1. Using Peer Tutoring to Increase
Social Interactions in Early Schooling
YAOYING XU
University of Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
JEFFREY GELFER
University of Nevada
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
PEGGY PERKINS
University of Nevada
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of classwide peer
tutoring (CWPT), a peer-mediated teaching approach, on the social
interaction behavior of children who are English language learners and
children who are native English speakers. Two second-grade classrooms
from an elementary school were selected as the research setting. CWPT
was the independent variable, and children’s frequency of social
interactions was the dependent variable. All children from the two
settings were observed and videotaped during the study. Findings of this
study indicated that CWPT was as effective for English language
learners as it has been for native English speakers in shaping positive
social interactions. In both groups, children engaged in very few
negative behaviors. Questionnaires from the teachers and students
indicated that both groups enjoyed the CWPT process, and they
intended to continue using CWPT. The findings encourage teachers of
English language students to implement CWPT regularly in their
natural classroom settings. The results also indicate that the appropri-
ate arrangement of learning environments is critical for children’s
social interactions. The opportunities provided for social interactions
contribute significantly to the educational success of English language
students despite their limited English proficiency.
W ith the United States moving toward a culturally and linguistically
diverse society, teachers often feel unprepared to teach students
whose primary language is not English. To help these students meet the
higher national standards can be very challenging for all teachers,
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 39, No. 1, March 2005 83

2. especially for those in programs exclusively for nonnative students.
Though most researchers and practitioners have focused on how to
improve these students’ English language development, this study was
conducted to examine the social interactions of English language
learners through a peer-mediated approach, CWPT. In addition, English
language students were compared with native English speakers to
provide practical recommendations for teachers of both groups in
inclusive settings.
The study aims to help teachers develop alternative instructional
strategies for teaching the growing population of English language
learners. In 2000, in the United States, 3.5 million children ages 5 to 17
(about 15 percent of the total student population) had difficulty
speaking English (Mather & Rivers, 2003). The ratio of these children
increased from 5.3 percent in 1990 to 6.6 percent in 2000 (Mather &
Rivers, 2003). In addition, many more children in the United States
speak a language other than English at home. These children may also
face challenges because the family and school are not linked effectively
(AmeriStat, 2002).
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Researchers have found links between children’s social skills deficits
and delinquency, school dropout, and substance abuse in adolescence
(Greene et al., 1999; Parker & Asher, 1987) and mental health problems
in adulthood (Cowen, Pederson, Babigian, Izzo, & Trost, 1973; Strain &
Odom, 1986). Guralnick (1990) defined social competence as “the
ability of young children to successfully and appropriately select and
carry out their interpersonal goals” (p. 4). Howes and Matheson (1992)
defined children’s social competence with peers as behaviors and
cognition that reflect successful social functioning with peers.
A critical period for social development is the 6–8 age span (Dodge,
Jablon, & Bickart, 1994; Flavell, 1977). Children at this age start to
develop friendships and feel as though they are fitting in at school, thus
motivating them to learn social skills (McCay & Keyes, 2001/2002). They
want to pursue goals and feel a sense of accomplishment. Vygotsky’s
(1978) sociocultural theory suggests that learning is a social process and
social interaction is important for cognitive development. Vygotsky
viewed human beings as meaning makers. He believed that a child co-
constructs meaning through social interaction (Mahn, 1999). The child’s
development is influenced by the social and cultural activities the child
experiences and in which he or she grows up.
Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development implies
84 TESOL QUARTERLY

