Evidence to Support Peer Tutoring Programs at the Undergraduate Level

Evidence-based peer-tutoring program to improve students’ performance at the university

“…The quality of the evidence provided stems from the statistical significance and moderate effect size based on an experimental design (Slavin 2017), which, with caution, allows establishing causal relationships between participation in these programs and the improvement of adjustment and adaptation of students to university life as authors like Colver and Fry (2016) claim.…”

“…In relation to effectiveness and results, Topping (2015) suggests that when peer-tutoring is 'implemented with thoughtfulness about what form of organization best fits the target purpose, context and population, and with reasonably high implementation integrity, results are typically very good' (4), although the research about his effectiveness, at least on academic performance at undergraduate levels, 'has not kept pace with the widespread use of tutoring' (Holliday 2012, 21). For example, dyadic or one-to-one cross-year fixed-role peer-tutoring have not delivered the expected results or in the necessary magnitude, mainly because there are few rigorously controlled studies, and it is therefore difficult to quantify its impact (Colver and Fry 2016;Holliday 2012). In this vein, this uncertain lack of effectiveness can be attributed to several factors.…”

“…In this vein, this uncertain lack of effectiveness can be attributed to several factors. First, many programs implemented at the university level do not include any type of evaluation measures, or provide results just on student' participation, satisfaction, and perceptions on effectiveness of peer-tutoring (Colver and Fry 2016). Second, most of the empirical data showing positive effects on university students' academic success comes from studies using qualitative designs (e.g.…”

“…Sobral 2002); and (c) static-group, with a effect size that ranges between .02 and .88 in GPA or students' performance in different subjects o courses, between .38 and .58 in credits earned, and .10 in students' retention (e.g. Chaney 2010; Colver and Fry 2016;Cooper 2010;Hendriksen et al 2005;Higgins 2004;Munley, Garvey, and McConnell 2010;Reinheimer and McKenzie 2011;Topping et al 1996;Xu et al 2001). And third, the quality of the scientific evidence that allows to establish causal relationships between participation in these programs and the improvement of adjustment and adaptation of students to university life is relatively moderate, due to limitations in the size of the samples or the intergroup comparability (e.g.…”

Utilizing NCES Survey Data for the Study of Postsecondary Pathways and Success: Challenges and Future Directions

“…For example, students’ sense of belonging is a particularly pertinent indicator of college success for first‐generation college students, students with a disability, and underrepresented minority students enrolling in a predominantly White institution (Lee & Davis, ). As a result, a variety of high‐impact programs are created, such as various structured activities hosted by housing services (Erb, Sinclair, & Braxton, ), learning communities (Xu, Solanki, McPartlan, & Sato, ), peer tutoring (Colver & Fry, ), TRiO program (Ostrove & Long, ), and Posse Scholars (Harper, Williams, Pérez, & Morgan, ). These programs tackle critical issues such as college access, equity, and inclusion for all students.…”