The Effects of Reciprocal Peer Tutoring On Graduate Student
Achievement, Test Anxiety, and Academic Self-Efficacy

(Published in The Journal of Experimental Education, 1997)

Bryan W. Griffin
Georgia Southern University
Marlynn M. Griffin
Georgia Southern University

Bryan W. Griffin, Department Curriculum, Foundations, and Research. Marlynn M. Griffin, Department of Curriculum, Foundations, and Research.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bryan W. Griffin, Department of Curriculum, Foundations, and Research; Georgia Southern University; P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, Georgia, 30460-8144. E-mail: bwgriffin@gsvms2.cc.gasou.edu

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of reciprocal peer tutoring (RPT) on academic achievement, test anxiety, and academic self-efficacy of graduate students. In Experiment 1, students were assigned to one of two conditions, RPT or non-RPT. RPT students developed questions on specific course topics, which they then used to quiz other students prior to taking midterm and final course examinations. Contrary to previous research findings, the RPT and control groups did not differ significantly on lower-cognitive or higher-cognitive achievement measures. Students who used RPT generally reported that RPT improved their understanding of course content.

In Experiment 2, the RPT procedures were modified to better match procedures used in earlier studies that had found RPT to be superior to non-RPT conditions. Also, the instruments were expanded to include course-relevant outcome measures of student academic self-efficacy and test anxiety. As in Experiment 1, the RPT and non-RPT groups did not differ significantly on the achievement measures. Also, the groups did not differ significantly in academic self-efficacy and test anxiety. However, as in Experiment 1, students believed that RPT is an effective technique for learning difficult course content. Potential explanations for findings inconsistent with previous research and suggestions for future research are discussed.

The Effects of Reciprocal Peer Tutoring On Graduate Student
Achievement, Test Anxiety, and Academic Self-Efficacy

Peer tutoring, a form of cooperative learning, has been found to be an effective technique for increasing students' academic achievement (Bargh & Schul, 1980; Greenwood, Carta, & Hall, 1988; Jenkins & Jenkins, 1985; Lew, Mesch, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986; Magolda & Rogers, 1987; Sherman, 1991; Slavin, 1991). Additionally, researchers have found that both tutors and tutees gain in achievement by participating in peer tutoring. Tutors, however, usually benefit most from peer tutoring, perhaps because they engage in rehearsal of course content while preparing to teach tutees (Allen & Feldman, 1973; Annis, 1983; Bargh & Schul, 1980; Benware & Deci, 1984).

Noting the benefits students derive from acting as tutors, Fantuzzo and his associates (Pigott, Fantuzzo, & Clement, 1986; Wolfe, Fantuzzo, & Wolfe, 1986; Wolfe, Fantuzzo, & Wolter, 1984) developed a procedure that enables both members of a peer tutoring pair to participate in the tutor role. In this technique, known as reciprocal peer tutoring (RPT), students function reciprocally as both tutor and tutee. This dual role is beneficial because it enables students to gain from both the preparation and instruction in which tutors engage, and from the instruction that tutees receive.

Previous research on RPT has tested its effectiveness for elementary school children (Fantuzzo, King, & Heller, 1992; Fantuzzo, Polite, & Grayson, 1990; Pigott et al., 1986; Pigott, Fantuzzo, Heggie, & Clement, 1984; Wolfe, Fantuzzo, et al., 1984), and undergraduate psychology students (Fantuzzo, Dimeff, & Fox, 1989; Fantuzzo, Riggio, Connelly, & Dimeff, 1989; Riggio, Fantuzzo, Connelly, & Dimeff, 1991). These studies demonstrated that RPT improved the academic achievement of both groups. In addition, the findings of the three experiments with undergraduates suggest that RPT reduces their level of stress and anxiety.

In the RPT experiments with undergraduates, the typical procedure was to pair students with a partner throughout the semester. Students in each dyad were responsible for generating multiple-choice tests, for administering these tests to each other, and for providing tutelage (e.g., explanations for incorrect responses) to their partners. Thus, the procedure enabled students to provide multiple facilitating processes for each other: instruction, evaluation, feedback, and social support.