3. two levels of growth: the actual level and the potential level. An
individual achieves his or her actual level of development through
independent problem solving; however, he or she will need guidance or
collaboration from an adult or a more capable peer to reach the
potential level of development. This concept underlines the interdepen-
dence between individuals and the social processes in co-constructing
knowledge ( John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). Interactions with other chil-
dren and with adults are the primary vehicles children have developed
for learning about the world around them.
In early childhood education, social play is viewed as a means to foster
and enhance language, and cognitive, social, and emotional develop-
ment (Ivory & McCollum, 1999). This is true for all children, regardless
of their developmental level or their linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
Play is an essential ingredient in early childhood programs, and it
enhances every aspect of child development (Berk, 1999).
Traditionally, Grades 1–3 are referred to as primary education, and
primary education is separated from preschool or kindergarten educa-
tion. Instruction for primary grades is mainly teacher directed and
formal, including small- and large-group teaching combined with stu-
dents’ independent work. Since the 1960s, developmental theories of
Piaget, Bruner, Dewey, and Erikson have become popular and accepted
in U.S. education (Henniger, 2002). Educators and other professionals
have realized that primary-grade children think more like preschool and
kindergarten children than older elementary children, and so they have
emphasized play activities, child-initiated activities, hands-on manipula-
tion of objects, and interaction with peers.
Peer acceptance is a powerful predictor of current and later psycho-
logical adjustment. Studies show that social behavior plays a critical role
in causing a child to be liked or rejected (Berk, 1999). For example,
popular children have very positive social skills. They communicate with
peers in sensitive, friendly, and cooperative ways and are appropriately
assertive. On the other hand, rejected children display a wide range of
negative social behaviors. Social play and peer imitation are thought to
be basic developmental processes to facilitate learning social skills
(Garfinkle & Schwartz, 2002; Ivory & McCollum, 1999).
However, because of nonnative-English-speaking children’s limited
English proficiency or different cultural background, these children’s
social behaviors may be different from or less than that of their English-
speaking peers. Most previous studies have focused on academic im-
provement for children who have difficulty speaking English (e.g.,
Gersten & Baker, 2000b; Greenwood, Arreaga-Mayer, Utley, Gavin, &
Terry, 2001). Very few researchers have examined the social interaction
behaviors of these children.
USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 85

4. CLASSWIDE PEER TUTORING
CWPT is a specific form of peer-mediated instruction that encourages
children to learn from each other, facilitated and supported by the
teacher. CWPT was originally developed to improve the academic
performance of children from low socioeconomic, culturally diverse
backgrounds in schools federally funded under Title I1 (Delquadri,
Greenwood, Stretton, & Hall, 1983). In the past 20 years, CWPT has been
used in general and special education settings. It has worked for children
from diverse backgrounds and different developmental levels.
Unlike other forms of peer tutoring that typically involve an older or
more capable tutor for a younger or less capable tutee, CWPT involves
reciprocal tutor-tutee pairs in the same classroom or age group. During
the CWPT process, every child has an equal opportunity to be a tutor and
a tutee. The process involves procedures such as the following: selecting
instructional content and materials, pairing all students into tutor-tutee
partners, regularly changing tutor-tutee partners, immediately correct-
ing errors and giving points contingent upon performance, arranging
the whole class into two teams competing for higher total points, posting
individual and team scores, and socially rewarding the winning team
(Greenwood, Delquadri, & Carta, 1988).
Areas covered by CWPT include reading, assorted other language
abilities, and mathematics (Chun & Winter, 1999). In their comprehen-
sive review of literature on CWPT used for native-English-speaking
children, DuPaul and Eckert (1998) reported that results from empirical
studies in these areas have supported CWPT’s effectiveness. CWPT has
been found superior to conventional forms of teacher-mediated instruc-
tion in reading fluency and comprehension and mastery of other basic
academic skills (Greenwood et al., 2001). It also helps low-achieving
students improve spelling performance (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall,
1989; Maheady & Harper, 1987).
In spite of its effectiveness for children with and without limitations in
academic areas, few empirical studies have been done in general
education settings on the relationship between CWPT and social interac-
tions among primary-grade children whose first language is not English.
The limited empirical studies on children learning English have almost
all focused on their English language development or their academic
performance (August, 1987; Gersten & Baker, 2000a; Greenwood et al.,
2001). Greenwood and colleagues (2001) used the classwide peer
1
Title I is an amendment to the U.S. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965). Title
I provides federal funds that address the needs of U.S. school districts with a large population
of children living in poverty.
86 TESOL QUARTERLY

