate andprovide agency for overt action. In contrast, a behavior-analytic view isnonmediational, drawing instead on explanations developed through an analysisof the interaction between environment and behavior (Hineline, 1992). In this viewthe processes are defined by their effects on behavior that can be described interms of the development of a new behavior, maintenance of a behavior, or thedecrease or cessation of a behavior.

The behavioral view includes consideration of private behaviors that occurwithin the person such as thinking (e.g., self-reflection, self-talk, and problem solv-ing) and feelings (e.g., love, anxiety, and joy). Rather than seek to explain thesebehaviors in terms of mediational constructs or to attribute agency to them, behav-ior analysts look instead for explanations in the environment (e.g., current andhistorical determinants) as they would for behavior occurring outside of the skin(Skinner, 1974). Thus, the question is not Does thinking occur? but rather Whydoes thinking occur? and What are its distinguishing characteristics? (Skinner).

Two key principles of behavior analysis involve discrimination and gener-

alization. According to Hineline (1992), To discriminate is to behave differentlyin different situations and to generalize is to behave similarly in different situa-tions (p. 1276). Examples of discrimination include when a tutor praises onestudents technique but corrects another, or when a student passes the ball in bas-ketball to a player in the open but not to another who is being covered by anopponent. Examples of generalization include a tutor providing feedback to a stu-dent he or she has not previously worked with, or when a student performs a par-ticular defensive tactic in a game that he or she has previously only practiced in alesson.

If a tutees differential feedback (e.g., praising correct performance but not

incorrect performance) improves tutee performance, then the tutor becomes partof the instructional contingency because the tutors behavior functions to changeor maintain the behavior of the tutee. Both the tutors and the tutees behavior canbe further supported rules provided by the teacher or tutor and by prompts andcues. In physical education, tutors are taught to behave one way (e.g., to praise orto otherwise identify the performance as correct) when a certain performance oc-curs and to behave differently when that performance does not occur (e.g., to modelor prompt a critical element). This differential behavior of the tutor functions asone consequence of the tutees behavior. Other consequences present in the envi-ronment might include positive outcomes such as successfully shooting a basket

or acing a serve in tennis, or negative outcomes such as missing the basket orfaulting on a tennis serve.

A ti iti h t t i d ti l i i l di i i ti


7/22


Pumory, 1975), which occur when positive reinforcement for the group is contin-gent on a particular behavior or set of behaviors being performed by a member ormembers 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 thereinforcement (e.g., points awarded to a team in a sport-education unit for goodrefereeing by a team member). In an independent group-oriented contingency, onlythose 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 untilthe 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 largesteffect sizes in cooperative learning strategies are those that employ interdependentgroup contingencies (i.e., both individual and group accountability).

Behavioral research on tutoring is extensive in both general and special edu-cation settings (Greenwood, Delaquadri, & Hall, 1989; Greenwood, et al., 1991),as well as in nonacademic settings (Heron et al., 2003). Moreover, much of theresearch cited in reviews by Cohen et al. (1982) and Walberg (1990) were con-ducted by nonbehavioral researchers using group designs that validated behav-ioral analytic principles as components of their studies of tutoring. There is also asubstantive literature on group contingencies (Tankersley, 1995), although there ismuch less research on specific cooperative learning strategies.

Method

In this section, we review research studies using PAL in physical educationsettings.

Article Selection, Search Procedures,

Grouping, and Summarization

Articles were included in the review if they described research conducted inK12 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-schoolsport, 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 notas part of intact classes (e.g., one-on-one adapted physical education settings andadult childtutor arrangements).

Computer searches of ERIC, Science Citation Index, and Sport Discus data-bases using the key words assessment, tutoring, and modeling combined with thewords physical education andpeers were conducted. In addition, the key wordscooperative learning combined withphysical education were used to search forstudies. 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 wereread to identify additional articles that were not included in our search. Finally, the


8/22

Ward and Lee212

methods section to determine which dissertations met the inclusion criteria. If thestudy could be included, we then read the dissertation. Dissertations that werepublished as articles and already included in the review were excluded.