While previous research on RPT has generated promising results, it has several limitations. First, the effectiveness of RPT was explored only with two groups of students, i.e., elementary school children (fourth and fifth graders) and undergraduate psychology students. Second, the cognitive difficulty of posttest questions used in RPT experiments was not described. As a result, one cannot determine whether RPT best facilitates the acquisition of course content in regard to knowledge and comprehension, or whether it also promotes application and analysis of content material.

The purpose of the first experiment in the present study was to learn whether RPT enhances graduate student achievement in a course at a level comparable to that observed for undergraduate students. In addition, we wanted to determine whether RPT has effects on both lower-cognitive (LC) and higher-cognitive (HC) learning outcomes. Students' reactions to RPT also were solicited by interviews and surveys.

Experiment 1

Method

Participants. The participants were 93 graduate students enrolled in four sections of an introductory course on educational research taught by the first author at a medium-sized, regional university located in the South. Approximately half the participants were part-time students, and most were from rural areas. About 80% of the students were women, and over 90% were White. Their average age was 36, with a range of 23 to 59.

Prior to selecting the sample, we performed a statistical power analysis to determine the minimum sample size necessary to ensure that a reasonable effect size for RPT could be detected. The observed effect sizes, d, in the three previous RPT studies on college students were 1.14 (Fantuzzo, Dimeff, et al., 1989), 1.28 (Fantuzzo, Riggio, et al., 1989), and 0.57 (Riggio, et al., 1991). In the present study, the power of the statistical tests to detect the smallest of the three observed effect sizes was greater than .80, and power to detect the average of the observed effect sizes exceeded 0.95 (Cohen, 1988; Lipsey, 1990).

Measures. The pretest and posttest were comprised of the same items. Each test assessed understanding of five content areas presented in the course: (a) sampling procedures, (b) test validity, (c) descriptive research, (d) internal and external validity, and (e) various quantitative research methods (e.g., true experiments, ex post facto studies, etc.). Eight multiple-choice questions were constructed for each of these five content areas, for a total of forty questions. Each item was scored as correct (1 point) or incorrect (0 points). Of the eight questions written for each content area, four represented LC objectives, and four HC objectives. The LC items reflect knowledge and comprehension in Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956), e.g., what are the distinguishing characteristics of ex post facto and true experimental research? The HC items reflect application and analysis in this taxonomy. For example, students were requested to read a research scenario and to determine the most appropriate experimental design to use.

The content validity of the pretest and posttest was assessed by checking that each item corresponded to a course performance objective. An item analysis using students' posttest responses indicated that every item except one had adequate levels of difficulty and discrimination. Difficulty ranged between .60 and .85, and the average discrimination index was .21.

A brief questionnaire to assess students' attitudes toward RPT was also administered. The survey posed the following questions: (a) Do you think you benefited from writing the RPT questions? If so, how do you think writing the RPT questions helped you in this class? (b) Do you think taking your partner's tests and tutoring your partner helped you in this class? If so, how did these activities help you? (c) Do you think a procedure like this (writing short tests, administering and taking tests, and tutoring) would be helpful in your other classes? If so, please explain. Students were asked to provide open-ended responses to each of the above questions.

Procedures. A non-equivalent control-group design was used. The experimental treatment (RPT) was randomly assigned to two of the four classes. The remaining two classes served as the control group (non-RPT). The RPT and non-RPT groups included 49 and 44 students, respectively. The percentage of females in the two groups was 85% (RPT) and 80% (non-RPT). The percentage of White students was 94% (RPT) and 97% (non-RPT).

Students were asked to provide basic demographic information, such as race, sex, and undergraduate grade point average (GPA), on a cover sheet attached to the pretest. Each student in all four classes was asked to complete the pretest during the first class meeting. Items from the pretest were embedded among additional test items within each of the two course examinations. At the end of the quarter, student responses to these embedded items were aggregated to form the posttest scores.

