• PPN Home
• Programs that Work
  • View by outcome area
  • View by indicator
  • View by topic
  • View by evidence level
  • View alphabetically
• Research in Brief
• Resources and Tools
• Expert Perspectives
• Partner Pages
• Search the Site

Programs that Work

Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies

Program Info Program Overview Program Participants Evaluation Methods Key Evaluation Findings

Probable Implementers Funding Implementation Detail Issues to Consider Example Sites

Contact Information Available Resources Bibliography Last Reviewed

Program Info

Top  

Program Overview

Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) is a 25- to 35- minute math or reading activity implemented two to four times a week and is designed to complement, not replace, existing reading and math curricula. PALS combines peer tutoring with instructional principles and practices. Teachers identify and pair children who require help with specific skills ("players") with children who are the most appropriate to help other children learn those skills ("coaches"). The pairs of students are changed regularly, and over a period of time students work on a variety of skills so that all students have the opportunity to be "coaches" and "players". Approximately 13 to 15 pairs of students are created in the classroom, and each of these pairs is geared to each individual student's needs (as opposed to a single, teacher-directed activity that may not address the specific problems that children face). The PALS peer-tutoring strategy enables teachers to circulate around the classroom and observe students, providing feedback and remedial lessons where necessary.

Top  

Program Participants

Originally, PALS was designed for use in second- through sixth-grade classrooms. More recently, both upward and downward extensions of PALS have been developed, resulting in Preschool PALS, Kindergarten PALS (K-PALS), First-Grade PALS, and High-School PALS.

Top  

Evaluation Methods

Thirteen studies were identified that met Promising Practices Network criteria for inclusion. The majority of the studies indicated that PALS students significantly outperformed control group students on tests of reading and mathematics skills.

Mathes and Fuchs (1993) evaluated an early version of a ten-week PALS program in a sample of fourth- to sixth-grade learning-disabled students from a large school district in the Southeast. Each of 12 teachers was asked to select six students from her reading class to be included in the study, and of these 72 students a total of 67 completed the posttest. The 12 teachers were first randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group (the latter received reading instruction in the traditional basal approach, i.e., a pre-set reading instruction program). The experimental teachers were then randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: (1) peer-mediated instruction with repeated reading (the "player" student [tutee] read orally for nine minutes while the peer "coach" [tutor] monitored word-recognition errors) or (2) peer-mediated instruction with sustained reading (the player student read three different passages three times each, for one minute at a time; after each one-minute segment, the coaching student corrected the errors). In addition to the three groups, students were randomly assigned to either instructional or independent texts. At pre-test, no significant differences were found among the groups on students’ demographics or students’ IQ, but analysis indicated that students in the sustained-reading group had been in special education classes for fewer years than students in the repeated-reading group or the control group. The outcome measure used to assess program effects was the Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery (CRAB), including subtests for the average number of words correctly read orally in three minutes, the average number of correct responses to ten comprehension questions, and the number of items replaced correctly in a two-minute maze activity.

Simmons et al. (l994) studied another early version of a 14-week PALS program in a sample of 31 teachers from five elementary schools in the Southeast. Participating students were in grades two through five, and included 58 learning-disabled students, 27 low-performing students, and 33 average-achieving students. Teachers selected one low-performing student per class, defined as a student who was not certified to receive special education services and who (1) scored below the 25th percentile on a standardized reading measure and (2) was deemed to be the lowest-functioning reader in class. Teachers also randomly selected one average-achieving student per class, characterized as a student who had not repeated a grade, was not enrolled in special education, and had average test scores. While eight teachers volunteered to serve as controls, 23 teachers were randomly assigned to one of four class wide peer tutoring (CWPT) programs: (1) CWPT with role reciprocity (i.e., tutors and tutees switching roles; six teachers and 26 students); (2) CWPT without role reciprocity (i.e., tutors and tutees do not switch roles; six teachers and 22 students); (3) modified CWPT with role reciprocity (five teachers and 23 students); or (4) modified CWPT without role reciprocity (six teachers and 21 students). There were no significant descriptive variable differences among teachers or students in the four groups, e.g., teacher’s experience, number of students in the reading class, students’ estimated reading level, and other such variables. The outcome measures used were five subtests of the CRAB.