5. tutoring learning management system (CWPT-LMS) in the literacy
instruction of elementary-level English language learners. August (1987)
examined the effects of peer tutoring, other than CWPT, on second
language acquisition of Mexican-American children. Similarly, Gersten
and Baker (2000a) reported the effectiveness of peer tutoring and
cooperative learning on English language learners’ English language
development. Although some previous studies (e.g., Kamps, Kravits,
Stolze, & Swaggart, 1999; Locke & Fuchs, 1995) have reported the effects
of CWPT on peer interactions when it was combined with positive
reinforcement or rewards, the effectiveness of CWPT without using
positive reinforcement is unknown. Educators need to know if the
improved peer interaction behavior resulted from the positive reinforce-
ment or the CWPT. No previous studies have singled out the effective-
ness of CWPT on social interactions isolated from other variables
(DuPaul & Eckert, 1998). This study therefore focused on the social
aspects of CWPT among the much under-studied English language
student population.
Furthermore, previous studies have provided few findings comparing
the social behaviors of English language learners and native English
speakers. Unfortunately, labeled as limited English proficient, English
language learners are characterized by a particular deficiency. This
characterization often results in a lower quality of education for these
students in terms of materials, interactions, activities, and expectations,
which themselves create deficiencies in many other dimensions (Faltis,
1997). To provide fair and equal educational opportunities for all
individuals, educators must find out more about the relationship be-
tween students’ cultural backgrounds and their social interactions.
Furthermore, if such a relationship exists, educators need to determine
whether the process of education has an effect on social interaction
behaviors.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of CWPT on
social interaction behaviors of English language learners and native
English speakers in second-grade classrooms. Academic performance in
math and spelling was used as content for the CWPT process, following
previous research. Because of the reciprocal influence during the tutor-
tutee procedure, English language learners and native English speakers
from both classrooms were expected to benefit from this positive
interaction. The hypothesis was that CWPT would increase English
language learners’ social interactions as effectively as it increased native
English speakers’ social interactions.
USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 87

6. METHODOLOGY
Participants
Participants were selected from an elementary school located in an
urban city of a Southwestern state. Each of the two second-grade class-
rooms had 14 students, which was typical for the first- and second-grade
classrooms in the participating school. Their ages ranged from 7 to 8
years old. Seven children from each classroom (4 girls, 3 boys) were
selected as the participants, with a total of 14 participants in this study.
Purposeful selection was used to achieve gender parity in the sample.
All seven participants from Class 1 were English language learners,
whereas all seven participants from Class 2 were native English speakers.
The English language learners were all enrolled in the local school
district English language learner program and met the criteria estab-
lished by the school district: (a) Primary language is not English; (b)
proficiency in English is below the average proficiency of pupils at the
same age or grade level whose primary language is English (i.e., at least
one grade below based on the standardized English language proficiency
test); and (c) probability of success is impaired in a classroom in which
courses of study are taught only in English because of the student’s
limited proficiency in that language. Data collection and analysis focused
only on the 14 participants from the two classrooms, although all 28
children from the two classrooms were involved in the videotaping and
CWPT process. All 28 children also received parental consent because
the videotaping might include children in the setting who were not study
participants.
To enable the researchers to assess the participants’ prerequisite skills,
the participants took a pretest on spelling and math before CWPT was
implemented. The spelling test included 10 words and the math test
included 10 one-to-two-digit addition problems. Both tests were devel-
oped by the classroom teacher. If any participant received a score below
20% correct on either test, a one-on-one activity with the teacher was
conducted to help the participant reach the criterion (20% correct at
pretest). In Class 1, 5 out of 14 children did not meet the spelling test
criterion and 3 of them did not meet the math test criterion. In Class 2,
3 participants did not meet the criterion for spelling and for math,
respectively. After the one week of training, with one-on-one activity
everyday, one student from Class 1 and one student from Class 2 still did
not meet the spelling test criterion. For the purpose of this research,
these two students were not selected as participants for data analysis. The
range of the spelling test scores for Class 1 was from 20 to 80 with a mean
of 50, and for Class 2 it was from 30 to 80 with a mean of 54. The range
88 TESOL QUARTERLY