The survey of student attitudes toward RPT was administered during the last regular class meeting to the largest RPT-treatment group (n = 26). Students were told to answer items on the questionnaire as accurately and honestly as possible. Anonymity was assured by asking students not to place their names anywhere on the questionnaire. A class discussion about RPT was conducted after the questionnaires were collected. The first author asked students for their general thoughts about RPT, and whether they believed RPT had beneficial effects on their course learning. Following this class meeting, an informal interview was conducted with four students in order to triangulate the data.

Students in the RPT condition were asked to write five multiple-choice questions for each of the five content areas named above. The first in-class examination, administered the fifth week of the quarter, covered two of the five content areas, so students wrote 10 multiple-choice items for the first RPT session. The second examination, administered the ninth week of the quarter, covered the remaining three content areas. Students wrote 15 items for the RPT treatment preceding this examination. In all, each student in the RPT group wrote 25 multiple-choice questions.

For each content area, students were required to develop RPT items and submit them at the beginning of the class session in which the content was covered. Students also provided, on a separate page, written explanations regarding the correct answer for each question. Prior to the RPT session, the first author read each question generated by students and provided feedback and recommendations for improvement. This action was taken to ensure that items were unambiguous and each had a single correct response.

RPT participants were randomly paired with their partners immediately prior to the in-class examinations. At this time students administered their multiple-choice test to their partners. After completing the tests, each student graded his or her partner's performance on the test and engaged in tutoring by providing feedback and explanations for those items answered incorrectly. After all students completed the tutoring process, the corrected tests and answer sheets were collected by the instructor and the in-class examination was distributed. While completing the RPT test, students typically answered three or four questions (or 25 to 40%) incorrectly.

To eliminate possible experimenter effects, identical content and instructional methods were used in all four classes.

Results

Descriptive statistics for the RPT and non-RPT groups on each measure are shown in Table 1. The two groups did not differ significantly on undergraduate GPA, or on the HC and LC pretest.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Each Measure
by Treatment Group-Experiment 1

Note. Pretest and posttest scores are percent of items answered correctly.

Students' scores on the HC and LC pretests were used as covariates in the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for the HC and LC achievement scores, respectively. The results of the two ANCOVAs are shown in Table 2. The observed effect sizes for both the HC and LC adjusted posttest means are in the predicted direction, but both represent very small effects (0.02 for HC and 0.01 for LC).

Table 2

ANCOVAs and Summary Statistics for HC and LC
Performance in Experiment 1

^aMean squared errors.

* p < .05.

Students' attitudes toward RPT, as expressed in the questionnaire were very positive. Nearly everyone in the RPT group (96%) perceived that they benefited from writing the RPT questions. Half of them thought that writing the questions resulted in better comprehension and understanding of the material. For example, one student felt that the question-writing process "helped [her] retain what [she] had read," and another stated that writing the questions "was beneficial because it required me to think of my own examples of educational research [concepts]."

Because the RPT procedure followed in this experiment required students to write a set of questions before attending the lecture covering the topic of their questions, students were forced to come to class prepared. For this reason, about one-third of the students thought they were better prepared to gain from class discussions. For example, one student wrote that writing the questions "encouraged [her] to come to class more prepared and it subsequently made lecture more meaningful." Another wrote that developing the "questions made [her] read and study the chapters before class; as a result, [she] understood the material better when it was presented in class."

While nearly all students surveyed felt that writing the RPT questions benefited them, fewer believed that the peer tutoring component of RPT was worthwhile. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents thought that taking their partners' tests and tutoring were helpful, but about one-third of them judged tutoring less helpful than question-writing. In fact, several students felt that peer tutoring was confusing and detrimental to their actual performance on course examinations. Nevertheless, nearly all students deemed RPT useful, and 85% believed RPT would be helpful in their other courses.

Aside from the perceived cognitive benefits of RPT, some students' comments suggested that RPT may have had an impact on them beyond their test scores. Several students noted that RPT enabled them to better understand course content, and as a result, they were better prepared for the in-class examinations. In technical terms, it appears that RPT may have had some effect upon course-specific academic self-efficacy. RPT also may have affected students' test anxiety. One student, for example, stated explicitly that RPT reduced his level of test anxiety: "I think it [RPT] was very worthwhile; if nothing else it made me relax before the real test--similar to the basketball player practicing free throws before the game."