Another early version of PALS was studied by Simmons et al. (l995). The sample consisted of 24 teachers and 68 students in grades two through five, including 44 learning-disabled students and 24 low-performing students. The study was conducted over 16 weeks in five schools in a suburban area in the Southeast representing low- to upper-middle-class socioeconomic levels. Sixteen teachers were randomly assigned to experimental groups, and eight teachers served as controls. The 16 experimental group teachers were in turn randomly assigned to Explicit Teaching (involving teacher presentation, guided practice, and independent practice phases) or Explicit Teaching plus Peer Tutoring (peer tutoring by teacher-nominated classroom peers beginning after the eighth week of implementation and continuing for the final eight weeks). There were no significant demographic variable differences among teachers in the three groups, but pre-tests indicated that students in the control group had significantly higher IQs than students in the Explicit Teaching groups. All certified learning-disabled students who received reading instruction in regular classrooms participated in the study; additionally, teachers selected one low-performing student per class to participate. Analysis indicated that no significant demographic or academic differences were found between the learning-disabled and low-performing students; therefore, data were pooled for the outcomes analysis. Student outcomes were assessed using the Stanford Achievement Test comprehension subtest, as well as five CRAB subtests

Fuchs et al. (1995) studied a 25-week PALS program that included students in grades two through four in nine schools in an urban school district in the Southeast. The schools represented heterogeneous populations of students, i.e., the percentages of African-American students at each of these schools ranged from 21 percent to 49 percent, and the percentages of students qualifying for free and reduced lunch ranged from 23 percent to 96 percent. While stratifying by grade level, 40 math teachers were randomly assigned to one of two groups: teacher-mediated instruction with PALS (20 teachers) or a control group (teacher-mediated instruction without PALS; 20 teachers). No significant differences were found between the two groups on teacher demographic characteristics. Each teacher identified the following three students in his or her class: (1) one student who was chronically low achieving and classified as learning disabled, (2) one student who was chronically low achieving but never referred for special education (low-performing student), and (3) one student whose math performance was near the middle of the class (an average-achieving student). Outcomes were assessed using the Math Operations Test-Revised and the Mathematics Concepts and Applications Test.

The effects of a 15-week PALS program were assessed in a sample of 120 students from 40 classrooms in grades two through six in 12 schools in a southern state (Fuchs et al., 1997a). Twenty-two elementary and middle schools were first stratified into three groups (high, middle, and low) based on student achievement and family income (with a "high" level signifying populations with relatively high average reading scores and a comparatively low proportion of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch). Schools were then randomly assigned to PALS (20 classrooms) or No-PALS (20 classrooms) groups. The 12 schools were equally divided between PALS and No-PALS assignments and were equally divided across high-, mid-, and low-level socioeconomic designations. To determine the sample of students, each of the 40 participating teachers identified the following three students in his or her reading class: (1) a learning-disabled student, (2) a non-learning-disabled but low-performing student (in the lowest quartile in reading in the class), and (3) a student estimated to be an average-achieving reader. Pre-test analyses revealed no significant demographic differences among the groups, no significant differences in CRAB scores among the groups, and no significant interaction effects between treatment group and student type. The CRAB was used to assess student outcomes.

Fuchs et al. (l997b) studied an 18-week PALS program that included 120 students from 40 classrooms in the second, third, and fourth grades. Teachers were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) Peer-Mediated Instruction (PMI) with training in how to offer and receive elaborated help (helpful, conceptual explanations; ten classrooms), (2) PMI with training in both elaborated help and methods for providing conceptual mathematical explanations (ten classrooms), or (3) a control group (ten classrooms). Each teacher identified the following four students: (1) a student who was chronically low achieving and had been classified as learning disabled, (2) a student who was chronically low performing but had never been identified as disabled, (3) a student with average math performance, and (4) a student whose math performance was near the top of the class. Analysis of group comparability found no significant differences among the three groups and no significant interactions between treatment and type of student. Student outcomes were assessed on the Operations and Concepts/Applications subscales of the Comprehensive Math Test.