Each study was then categorized in terms of its design as (a) within-groupstatistical comparisons using pretestposttest or repeated measures of the samesample; (b) between-group statistical comparisons in which independent sampleswere used for comparisons among treatments; (c) single-subject experimental de-signs; and (d) descriptive and qualitative designs. These studies were then groupedinto two classes of research: intervention studies and nonintervention studies. In-tervention studies were further coded to report the grade, setting, sample size,independent variable, dependent measures, experimental main effects, gender ef-fects, ability effects, and whether evidence of benefits to tutors was reported. Non-intervention studies were coded for grade, setting, sample size, measures, whether

the use of PAL was judged successful, indicators of gender and ability effects, andwhether 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 sizein excess of 2300 (Tables summarizing these studies are available from the firstauthor). The studies have been grouped into those that used PAL in the form ofdirect instruction such as tutoring (n = 18) or assessing (n = 4), and those that useda cooperative learning strategy (n = 6). Studies in each group were further subdi-

vided into intervention studies (group comparisons: n =12; single subject: n = 9;mixed design: n =1) and nonintervention studies (n = 6). This section of the reviewis organized into results by type of PAL strategy, results by context, and results bydesign.

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 stud-ies 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 completeinstructional tasks. Six studies involved one-way PT environments designed toassess the effects of tutoring provided by one peer to another less-skilled peer(e.g., dArripe-Longueville, Gernigon, Huet, Cadopi, & Winnykamen, 2002) or apeer with a disability (e.g., Leiberman, Dunn, van der Mars, & McCubbin, 2000).

Nine studies were reciprocal in nature, in which the participants exchangedroles of tutor and tutee during the course of the instruction. A typical PT studycompared a control group or a baseline of regular instruction to one or more tutor-ing conditions. For example, a number of studies compared the effects of some ofMosstons (1981) spectrum of teaching styles. In these studies reciprocal teach-


9/22


The vast majority of PT studies assessed psychomotor gains using PT. Thoughone study (Goldberger et al., 1982) showed no significant difference (NSD) amongconditions, 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 function-ally related to the presence of the intervention. Specifically, PT was shown toincrease academic learning time (dePaepe, 1985; Murata, 1996; Webster, 1987),increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (Leiberman, et al., 2000), improvethe 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 effectsdArripe-Longueville et al. (2002) and Ward (1994). Both studies describe stronger gains bymale participants than by females. Peer tutoring has also been successful in im-

proving the performances of students with disabilities including deaf (Liebermanet 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 settingsproviding empirical support for PT as a strategy for inclusion in physical educa-tion.

Affective outcomes are often espoused for PAL strategies. Several studiesinvestigated the effects of PT on affective characteristics. Typically, these charac-teristics have been measured using psychometric inventories assessing constructssuch 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 studentinteractions were measured. Studies by Goldberger et al. (1982) and Ernst andByra (1998) reported that working with a peer was a positive experience and en-hanced social interaction among students. Byra and Marks (1993) investigated theeffects of self-selection on the provision of feedback by peers and the comfortlevel of recipients. Their findings show (a) that more feedback was given to friendsthan nonacquaintances and (b) that students felt more comfortable receiving feed-back. Studies by Blomquist (1998) and Virgilio (1984), however, reported NSDresults between different teaching styles and PT on affective measures.

Some studies have assessed the effects of PT on knowledge-test scores. Al-

though the studies report NSD among groups on test scores (e.g., Ernst & Byra,1998; Virgilio, 1984), Ernst and Byra found that there were significant prepostgains for each group in their study; this indicates, at the very least, that pairingdoes not inhibit knowledge, and that the time to organize and structure pairs doesnot weaken knowledge gains.

Class-Wide Peer Tutoring. Class-wide peer tutoring (CWPT) involves thewhole class in reciprocal roles of tutor and tutee. It has demonstrated effectivenessin regular and special education, across elementary, secondary, and college set-tings, and with a variety of participants (Greenwood et al., 1991). In CWPT a classis divided into small groups of 46 students. In each team, students pair them-selves. Instructional tasks are presented on task cards in text and with picturesafter the teacher has demonstrated them. Students practice them and are then given


10/22

Ward and Lee214

posts the number of correct performances completed by the group under the teamname on a poster board. At the start of subsequent lessons, the teacher establishesa 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 groupfor performance. Only one study has assessed this strategy in physical education.Johnson and Ward (2001) assessed a third-grade striking unit. Effectiveness mea-sures were reported as number of trials correct and as a percentage. The data showthat CWPT was effective for both low- and high-skilled students and for both boysand girls. Most interesting was that the low-skilled male and female students madeimprovements similar to those of their average- and high-skilled counterparts.