Discussion

The finding that RPT did not enhance graduate students' performance on HC or LC course outcomes contradicts the findings of RPT research on college students (Fantuzzo, Dimeff, et al., 1989; Fantuzzo, Riggio, et al., 1989; Riggio, et al., 1991). One explanation for this contradictory finding is that Experiment 1 differed from previous RPT research in that it did not follow exactly the RPT procedures first used by Fantuzzo and associates. In Experiment 2, their RPT procedures were more closely followed.

We also noted students' perceptions that RPT had beneficial effects on their academic self-efficacy and test anxiety. In Experiment 2, these perceptions were tested systematically by administering measures of academic self-efficacy and test anxiety to the entire sample.

Experiment 2

Method

Participants. The participants were 38 graduate students enrolled in two sections (class A n = 24; class B n = 15) of an introductory course on educational research taught by the first author. About half the participants were part-time students, and most were from rural areas. Approximately 80% of the students were women, and 85% were White.

Measures. The pretest and posttest were the same used in Experiment 1 except for the addition of eight questions on the content area of variables and hypotheses. The total content areas that were covered in the course examination was six. The questionnaire used in Experiment 1 was administered once again to assess the RPT group's attitudes toward RPT. Also, two scales that measured test anxiety (9 items) and academic self-efficacy (8 items) were administered. Responses to each item were based on a Likert scale that ranged from 1 ("not at all true of me") to 7 ("very true of me"). Higher total scores indicated higher levels of test anxiety and academic self-efficacy, respectively.

The purpose of these scales was to determine whether RPT influenced students' situation-specific test anxiety and academic self-efficacy for the in-class examination that they were about to take. Thus, it was necessary for the scales to be examination-specific. For example, the following are two statements in the test anxiety scale: (a) I feel uneasy or uncomfortable with the exam I am about to take, and (b) I am starting to feel jittery, panicky, or agitated over the upcoming exam. Two examples of statements in the academic self-efficacy scale are: (a) I believe I will do well on the upcoming exam, and (b) I think I really understand the material that will be covered on this exam. Cronbach's alpha, calculated using student responses obtained during the experiment, was .94 for the test anxiety scale and .96 for the academic self-efficacy scale.

A factor analysis of the scores for the 17 items, using principal-axis factoring and oblique rotation, showed that they clustered distinctly into the two scales. Previous research (e.g., Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994) has found that test anxiety and academic self-efficacy are negatively correlated. In the present study, the observed correlation between the two scales was -.27, thus evidencing validity for these scores. Also, research (e.g., Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990) has found that test anxiety correlates negatively, and academic self-efficacy positively, with academic achievement. The mean correlation between test anxiety and posttest achievement in Experiment 2 was the corresponding correlation for academic self-efficacy was .22.

Procedures. A cross-over or simple reversal design (Petersen, 1985) was used. Both classes participated in RPT, but the timing of participation varied depending upon the examination. Specifically, class A participated in RPT in preparation for the first examination, while class B did not. For the second examination, the roles of the two classes were reversed. The average age of the participants was 35, with a range of 22 to 57. The statistical power to detect the average observed RPT effect size for achievement was over .90.

The procedures described by Fantuzzo and associates (Fantuzzo, Dimeff, & Fox, 1989; Fantuzzo, Riggio, Connelly, & Dimeff, 1989; Riggio, Fantuzzo, Connelly, & Dimeff, 1991) were followed more closely in Experiment 2. Thus, several steps were altered from the procedures described in Experiment 1. First, rather than have students conduct RPT 30 to 40 minutes immediately before in-class examinations, students were told to participate in RPT outside of class on their own time. To facilitate this procedure, students were randomly paired with a partner at the beginning of the quarter. Second, the course instructor did not inspect students' RPT questions prior to their participation in an RPT session, whereas in Experiment 1 the instructor did inspect students' RPT questions beforehand for such problems as ambiguous wording.