Mathes et al. (1998) studied First-Grade PALS in 20 classes from six schools in an urban school district in the Southeast. Ten classes were assigned to PALS and ten to the control group. Prior to recruiting teachers, all schools in the district were categorized by demographic variables (school size, percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, and mean reading scores for first graders on the previous year’s statewide achievement tests) and were classified as high-, middle-, or low-level based on sociodemographic and achievement data. Within each of the 20 classrooms, teachers identified five students based on reading test performance: the three lowest-achieving students, one average-achieving student, and one high-achieving student. At baseline, a statistically significant difference was found between the control and treatment groups for low-achieving students on average words read per minute and on words on the CRAB read correctly in three minutes, with the control group having better scores than the PALS group. Student outcomes were assessed on the following tests: (1) Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests: Word Identification, Word Attack, and Passage Comprehension subtests; (2) Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA): Concepts of Print; (3) CRAB: Oral Reading Fluency and Comprehension of Story Content; and (4) Curriculum-Based Measurement Probes over Time: Oral Reading Rates and Phonological Awareness.

The effects of PALS were assessed by Fuchs et al. (1999a) in a sample of 72 students from 24 classrooms in grades two through four. While stratifying by grade level, classrooms were randomly assigned to PALS (16 teachers) or a control group (eight teachers). Half of the PALS teachers were then randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: PALS plus collaborative reading activities or PALS only. Three students from each class — including one at-risk student, one average-achieving student, and one high-achieving student — were selected by their teachers to form the analysis sample. No significant differences were found among the control and two treatment groups on demographic variables or on the pre-test for the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (SDRT). After completion of the 21-week program, student outcomes were assessed with the Comprehension subtest of the SDRT.

Fuchs et al. (1999b) studied PALS among secondary-level students in remedial and special education classes. The sample consisted of nine PALS classes and nine control classes from ten high schools in a metropolitan school district in the Southeast (student sample size was not specified). Outcomes were measured for participants who were identified by teachers as students in grades two through six reading instructional levels. Over 16 weeks, teachers implemented PALS within their classes five times biweekly. Groups were comparable on pre-test measures, and the CRAB subtests of words read correctly and questions answered correctly were used to assess student outcomes.

Fuchs et al. (2001) studied 168 kindergarten students in five schools in a metropolitan public school district in the Southeast. Twenty classrooms within the schools were randomly assigned to PALS (84 students) or control (84 students) groups. Treatment effects were estimated on a subset of students, who were identified by scores on a pretest of mathematics achievement, and outcomes analysis was done separately for special education students and for non-disabled low-, middle-, and high-achieving students. No statistically significant differences among the groups were found for any demographic variables. Student outcomes were assessed using the mathematics portion of the Stanford Early School Achievement Test and the math portion of the Primary I level of the Stanford Achievement Test.

Mathes and Babyak (2001) studied First-Grade PALS in a medium-sized school district in the Southeast. Thirty first-grade teachers from five schools were randomly assigned to treatment or control groups, including ten teachers to a PALS group, ten teachers to PALS plus mini-lessons (which mirrored the content of PALS using teacher coaches) group, and ten teachers to a control group. Over the course of the study, two First-Grade PALS plus mini-lessons teachers withdrew from the study, leaving a total of 28 teacher participants. Before recruiting the teachers, schools were categorized for demographic similarity and classified as high-, middle-, or low-socioeconomic status. No significant differences were found among teachers in each group for demographic and teaching experience variables. From within each participating classroom, teachers selected three students, who were considered low, average, and high performing, for outcomes assessment. To ensure that teacher nominations were accurate, a one-minute oral reading assessment was also administered. Sixty-one students from the PALS group, 20 students from the PALS plus mini-lessons group, and 49 students from the control group were assessed. Student outcomes were assessed with the following tests: (1) Woodcock Word Identification, Word Attack, and Passage Comprehension and (2) Continuous Progress Monitoring of Reading Growth: Oral Reading Fluency of Connected Text, and Phonological Awareness Segmentation Skill.