7. of the math test scores for Class 1 was from 40 to 80 with a mean of 54,
and for Class 2 it was from 50 to 80 with a mean of 60.
Participating Teachers
The two classroom teachers participated in this study. Teacher A from
Class 1 had 2 years of teaching experience in an elementary school, with
one year of experience teaching first grade and one year teaching
second grade. Teacher B from Class 2 also had 2 years of teaching
experience, with one year teaching fifth grade and one year teaching
second grade. Both teachers have a bachelor’s degree in elementary
education. Teacher A from Class 1 also has a certificate in teaching
English language learner programs.
Settings and Arrangement
This study was conducted in two general education classrooms in a
year-round school. Both classrooms were second grade with children 7–
8 years of age. Class 1 included 13 English language learners and one
native English speaker, who was involved in the CWPT process but was
not selected as a participant for this study. Class 2 included 13 native
English speakers and one child who was bilingual (English and Spanish).
This bilingual student was involved in the CWPT process but was not
selected as a participant. Adults involved in the classroom during the
3-week observation period included the classroom teacher, a practicum
student, a high school student worker, and the researcher (the lead
author). A Title I reading teacher came in once a day, and two
administrators came in once a week.
Target Behavior (Dependent Variable)
The target behavior in this study was the frequency of social interac-
tions exhibited by the participants in CWPT and non-CWPT conditions.
The whole research process was videotaped, and the coded number of
social interactions was recorded. The social interactions were operation-
ally defined as 15 social behaviors (Kreimeyer, Antia, Coyner, Eldredge,
& Gupta, 1991). To establish the baseline data, the frequency of social
interactions before CWPT was also videotaped.
USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 89

8. Materials and Equipment
Materials and equipment needed for this study included a weekly
tutoring list (1 per pair), tutoring worksheet, tutoring point sheet, help
sign (1 per pair), and timer (1 for the whole class). These materials were
modified from the CWPT manual developed by Greenwood, Delquadri,
and Carter (1997) to meet the class’s age and developmental level
according to the teacher’s weekly and monthly lesson plans. Each pair
used learning materials related to the instructional content in the
classroom, for example, a list of sight words, a set of counting cards,
pictures of animals beginning with the same letter, upper-lower letter
matching cards, or one-to-two digit number addition problems. The
correct answer was indicated on the back of each card or on the tutoring
worksheet. This practice allowed the tutors to offer correct responses
that they could not yet independently make themselves.
Instrumentation
The social interaction observation system (SIOS) developed by
Kreimeyer and colleagues (1991) was used to discriminate 15 social
interaction behaviors that might occur during free play time (child-
initiated activities) in the classroom. These 15 behaviors were divided
into 7 positive behaviors, 5 passive behaviors, and 3 negative behaviors.
The positive behaviors were
• Child engages in positive interaction with peers.
• Child engages in associative and/or cooperative play.
• Child engages in positive linguistic interaction.
• Peer(s) initiate interaction toward child.
• Child responds positively to peer initiation.
• Child initiates interaction toward peers.
• Peer responds positively to child’s initiation.
The passive behaviors were
• Child engages in nonplay behavior.
• Child engages in solitary play.
• Child engages in parallel play.
• Child makes no response to peer initiation.
• Peers make no response to child’s initiation.
90 TESOL QUARTERLY

9. The negative behaviors were
• Child directs negative behaviors toward peer(s).
• Child responds negatively to peer initiation.
• Peer(s) respond negatively to child’s initiation.
Overall Procedure
Baseline data were collected once a day, 5 days a week, for one week
before the training of CWPT started. During baseline week, data were
collected during the free play time immediately after the 20-minute
teacher instruction on a certain academic content (spelling or math),
between 9:30 and 10:00 in the morning. After the baseline week, a three-
session training week of CWPT followed. Then came the intervention
week. During the intervention week, data were collected during free play
time also but immediately after the 20-minute CWPT procedure instead
of after teacher instruction. The CWPT procedure was applied once a
day for 5 days. Then another baseline week followed without CWPT.
Although data were collected everyday during baseline and intervention
weeks, only the days when all the selected participants attended were
included for the data analysis.
During the free play period, children initiated activities related to
math, spelling, and reading. They were free to select their favorite
activities among the four or five choices that the teacher had planned.
The typical choices included buying and selling with play money,
measurement, time telling, letter and word matching, and reading to
each other with their own choice of books. Students also selected their
own playmates for the activity. Sometimes they had to negotiate because
only three or four people could play the same game simultaneously.
Students were the decision makers while negotiating for the number of
playmates in a specific play or in turn-taking to exchange games. The
teacher served as a facilitator by preparing the materials and offering the
choices of activities. This period of time varied from 10 to 20 minutes
based on the teacher’s schedule, but data analyses were based only on
the first 5 minutes.
Data Analysis
Class 1 had 15 observation sessions (5 weeks), and Class 2 had 9
observation sessions (3 weeks). To keep the number of observations
equal for both groups, the repeated ANOVA measures were based on the
USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 91