Fantuzzo and associates typically required students to write 10 RPT items for each in-class examination. In the Fantuzzo, Dimeff, and Fox (1989) experiment, for example, students took two examinations, so they wrote a total of 20 RPT items. Therefore, in Experiment 2, the number of items students produced was increased over the number required in Experiment 1. Each of the two in-class examinations covered three of the six content domains listed. For each domain, students were required to write 12 items, which brought the total to 36 items written for each RPT tutoring session.

Immediately prior to each of the two in-class examinations (and following the RPT session for the RPT group), the test anxiety and academic self-efficacy measures were administered to students in both groups. The same student questionnaire about attitudes toward RPT used in Experiment 1 was administered during the last regular class meeting for each group. Students were told to answer questions on the questionnaire as accurately and honestly as possible, and not to place their names on it in order to ensure anonymity. As before, the questionnaire solicited open-ended responses. Once the questionnaires were complete, in-class discussions on the possible merits of RPT commenced.

Results

Summary statistics on each measured variable for the RPT and non-RPT groups are presented in Table 3. The two classes were initially equivalent in terms of undergraduate GPAs and prior knowledge of research related topics.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics for Each Measure by Class
for Experiment 2

Note. Pretest scores are percent of items answered correctly.

There were four outcome measures of interest: HC and LC performance, test anxiety, and academic self-efficacy. Therefore, four 2 (RPT vs. non-RPT) X 2 (class A vs. class B) repeated measures ANOVAs were computed. Descriptive statistics for the four measures and the results of the ANOVAs are shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Repeated Measures ANOVAs and Summary Statistics for HC and LC Performance, Test Anxiety, and Academic Self-Efficacy for Experiment 2

^aMean squared errors.

^bPosttest performance scores in percent correct.

* p < .05.

The RPT and non-RPT groups did not differ significantly in their HC or LC posttest scores. The effect sizes, 0.33 and 0.20, were in the anticipated direction, and both were larger than the effect sizes found in Experiment 1 (0.02 and 0.01, respectively).

Contrary to expectation, the RPT and non-RPT groups did not differ significantly in either test anxiety or academic self-efficacy. The magnitude of the difference was very slight.

As in Experiment 1, students' responses to the RPT attitude survey and in-class discussions were positive. All of the students surveyed (n = 38) felt that writing the 36 items provided some benefit. Of these students, 33 (87%) felt that item writing assisted them in better understanding the material. Some of their comments were: (a) "I had to think critically to create the [RPT] test, which took the studying process one step further;" (b) "it was a good study technique because it forced me to apply concepts rather than simply memorize them;" (c) "it made me process the information when I might not have otherwise processed it in that manner;" and (d) "structuring the questions required me to look deeply at the concepts presented." These comments are similar to those expressed by students in Experiment 1.

Eighty-two percent of the students thought that the tutoring process was effective either because (a) their partner's "test gave [additional] practice before the real test" and "provided more examples," or (b) the "discussion following incorrect answers was helpful" and the "tutoring was helpful in clarifying misunderstood concepts."

Finally, 87% of the students surveyed thought RPT would be helpful in other classes. Students primarily thought RPT was useful because it required them to apply the course content and because it provided additional review and practice. In the words of the students:

"it [RPT] forces us to apply the material;"

"[RPT] forces us to look at the material and understand it so we can write questions on the material;"

"item writing is one of the best ways to familiarize yourself with the material;"

"it [RPT] is a review of the test material;"

RPT "gives lots of exposure to the material, it is a practice and review for the real test."

Discussion

The RPT and non-RPT groups did not differ significantly on the achievement tests in Experiment 2. Furthermore, both experiments yielded effect sizes for achievement that were in the predicted direction, but their magnitude was small. However, the effect sizes observed in Experiment 2 were larger than those in Experiment 1.

Because the only difference between the two experiments involved variation in RPT procedures, it appears that these variations affect students' learning. Perhaps Fantuzzo's procedures (those followed in Experiment 2) lead to more dialogue among participants since they meet outside of class and therefore are able to dictate the amount of time they spend tutoring each other and discussing course content. However, note that participants in Experiment 2 also wrote more RPT test items (36) than participants in Experiment 1 (25), and this may have resulted in the difference in effect sizes.