A study by Mathes et al. (2001) assessed a 16-week PALS program that included 36 teachers and 183 first-graders from eight schools in a medium-sized school district in the Southeast. A one-minute oral reading test was administered to determine which students to include in the sample, and children’s scores were rank-ordered to designate a high-achieving student, an average-achieving student, and the four lowest-achieving students. The 183 students consisted of 118 low- achieving, 33 average- achieving, and 32 high-achieving students. Teachers were randomly assigned to participate in PALS (12 teachers), PALS plus computer-assisted instruction (12 teachers; eight to ten hours of phonological awareness instruction via computer were added; implemented for only low-achieving students), or a control group (12 teachers). Prior to recruiting schools, all schools in the district were categorized according to socioeconomic variables as either a high-, middle-, or low-level school. Baseline comparisons indicated no significant differences between treatment and control groups on demographic variables. Student outcomes were assessed with the following tests: (1) Woodcock Word Identification, Word Attack, and Passage Comprehension subtests; (2) TERA: Concepts of Print; (3) The Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE); (4) Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes: Phoneme Elision, and Phoneme Segmentation (for low-achieving students only); and (5) Curriculum Based Measurement: Oral Reading Fluency and Phonological Awareness.

Finally, Calhoon and Fuchs (2003) studied a 15-week PALS program that included ten classes with three teachers and 92 students in grades nine through 12 in three schools in an urban school district in the Southeast. The study began with 120 students, but 28 dropped out of the program, leaving the total sample of 92. All participating students were performing below grade level in math and received mathematics instruction in self-contained resource rooms. Classrooms were randomly assigned to a PALS/Curriculum-Based Measurement group (with 45 students and a well-documented method of tracking and enhancing performance of students with disabilities) or the control group (47 students). Student outcomes were assessed on the Math Operations Test—Revised, the Math Concepts and Applications Test, and the mathematics portion of the Tennessee Comprehensive Achievement Test.

Top  

Key Evaluation Findings

Mathes and Fuchs’ (1993) study of 67 learning-disabled students found

• a significant difference among groups on words read correctly, with the sustained-reading group outperforming the control group. No significant differences were found between the sustained-reading group and the repeated-reading group. Likewise, there were no significant differences between the repeated reading and control groups.
• No significant treatment effect was found from the difficulty of the text that was used, i.e., the type of text used did not differentially impact students in the treatment and control groups.
• No significant differences were found among groups on the average number of questions answered correctly or on the number of items replaced correctly in the two-minute maze activity.

• a significant overall difference between treatment and control groups on CRAB scores but no significant interaction effect for the treatment group by learner type (learning-disabled versus low-performing versus average-achieving students).
• For words read correctly, all four CWPT experimental groups outperformed the control group, and the performance of all experimental groups was comparable. Effect sizes from comparing the experimental groups with the control group were all small.
• For questions answered correctly, the modified CWPT-plus-role-reciprocity group’s performance exceeded that of the control group, while the performance of the remaining CWPT groups was comparable. Effect sizes from comparing the experimental with the control group were small to medium.
• No significant differences were found between the treatment and control groups in their scores on the average number of words written correctly, number of words matched correctly, or the number of items replaced correctly in the two-minute maze activity.

• There was no significant interaction effect for type of student (learning-disabled versus low-performing) or for treatment group.
• A statistically significant treatment effect was found for words read correctly, with the Explicit Teaching plus Peer Tutoring (ET+PT) group significantly outscoring both the Explicit Teaching group and the control group.
• Likewise, significant effects were also found for the number of questions answered correctly, with the ET+PT group outscoring both the ET and the control group.
• Similarly, significant differences were found among groups for the number of items replaced correctly in the two-minute maze-based activity, with the ET+PT group outscoring the control group.
• No reliable differences were found among groups on words written correctly, words matched correctly, or on reading comprehension scores on the Stanford Achievement Test.

• A significant difference between groups for both the math acquisition measure and the math transfer measure, with students in the PALS group outperforming students in the control group. This pattern held for each type of student, including learning-disabled students, low-performing students, and average-achieving students.
• The three-way interaction of treatment versus control group, student type, and math outcome measure was marginally significant. Follow-up analyses revealed that for control group students, growth in the acquisition and transfer measures was comparable, regardless of the type of student. Similarly, growth across the two measures was comparable for average-achieving students in the PALS group. In contrast, growth in the acquisition measure exceeded growth in the transfer measure for both learning-disabled and low-performing students in the PALS group.