Peer-Mediated Accountability. Peer-mediated accountability is identicalto CWPT except that students are provided with knowledge of the results but notfeedback on technique. The PMA studies have been framed within Doyles (1983)task-system model. PMA studies have demonstrated that, compared with conven-tional instruction in physical education, students increase both the number of totaltrials and the number of correct trials as much as three- or fourfold over baselineperformances (Crouch, Ward & Patrick, 1997; Ward, Smith, Makasci, & Crouch,1998). A critical component in the use of PMA is that students must be able toperform the skill at a minimal level demonstrating some of the critical elementssome of the time. The authors of the PMA studies concluded that PMA is an ap-

propriate strategy to develop opportunities to practice newly acquired skills, butthey caution that PMA is an inappropriate strategy to teach skills that studentscannot perform (Ward et al.). Data from Ward et al., however, show that althoughlow-skilled students did not improve, they did complete many trials. The authorsconcluded that the stereotype of the lower skilled student being less active thanother class members was unsupported (p. 450).

Peer Assessment. Although the peer assessment studies have much in com-mon in with PT and PMA studies, the authors of each of the four studies in thiscategory conceptualized their study specifically from the perspective of assess-ment. In this review we have chosen to describe the studies consistent with theconceptualization of the authors. Two of the studies were descriptive/qualitativestudies and two were quasi-experimental studies. Butler and Hodge (2001) used acase study to describe the use of peer assessment during a softball unit for anethnically diverse group of high school students. Butler and Hodge reported thatstudents indicated that peer assessment enhanced feedback, increased trust, andthat providing feedback was an important activity for them to engage in duringclass. Richard, Godbout, Tousignant, & Grehaigne (1999) described teacher per-ceptions of students in Grades 58 who peer assessed each other using a game-performance 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


11/22


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

Discussion of Direct Instruction PAL StrategiesThe individual studies reviewed in this section, by and large, lack external

validity in their designs. The single-subject designs focused much more on theinternal validity of the particular interventions; though there were systematic rep-lications of the PT and PMA strategies, there are too few to establish externalvalidity. Although the group designs were often statistically significant, they didnot use random selection. Despite these limitations, one cannot ignore the collec-tive 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 withdifferent instructional units. The findings suggest, regardless of the research meth-odology, that PT is an effective instructional strategy to help students, with andwithout disabilities, learn motor skills. Moreover, the findings obtained in the physi-cal education studies are entirely consistent with the findings reported for generaleducation (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 andPMA. Initial findings suggest that CWPT might be an appropriate strategy forlearning new skills, and that PMA might be more appropriate for enhancing skillsalready in a students repertoire. Females do not benefit as much as their male

counterparts from PT. Unfortunately, these gender effects have been reported formany instructional strategies (Siedentop, Doutis, Tsangaridou, Ward, &Rauschenbach, 1994). There is, however, some evidence that gender differencesmight not be as pronounced in more formally structured tutoring. An initial studyusing CWPT showed that third-grade females in a striking unit, regardless of abil-ity, were able to perform similarly to their male peers (Johnson & Ward, 2001).

Peer Assessment: Accuracy and Training. Central to these direct-instructionPAL strategies is the assumption that students can indeed observe and assess theirpeers accurately. Evidence to support this assumption is presented in a number ofstudies including Crouch et al. (1997), Hill and Miller (1997), Moore and Falls

(1970), and Johnson and Ward (2001). In these studies the congruence betweenstudent assessment of peers and researcher agreement was examined through cor-relational analysis or interobserver tests of reliability. The data indicate thatwell-trained students from third grade through high school can assess their peersreliably (7096% agreement with researchers). The levels of accuracy reported inthe studies were sufficient to demonstrate either significant or functionally relatedgains in student performance.

Assessments range from fairly simple ones such as fitness measures to morecomplex game-performance instruments. The judgments asked of students includefairly simple tasks such as using checklists and rating scales for fitness tasks (Hill

& Miller, 1997; Lieberman et al., 2000; Moore & Falls, 1970) and observing criti-cal elements of motor skills (e.g., Crouch, et al., 1997; Houston-Wilson et al.,1997) t d di t h l b ti i


12/22

Ward and Lee216

In contrast, Houston-Wilson et al. (1997) showed substantive gains for studentstutored by trained versus untrained tutors. The dependent measures and designs ineach 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 thatthey did train their tutors. Only a few studies, however, reported how peers weretrained and for how long the training lasted.