10. first 3 weeks’ observation. Each participant’s individual data were also
compared and analyzed.
Children from both groups were videotaped every day during baseline
and intervention weeks, but only three sessions a week were used for data
analysis. To control the researcher effect, the videotaped data were
analyzed after the data were collected. During the data analysis, each
participant was rated over four one-minute intervals, after the first
minute of each free play session following the 20-minute teacher
instruction (baseline week) or CWPT procedure (intervention week).
For each one-minute interval, the social behaviors of the participant
were marked as occurred (+) or not occurred (0). This process was repeated
for the second participant in the class during a second viewing of the
tape and so on until all seven participants in each of the two classrooms
had been rated. The occurrence of each of the 15 behaviors was
quantified and analyzed for each participant to ascertain the number of
times each social behavior was exhibited.
Interrater reliability was calculated by comparing the ratings of
Observer A to Observer B on 25% of the videotaped CWPT and non-
CWPT sessions. Observer A viewed all the videotapes and rated the social
interaction behaviors of children from the two groups by using the SIOS.
Then Observer B viewed 25% (6 out of 24 tapes) of the videotapes and
rated children’s social behavior using SIOS. Interrater reliability on the
SIOS was determined by [agreements/(agreements + disagreements)] x
100 = percent of agreement. The interrater agreement was 99.4% on the
SIOS.
Social Validity
At the end of the study in each class, the teacher completed a 10-item
survey (Teacher Satisfaction Questionnaire) developed by DuPaul, Ervin,
Hook, and McGoey (1998) to examine her or his opinions about the
benefits of using CWPT. Each item was answered on a 3-point Likert-type
scale ranging from not true to very true. The survey not only included
items on the students’ academic performance and social interactions,
but also asked about the teachers’ opinions on implementing the CWPT
procedure, managing time, their overall satisfaction, and whether they
would continue to use the CWPT procedure and recommend it to
others.
To examine the students’ satisfaction, a five-item survey (Student
Satisfaction Questionnaire) was administered in each class at the end of
the study. The survey was adapted from the questionnaire by DuPaul and
colleagues (1998). Because children in this study were younger and in a
lower grade than the participants in the study by DuPaul and his
92 TESOL QUARTERLY

11. colleagues, the adapted questionnaire used only five items from the
original to examine students’ perceptions on the use of CWPT.2 These
five yes or no items assessed the degree to which they enjoyed peer
tutoring and believed that it was helpful in peer interactions.
In Class 1, the teacher read each question in both English and Spanish
to ensure that every child understood its meaning. In Class 2 the teacher
read each item only in English. The teacher explained and clarified any
questions about the survey before children completed it. All children in
each class were asked to complete the survey, although only the answers
from the selected participants were used for the data analysis.
RESULTS
Social Interaction Observation System
To determine whether the intervention (CWPT) was effective on both
groups, SIOS data were analyzed using repeated ANOVA measures. This
method increased the chances of making Type I error. That is, we might
claim that CWPT was significantly effective when actually this was not the
case. In this study, ANOVA was repeated 15 times for the 15 behaviors,
which reduced the significance level to a more conservative rate (p <
.005). This conservative rate reduced the likelihood that we would make
a false claim.
Results from the repeated ANOVA measures indicated an overall
significant main effect across both groups for the intervention on 8 out
of the 15 social interaction behaviors. Among these, 7 were positive
behaviors and one was passive behavior. The 7 positive behaviors were
positive interaction [F(2, 24) = 70,97, p < .001]; associative and/or coop-
erative play [F(2, 24) = 15.076, p < .001]; positive linguistic interaction
[F(2, 24) = 24.23, p < .001]; peer initiates interaction [F(2, 24) = 55.98,
p < .001]; child responds positively [F(2, 24) = 82.34, p < .001]; child
initiates interaction [F(2, 24) = 31.42, p < .001]; and peer responds
positively [F(2, 24) = 66.56, p < .001]. All the positive behaviors were
significantly increased from baseline to intervention and decreased
when intervention was withdrawn.
The ANOVA test results indicated the main effects of CWPT on social
behaviors in two ways: (a) the overall number of social interaction
behaviors was significantly increased for both groups by comparing the
means between baseline and intervention condition (see Appendix,
2
Items include whether they enjoyed CWPT, whether they would like to adopt it again,
whether it helps them to be a better student, make a friend, and so on, and whether they will
share CWPT with friends.
USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 93