• Significant growth effects were found on all three CRAB scores (words read correctly, questions answered correctly, and number of items correctly replaced in a maze-based activity). For each CRAB, growth in test scores among students in PALS classrooms, averaged across student type, was greater than among students in No-PALS classes.
• No statistically significant effects were found for any combination of treatment group, student type, or school type, suggesting that the effectiveness of the PALS treatment was not affected by student type.

• Growth in math scores for the Peer-Mediated Instruction plus Elaborated help plus Conceptual help (PMI+E+C) group significantly exceeded that of both the PMI+E group and the control group, while the growth in math scores of the PMI+E group significantly exceeded that of the control group.
• Analysis indicated that the PMI+E+C treatment was more effective than the no-treatment control for low-performing and high-achieving students but not for learning-disabled or average-achieving students.
• Similarly, the PMI+E+C treatment was more effective than the PMI+E treatment for low-achieving and high-achieving students but not for learning-disabled or average-achieving students.

• Analyses of improved on scores on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests (WRMT) revealed a statistically significant difference between groups for low-performing students on all subtests. For average-achieving students, statistically significant differences were found on the passage-comprehension subtest. No significant differences were found between the groups for high-achieving students.
• No significant differences were found between the groups on CRAB results.
• Low-performing students in the PALS group experienced significantly more improvements statistically in scores on the Test of Early Reading than the control students.
• Finally, a significant interaction was found for the treatment group by time on the CBM test for both words segments completed per minute and words read correctly per minute. PALS students experienced a greater positive change from the baseline to later program phases than control students experienced.

• Primary-level PALS students significantly outperformed PALS+HG and control students on the number of questions answered correctly on the CRAB, while PALS+HG and control students growing comparably. At the intermediate level, PALS+HG students outperformed PALS and control students, while PALS and control students performed comparably.
• No significant effects for treatment group were found on the number of words read correctly on the CRAB.

• no significant differences between the PALS and control groups on the number of words read correctly or the number of questions answered correctly.

• no significant differences between treatment and control groups on Stanford Early School Achievement Test (SESAT) scores, and no significant interaction of treatment group by student type.
• The growth on SESAT scores of PALS students from pre-test to post-test significantly exceeded that of control students.
• No significant differences were found between treatment and control groups on any of the Stanford Achievement Test measures.

• Pre-test to post-test positive changes in WRMT scores revealed statistically significant differences between groups on Word Identification, Word Attack, and Basic Skills subtests, with both PALS and PALS+ML groups scoring higher than the control group but not significantly different from each other. No differences among groups were found on the WRMT Passage Comprehension subtest.
• Both the PALS and PALS+ML groups exhibited significantly greater growth in segments read per minute than the control group in weeks eight through ten and 11 through 14. No difference was detected at any phase between students in the PALS and the PALS+ML groups.
• For growth in words read per minute, in weeks one through four and 11 through 14 of the study, both the PALS and PALS+ML groups made significantly greater growth than did the control group. The PALS+ML group also made significantly greater growth than did the control group in weeks five through ten.

• Statistically significant differences were found between average-achieving students in the treatment and control groups on scores on the Word Attack, Word Identification, and Passage Comprehension subtests. Differences between PALS and control groups on segments read per minute were detected only during weeks one through four of the study.
• No significant findings were detected for high-achieving students on any of the WRMT subtests. Significantly greater growth in WRMT test scores] was demonstrated for PALS students versus the control group during weeks one through seven and weeks 11 through 14 of the study. On growth in words read per minute, PALS students made statistically greater gains than the control group from weeks five through seven through to weeks 11 through 14.