An analysis of those studies that did describe how peers were trained revealsthat, typically, teachers taught and modeled the desired tutoring behaviors such asfeedback or coding of assessments. Feedback was then provided to the students asthey practiced these tutoring skills. The length of time for the training varied ac-cording to the complexity of the task being asked of the tutor but typically oc-curred for 12 class sessions (Byra & Marks, 1993; Crouch et al., 1997; Ernst &Byra, 1998; Johnson & Ward, 2001). A consistent finding of studies in which stu-

dents with disabilities were the primary recipients of tutoring was that peers weretrained for four to five 30-minute sessions (Houston-Wilson et al., 1997; Liebermanet al., 2000).

How Best to Group Students. Many studies, with the exception of the dis-ability 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 withspecial needs), the tutors who were selected were described as reliable in terms oftheir attendance and on-task behavior. Two studies specifically examined the group-ing of students. Byra and Marks (1993) examined grouping students by degree offriendship and ability. They propose allowing students to self-select based on feed-

back provided at higher rates to friends versus nonacquaintances and because theyfound 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 inswimming. DArripe-Longueville et al. found that higher-skilled performers astutors produced the best results for males, whereas both high-skilled and average-skilled performers produced similar effects for females. In this study, students weregrouped by same gender. At this stage in the research there is little to say abouthow 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 bothparticipants 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. Threeare intervention studies and three are qualitative studies. Smith (1997) used a mixedmethodology to assess a third-grade CL unit designed to increase social interac-tions 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


13/22


of the study and the nature of the activities, one conclusion from Smiths study isthat for some students, learning the social skills necessary to complete the rolesassigned 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 intoone of three instructional conditions in basketball: (a) competitive, in which stu-dents individually competed for prizes; (b) cooperative, which was very similar toCWPT; and (c) individualistic, in which students were rewarded for their indi-vidual progress. The dependent variables included checklist measures of of motorskills (e.g., chest pass), free-throw-skills test, and student scores on the classroomlife questionnaire to assess social dimensions of CL. The group analysis revealedthat the cooperative and competitive groups reported more group cohesion, moresupport from the teacher, and more support from classmates than the individualis-

tic 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 single-subject withdrawal design was used to assess the effects of a new CL strategy,Performer and Coach Earn Rewards (PACER), on correct trials, the duration ofsocial interactions, and measures of social behavior. PACER comprised heteroge-neous, four-member teams. In PACER, students were held individually account-able using both peer assessment and teacher assessment. In a second study, a CLstrategy called Jigsaw II-PE was used with a different class but with the samedependent 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 ongroup accountability.

Results show that both PACER and JIGSAW II-PE increased the number ofcorrect 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 focusedon problem solving was functionally related to the interventions, but that the fre-quency of social behaviors used were not. He concluded that explanations for thisdifference related to both the definition of the social behavior and the sensitivity ofthe 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. Dysonemployed case studies using inductive analysis and constant comparisons to de-scribe teacher and student experiences as they engaged in CL. Dyson and Strachanreported on the use of CL in 8th- and 11th-grade team-handball units. The studentsin both classes were all female. The CL strategies used included learning teams(Grineski, 1996), which placed students in small groups in which students wereassigned specific roles such as recorder, encourager, and coach to complete tasks.In these groups students were encouraged to take responsibility for the teaching ofother members of the group. Data included direct observation of lessons, inter-views with teachers, and focus-group interviews with students. The teacher be-lieved that CL improved motor skills, game strategies, active participation, and


14/22

Ward and Lee218

In a particularly interesting study, Dyson (2002) followed third- and fourth-grade students and teachers through 2 years of CL instruction. Two CL strategiesused 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 thoughmany studies report on the first-time implementation of an intervention that typi-cally 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 andadds a stronger sense of validity to these results. Dyson (2002) concluded that themultiple roles facilitated the quality of the interactions focused on both the motorand social goals of the teacher. Dyson (2002) observed that roles had to be explic-itly taught to students. In particular, the use of task sheets was an important orga-nizational tool to facilitate CL roles. Another important finding from this analysisis 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 thatreported by Barrett (2000), who measured the time spent on training students inhis CL strategies. The different findings could possibly be explained by the natureof the CL strategies used (e.g., PACER versus learning teams) and thus the timetaken for students to learn their roles. In Barretts PACER and Jigsaw II-PE, therole of the student remains much the same, requiring participants to learn tworoles. During learning teams there are several different roles for students to learnin 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 strategiesmade in physical education, however, make them substantively different from class-room versions, often reflecting a lack of permanent products (e.g., written docu-ments) and the managerial and content demands that distinguish physical educationsettings from classrooms.