12. Table A1); (b) the quality of social interaction behaviors was also
significantly improved during intervention, evidenced by the significant
difference between intervention and baseline conditions on the 7
positive behaviors. The increasing pattern was similar for both groups.
For example, in Class 1 (English language learners), the mean compari-
son for positive interactions showed that the intervention week (mean =
.95) was significantly different from the first baseline week (mean = .20)
and from the second baseline week (mean = .18). Similarly, in Class 2
(native English speakers), the mean for positive interactions during
intervention week (mean = .89) was significantly different from the first
baseline (mean = .44) and from the second baseline ( mean = .32). The
significant differences between baseline and intervention weeks were
found in all 7 positive behaviors. Table A1 lists the detailed comparison
for each behavior between the weeks. The paired t-test between Week 1
versus Week 2 and Week 2 versus Week 3 for each behavior also indicated
that CWPT was statistically significant on 8 out of the 15 behaviors (see
Appendix, Table A2).
In addition to the effects on positive social interaction behaviors, the
intervention showed a significant reverse effect on parallel play (passive
behavior), [F(2, 24) = 57.39, p < 001]. Parallel play was defined as
independent play side by side in similar activities, and social contact
occurred only through gaze or imitation without verbal interaction with
one another. Specific behaviors that were operationally defined as
parallel play included reading side by side without interaction; matching
letter or word cards together but each in his or her own way without
communication; playing the math game by following the group leader
only, with no interaction among the group members; or solving math
problems with their own counting cubes and worksheet.
Parallel play was frequent during the first baseline week. The reverse
effect of CWPT on parallel play indicated that during the intervention
week, parallel play decreased substantially (Class 1 mean = .0; Class 2
mean = .06) from the first baseline (Class 1 mean = .42; Class 2 mean =
.69). When the intervention was withdrawn and the groups were back to
baseline condition, parallel play increased again (Class 1 mean = .65;
Class 2 mean = .70).
No significant main effects were found on 7 passive or negative
behaviors in both groups (see Table A2). These behaviors were Behavior
2 (negative behaviors), [F(2, 24) < 1, p > .5]; Behavior 3 (nonplay
behaviors), [F(2, 24) = 4.15, p > .01]; Behavior 4 (solitary play), [F(2,
24) = 4.47, p > .01]; Behavior 10 (child responds negatively), [F(2,
24) = 1.84, p > .1]; Behavior 11 (child makes no response), [F(2, 24) = 2.71,
p > .05]; Behavior 14 (peer responds negatively), [F(2, 24) = 4.5, p > .01];
and Behavior 15 (peer makes no response), [F(2, 24) = 3.50, p > .01]. All
these passive or negative behaviors were rated very low across baseline
94 TESOL QUARTERLY