• Analyses of changes in WRMT test scores between pre-test and post-test revealed statistically significant differences among groups on all subtests, with both the PALS and PALS+CAI groups scoring significantly higher than the control group but not scoring differently from each other.
• Likewise, significant effects for the treatment group were detected for the TOWRE test of Nonword Efficiency, with PALS and PALS+CAI students demonstrating greater positive changes between pre-test and post-test than control students. No differences were noted among the groups for the Word Efficiency subtest.
• Significant effects for the treatment group were also found on the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP), with both PALS and PALS+CAI students exhibiting greater positive changes than control students on phoneme segmentation. On the CTOPP Elision task, the PALS group exhibited greater positive changes in Elision ability than did the control group.
• A significant effect was found for changes in scores on the Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA-2), with students in PALS and PALS+CAI making greater improvements than control student but not scoring differently from one another.
• For growth in segments read per minute, PALS+CAI students made greater advances than PALS or control group students in the final weeks of the intervention.
• For growth in words read per minute, statistically significant differences were detected for averages in weeks nine through 12 and 13 through 16 of the PALS implementation. During weeks nine through 12, only the PALS group differed from the control group, whereas during weeks 13 through 16, both PALS and PALS+CAI students evidenced statistically significant greater growth in words read per minute than did the control group.

• No significant effects were found between the treatment and control groups on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised (WRMT-R), the TERA-2, the TOWRE, or the CTOPP.
• No statistically significant differences were found between PALS and control groups during any phase of PALS for either correctly pronounced word segments per minute or correctly read words per minute, with one exception. During weeks one through four, high-achieving students in the control group evidence statistically significant greater gains in segments read per minute.

• For the Math Operations Test, the growth in test scores of students in the PALS/CBM treatment group was significantly greater than that of the control students.
• No significant differences were found between treatment and control groups for growth in scores on the Math Concepts and Applications Test or the Tennessee Comprehensive Achievement Test.

Top  

Probable Implementers

Public and private elementary, middle, and high schools

Top  

Funding

PALS has been successfully implemented by many schools through the use of Title I funds to cover the costs of training and program materials. More recently, schools have begun using federal Reading First monies to cover implementation costs of the program.

Top  

Implementation Detail

Program Design

Materials needed for PALS implementation are minimal and inexpensive. They include the PALS teacher’s manual, a box of blank transparencies, an overhead projector, a transparency pen, pocket folders for each pair of students (to hold the PALS materials), and access to a photocopier to make copies of lessons for students. In addition, a kitchen timer is recommended to help teachers with appropriate pacing during the lesson.

The actual presentation of the lessons is left up to each teacher. The PALS teacher’s manual includes both outlines of the material as well as detailed scripts. Teachers may use the scripts to present the material, or use only the outlines to guide the presentations in their own words.
The amount of class time required for program implementation varies with grade level:

• K-PALS: Three to four times a week for approximately 30 minutes per session.
• First-Grade PALS: Three to four times a week for approximately 35 minutes per session.
• Grades 2 through 6 PALS Reading: Three times a week for approximately 35 minutes per session.
• Grades 2 through 6 PALS Math: Two times a week for approximately 40 minutes per session.
• High-School PALS: Five times a week every two weeks for approximately 35 minutes per session.

Top  

Issues to Consider

This program received a "promising" rating. The evaluations of PALS are mostly randomized control trials, which used convincing comparison groups along with statistical analyses that attempted to account for any pre-existing differences between the experimental and control groups. The evaluations demonstrate that treatment-group students, in various versions of PALS, scored significantly higher than control-group students on tests of reading and mathematics skills.

One issue to consider is that several of the evaluations of PALS involved teachers selecting students (with differing performance levels) from their classes for inclusion in the research sample. Although the strength of the randomized control designs compensate for the student-selection strategy, the possibility of sample bias is introduced through having teachers select students for participation.

Another issue raised by some of the evaluations is that teachers who implemented PALS in their classrooms often volunteered to do so, and volunteered to participate in the study. This raises questions about how typical these teachers may be, and therefore how generalizable the study results may be to other teachers not as eager to participate in a new program or a research study.

It should be noted that at least one of the program developers is an author on all 14 of the studies included in this program description.

Top  

Example Sites

Nashville, Tennessee

Top  

Contact Information

Loulee Yen
PALS Outreach
Vanderbilt University
Peabody Box 328
230 Appleton Place
Nashville, TN 32703-5701
Tel (615) 343-4782
PALS@vanderbilt.edu

Top  

Available Resources

The PALS website provides detailed information on the program, it implementation, and training resources, and a summary of research: www.peerassistedlearningstrategies.net.