At this stage in the research on CL in physical education there are morequestions than answers. Some of these questions include: (a) What is the distinc-

tion between CL as a formal strategy and CL as an informal activity initiated bystudents? (b) What are the cooperative behaviors that students must learn? (c)How are students to be grouped in CL? By self-selection, heterogeneously, ran-dom assignment, convenience, or interest? (d) What size group is suitable for co-operative learning?; and (e) because the special education literature has stronglyadvocated CL as an inclusion strategy (McMaster & Fuchs, 2002): How is CL inphysical education to be adapted to include students with disabilities? At least onething is clear: there will be no universal answers to these questions. Because theterm CL encompasses a cluster of strategies ranging from peer assistance to moresophisticated strategies such as jigsaw and learning teams, one of the key ques-

tions researchers must answer is: What are the criteria for the selection of a par-ticular CL strategy? In particular the purpose of CL strategies should be morel l i d A t t i f d t d i l t h


15/22


start, particularly from a professional development perspective. CL in physicaleducation, however, needs student learning and social skill development outcomedata 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 besuccessfully implemented by teachers. Such studies should document the fidelity ofimplementation and show whether and how teachers modified CL in their gymnasiums.

One area requiring elaboration by authors is more description of the actualcooperative learning strategies and what elements of these strategies represent thecharacteristics of CL. Johnson and Johnson (1994) suggest that five essential ele-ments of cooperative learning are required for positive outcomes: (a) positive in-terdependence describes circumstances in which group members are dependent oneach other for success; (b) face-to-face interaction; (c) individual accountability;(d) the learning of social skills; and (e) group processing, which refers to judg-

ments made by group members about their progress toward goals. Meta-analysesof classroom research (e.g., Slavin, 1990a; 1995), as well as recent reviews (Antil,Jenkins, Wayne, & Vadasky, 1998; McMaster & Fuchs, 2002), do not stronglysupport more than two of these characteristics: positive interdependence and indi-vidual accountability.Whereas positive interdependence is supported in some stud-ies, it requires the presence of individual accountability to demonstrate significanteffect sizes (McMaster & Fuchs, 2002; Slavin, 1991; 1995). For example, in Slavins(1995) meta-analysis, treatments with both positive interdependence and individualaccountability had a mean effects size of .30, but when individual accountabilitywas 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, aptitudetreatment interactions (Snow & Lohman, 1984). This refers to interactions amonglearner characteristics, which in processproduct research Dunkin and Biddle (1974)called presage variables and treatments. The most oft-cited presage variable rela-tive to cooperative learning is ability relative to gifted students (Robinson, 1990;Slavin, 1990b; VanTassel-Baska, Landrum, & Peterson, 1992) and ability relativeto 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 be-yond individual accountability is because of what has been called the free ridereffect or more commonly social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1993). Social loaf-ing refers to the observation that people tend to contribute less to a common effortwhen they are in groups than they do to their individual efforts (Karau & Will-iams). As group size increases and the likelihood of being held personally ac-countable decreases, social loafing increases. In contrast, as group size decreasesand individuals are held accountable, the social loafing tends to decrease.

Recommendations for Teachers


16/22

Ward and Lee220

that teachers take the time to train their students in the strategy. Because trainingtakes time, it ought to be routinized and incorporated into the structure of lessonsrather 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 rehearsaland feedbackmost studies reviewed involved 13 days of training. Ideally, ifteachers wanted to use a PAL strategy on and off throughout the year, studentscould learn it in the first unit of the year and develop enough proficiency to be ableto use it at other times to complement existing pedagogies.

Inclusion. The directPAL strategies reviewed, particularly PT, are certainlyan appropriate accommodation in inclusion settings for students with intellectualand physical disabilities in physical education. There is no evidence at this stageabout the role of CL strategies and inclusion. There is some evidence that for stu-dents 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 anyPAL strategy from a social inclusion perspective.