The largest effect sizes for achievement were observed for HC performance scores. This finding suggests that RPT might help students to achieve higher-level learning objectives, although this interpretation must be viewed with caution given the relatively small magnitude of the effect sizes.

Students' perceptions about RPT were uniformly positive. Nearly all students agreed that the item-writing component of RPT enabled them to gain a better understanding of course content. Similarly, most thought the peer tutoring component helped them clarify confusing issues by providing additional examples of course concepts.

In summary, the two experiments produced mixed results. The tests of statistical significance indicated that RPT is no more effective than students' own review techniques in preparation for course examinations, yet students perceived RPT to be highly beneficial. Additional research on graduate students is needed to determine whether these perceived benefits have effects on course learning that were not measured in the present experiments. Also, more research is needed to determine whether RPT procedures might be redesigned to make them more useful for the learning needs of this particular population.

References

Allen, V. L., & Feldman, R. S. (1973). Learning through tutoring: Low achieving children as tutors. Journal of Experimental Education, 42, 1-5.

Annis, L. F. (1983). The processes and effects of peer tutoring. Human Learning, 2, 39-47.

Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 593-604.

Benware, C. A., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755-765.

Bloom, B. S, Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1, Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171-246). Chicago: Rand, McNally & Company.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J, & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Erlbaum.

Fantuzzo, J.W., Dimeff, L.A., & Fox, S.L. (1989). Reciprocal peer tutoring: A multimodal assessment of effectiveness with college students. Teaching of Psychology, 16, 133-135.

Fantuzzo, J.W., King, J.A., & Heller, L.R. (1992). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on mathematics and school adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 331-339.

Fantuzzo, J.W., Polite, K., & Grayson, N. (1990). An evaluation of reciprocal peer tutoring across elementary school settings. Journal of School Psychology, 28, 309-323.

Fantuzzo, J.W., Riggio, R.E., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L.A. (1989). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 173-177.

Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. L., & Hall, V. (1988). The use of peer tutoring strategies in classroom management and educational instruction. School Psychology Review, 17, 258-275.

Jenkins, J., & Jenkins, L. (1985). Peer tutoring in elementary and secondary programs. Focus on Exceptional Children, 17, 3-12.

Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lew, M., Mesch, D., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1986). Positive interdependence, academic and collaborative-skills group contingencies, and isolated students. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 476-488.

Magolda, M. B., & Rogers, J. L. (1987). Peer tutoring: Collaborating to enhance intellectual development. The College Student Journal, 21, 288-296.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Petersen, R. G. (1985). Design and analysis of experiments. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Pigott, H.E., Fantuzzo, J.W., Heggie, D. L., & Clement, P.W. (1984). A student-administered group-oriented contingency intervention: Its efficacy in a regular classroom. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 6, 41-45.

Pigott, H.E., Fantuzzo, J.W., & Clement, P.W. (1986). The effects of reciprocal peer tutoring and group contingencies on the academic performance of elementary school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 93-98.

Pintrich, P. R. & DeGroot E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Riggio, R. E., Fantuzzo, J. W., Connelly, S., & Dimeff, L. A. (1991). Reciprocal peer tutoring: A classroom strategy for promoting academic and social integration in undergraduate students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 387-396.

Sherman, L.W. (1991, April). Cooperative learning in post secondary education: Implications from social psychology for active learning experiences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational leadership, 48, 71-82.

Wolfe, J. A., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Wolfe, P. K. (1986). The effects of reciprocal peer management and group contingencies on the arithmetic proficiency of underachieving students. Behavior Therapy, 17, 253-265.

Wolfe, J. A., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Wolter, C. F. (1984). Student-administered group-oriented contingencies: A method of combining group-oriented contingencies and self-directed behavior to increase academic productivity. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 6, 45-60.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845-862.

This page has been accessed [an error occurred while processing this directive] times since 6 October 1996.

Copyright © 2000, Bryan W. Griffin

Last revised on 08 December, 2000 02:49 AM