Training and implementation assistance for PALS reading and math programs are available to educators nationwide. PALS staff recommends a one-day training workshop for interested schools (see http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/kennedy/pals/outreach.html#workshops). Depending on the particular workshop chosen, the presenter's fee (in 2004 dollars) ranges from $1,000 to $1,500 plus travel expenses. All workshop participants require a PALS teacher's manual, which can be purchased through Vanderbilt University prior to the training workshop (see http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/kennedy/pals/PALS_order_form_2003.pdf; please note that this is a PDF file and will require Adobe Acrobat Reader to open it).

Top  

Bibliography

Calhoon, Mary Beth, and Lynn S. Fuchs, "The Effects of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies and Curriculum-Based Measurement on the Mathematics Performance of Secondary Students with Disabilities,"   Remedial and Special Education,   Vol. 24, No. 4, 2003, pp. 235-245.  

Fuchs, Douglas, Lynn S. Fuchs, Patricia G. Mathes, and Deborah C. Simmons, "Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: Making Classrooms More Responsive to Diversity,"   American Educational Research Journal,   Vol. 34, No. 1, 1997a, pp. 174-206.  

Fuchs, Lynn S., Douglas Fuchs, and Kathy Karns, "Enhancing Kindergarteners' Mathematical Development: Effects of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies,"   Elementary School Journal,   Vol. 101, No. 5, 2001, pp. 495-510.  

Fuchs, Lynn S., Douglas Fuchs, and Norris B. Phillips, "Acquisition and Transfer Effects of Classwide Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies in Mathematics for Students with Varying Learning Histories,"   School Psychology Review,   Vol. 24, No. 4, 1995, pp. 604-620.  

Fuchs, Lynn S., Douglas Fuchs, and Sarah Kazdan, "Effects of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies on High School Students with Serious Reading Problems,"   Remedial and Special Education,   Vol. 20, No. 5, 1999b, pp. 309-18.  

Fuchs, Lynn S., Douglas Fuchs, Carol L. Hamlett, Norris B. Phillips, Kathy Karns, and Suzanne Dutka, S., "Enhancing Students' Helping Behavior During Peer-Mediated Instruction with Conceptual Mathematical Explanations,"   Elementary School Journal,   Vol. 97, No. 3, 1997b, pp. 223-249.  

Fuchs, Lynn S., Douglas Fuchs, Sarah Kazdan, and Shelley Allen, "Effects of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies in Reading with and Without Training in Elaborated Help Giving,"   Elementary School Journal,   Vol. 99, No. 3, 1999a, pp. 201-220.  

Mathes, Patricia G., and Allison E. Babyak, "The Effects of Peer-Assisted Literacy Strategies for First-Grade Readers with and Without Additional Mini-Skills Lessons,"   Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,   Vol. 16, No. 1, 2001, pp. 28-44.  

Mathes, Patricia G., and Lynn S. Fuchs, "Peer-Mediated Reading Instruction in Special Education Resource Rooms,"   Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,   Vol. 8, No. 4, 1993, pp. 233-43.  

Mathes, Patricia G., Jill K. Howard, Shelley H. Allen, and Douglas Fuchs, "Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies for First-Grade Readers: Responding to the Needs of Diverse Learners,"   Reading Research Quarterly,   Vol. 33, No. 1, 1998, pp. 62-94.  

Mathes, Patricia G., Joseph K. Torgesen, and Jill Howard Allor, "The Effects of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies for First-Grade Readers With and Without Additional Computer-Assisted Instruction in Phonological Awareness,"   American Educational Research Journal,   Vol. 38, No. 2, 2001, pp.371-410.  

Simmons, Deborah C., Douglas Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, Janie Pate Hodge, and Patricia G. Mathes, "Importance of Instructional Complexity and Role Reciprocity to Classwide Peer Tutoring,"   Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,   Vol. 9, No. 4, 1994, pp. 203-212.  

Simmons, Deborah C., Lynn S. Fuchs, Douglas Fuchs, Patricia G. Mathes, and Janie Pate Hodge, "Effects of Explicit Teaching and Peer Tutoring on the Reading Achievement of Learning Disabled and Low-Performing Students in Regular Classrooms,"   The Elementary School Journal,   Vol. 95, No. 5, 1995, pp. 387-408.  

Top  

Last Reviewed

January 2005

Top