Use of Strategies. It is possible to situate the direct forms of PAL on acontinuum of use beginning with PT,which can be used to assist individual mem-bers 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 newskills, to PMA, which can be used as an effective instructional strategy for stu-dents who have basic skills and need opportunities to practice, to peer assessment,in which students observe and record their partners performance. There is toolittle 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 re-search about how best to group students. Most studies used self-selection, so in theabsence of any strong data to the contrary and until we know more, there is noreason not to continue using either self-selection or grouping strategies spe-cific to the goals of the strategy, such as pairing low-skilled students withmore skilled students in PT or representing the heterogeneity of the class inCL groups.

Accountability. One thing that is very clear from the research is the impor-tance of creating both individual and group accountability. Regardless of whetherthe research is a direct method or CL strategy, classroom based or gymnasium

based, the authors of such studies consistently note that the most effective strate-gies are those that by their design both hold individuals accountable and also heldthe group accountable. For example, in Jigsaw each student holds a piece of thepuzzle for the project to be completed. The group cannot accomplish the task with-out the individual students completing their tasks.

Conclusions

The primary limitation of this review and its recommendations are the lackof outcome evidence and the number of studies that focused on a particular PALstrategy. Our analysis shows that the rationale for the use of peers to facilitatelearning among students has not been as theoretically grounded as it has been


17/22


Despite the lack of outcome data, the findings reviewed make this one of themore thoroughly researched areas in physical education. The studies have used avariety of methodologies and have generally concluded that the PAL strategies

used in these studies are appropriate and often effective strategies to use in physi-cal education. The evidence from the studies reviewed shows that children as youngas third grade can be taught to assess each others performance, to provide feed-back to peers, and to participate in collaborative group activities. It is clear thatsuch outcomes are tied to the quality of the students training.

Considerably more studies are necessary to assess the generalizability of thePAL strategies. Also needed are component analyses of the essential elements of aPAL strategy. In this review, we have shed little light on the social dimensions ofPAL; interestingly, this might be the most common reason why teachers begin touse 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 notethat one of the most interesting discussions one can have about PAL is to askteachers and researchers what primary outcomes they expect from it. For some,the outcomes are social. That is, the development of social interaction skills, whichoften include conflict resolution skills. For others it is the primary focus of thecontent, which tends to be driven either in terms of knowledge or psychomotoroutcomes. Much of the future research ought to address the specific purposes ofthe 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 Edu-

cational 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). Disserta-

tion 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 Educa-

tor, 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. Unpub-

lished 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.


18/22

Ward and Lee222

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.Journalof 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. 3-

37). 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 & Win-

ston.

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 meta-

analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70,

287-322.

Gillen, J. (2000). Versions of Vygotsky. British Journal of Educational Studies, 48, 183-

198.

Glassman, M. (1994). All things being equal: The two roads of Piaget and Vygotsky.Devel-opmental 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 teach-

ing 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.


19/22


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 non-

academic subject areas: An analysis of skills, methodology, and results. Remedialand 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, 1274-

1286.

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. 39-

65). 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, competitiveand 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 instruc-

tion 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 Teach-

ing 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 contingen-


20/22

Ward and Lee224

McMaster, K., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on the academic achieve-

ment of student with learning disabilities: An updated of Tateyama-Sniezeks re-

view.Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 107-117.

Moore, G., & Falls, H. (1970). Functional classification for physical education in the upperelementary 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 acquisi-

tion 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 physi-

cal 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 closerlook.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 intellec-

tual 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 educa-

tion classes. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1997). DissertationAbstracts 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 physi-

cal education classes.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 336-356.

Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learn-

ing 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). Ber-keley, CA: McCutchan.

Schunk, D.H. (1987). Peer models and childrens behavioral change. Review of Educa-

tional 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 Physi-

cal Education, 13, 375-394.

Skinner, B.F. (1974).About Behaviorism. London: Jonathan Cape.

Slavin, R.E. (1990a). Comprehensive cooperative learning models: Embedding coopera-

tive learning in the curriculum and school. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative Learn-


21/22


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 en-

hancement of a third grade physical education class. (Doctoral Dissertation, Univer-

sity 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 reciprocalteaching styles on the cognitive,

affective and psychomotor behavior of fifth grade pupils.Australian Journal of Sci-

ence & 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 edu-

cation. (Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1993). Dissertation Ab-

stracts 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 educa-

tion of mentally handicapped students.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,

7, 393-403.


22/22

artigo_de_revisao[1]

Documents

Transcript of artigo_de_revisao[1]