13. and intervention phases, but they were rated even lower during interven-
tion. Although the main effects of intervention were not statistically
significant on all these behaviors, the overall trend still indicated that
during intervention the passive or negative behaviors were exhibited
fewer times than during baseline conditions for both groups. The
decreasing level of passive or negative behaviors was more obvious for
Class 1 (English language learners) than for Class 2 (native English
speakers). For example, the Class 1 mean for Behavior 4 (solitary play)
during first baseline was .21 compared with Class 2 mean of .14. During
intervention week, the Class 1 mean was reduced to .01 compared with
Class 2 mean of .03.
Throughout the study, children in both groups showed very few
negative behaviors, either during baseline or intervention phases. Among
all the observations of the study, only one negative behavior was
observed. The child’s behavior was observed as negative when she
refused to allow her peer to join in the math game during free play time
by saying, “No, no.”
Students’ verbal statements were also viewed and transcribed as
qualitative data to support the finding of linguistic interaction. Overall,
English language learners were engaged in more verbal interaction in
addition to following the CWPT procedure than native English speakers
were. Although no statistical difference was found in verbal interaction,
the qualitative data did show that English language learners were making
more positive social comments toward their peers than native English
speakers during the CWPT procedure. The examples listed in Table 1
(see p. 100) indicate that English language learners made 10 comments,
while native English speakers made only 5 during the same period of time.
Teacher and Student Satisfaction Questionnaires
At the end of this study, the two classroom teachers and all the
participating students from both classes were asked to complete the
satisfaction questionnaire. Both teachers answered with “very true” when
asked whether using CWPT in their classrooms had social and academic
benefits. Teacher A from Class 1 answered Item 5 (time consuming) with
“somewhat true.” She also stated that “time consuming” was “somewhat
true” in the beginning, but it was not so after the first week of
implementing the intervention. Teacher B from Class 2 answered the last
item (token economy and time-out) with “somewhat true.” He also
commented that sometimes classroom management was necessary to
organize activities. All 28 students from both classrooms answered “yes”
to all five items from the Student Satisfaction Questionnaire, although
data were collected and analyzed only on the 14 study participants.
USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 95

14. DISCUSSION
In early childhood education programs, social play has been empha-
sized by professionals and parents based on approaches of Dewey (1916),
Vygotsky (1978), Parten (1932), and other theorists and educators. Even
though Piaget believed that a child constructs new knowledge through
actively exploring the environment and associating it with his or her own
past experience, he also valued the role of play in the child’s social and
emotional development. According to Piaget, play pushes children out
of egocentric thought patterns by making them interact with other
children in play situations and forcing them to consider their playmates’
viewpoints (Brewer, 1998).
Learning is developed in the social context, and it works for all
children. The social environment includes the child’s family, school,
community, culture, and all other contexts that are relevant to the child.
Undoubtedly, cultural differences affect how the child thinks. Vygotsky
(1978) believed that the child’s cultural history and individual history
are important factors influencing how the child interacts with others in
the social context. Within that context, children share activities with
others first, and then come away with individual experiences (Vygotsky,
1978). Children learn best when they positively interact with peers and
adults in a meaningful activity (Phillips & Soltis, 1998). Unfortunately,
many children whose primary language is not English have received
lower quality of education in terms of materials, interactions, activities,
and expectations (Faltis, 1997).
Social Interaction Behaviors During
Baseline and CWPT Procedure
Based on the SIOS data collected and analyzed by the two observers,
CWPT had a positive effect on the social behaviors of the English
language learners and the native English speakers as predicted. The
positive effects were identified by the repeated measures of ANOVA tests
on the frequency of social interaction behaviors.
One particularly interesting finding was that among the 8 behaviors
that were significantly affected, all the 7 positive behaviors increased
during intervention, as predicted. The other one behavior that was
statistically significant was parallel play. However, it changed in the
opposite direction of all 7 positive behaviors. While all the positive
behaviors increased during intervention and decreased during baseline,
parallel play decreased significantly during intervention and increased
during baseline. This was the case for both groups, except for Child 7
from Class 1, who exhibited 0 (zero) frequency of parallel play during
96 TESOL QUARTERLY

15. the first baseline and first intervention phases. But even this child was
engaged in parallel play during most of the observation time in the
second and third baseline phases (8 of the 12 observation intervals).
This finding conflicts with some of the studies on the sequence of
children’s social play, especially Parten’s (1932) social play theory.
According to Parten, children’s social or peer play can be sequenced in
a meaningful order from simple, minimum social interaction to com-
plex, maximum social interaction, with the complexity increasing as the
child gets older. For younger preschoolers, parallel play dominates and
associative play is limited. Then older preschoolers start to play associa-
tively and by the time they reach prekindergarten and primary grades,
associative and cooperative play dominate, although other simpler forms
of play may never disappear altogether (Parten, 1932). In this study,
children in both groups engaged more in parallel play during baseline
conditions. Interestingly, children in both groups exhibited significantly
fewer parallel play behaviors during intervention.
This finding could be explained in two ways. First, the reduced
parallel play may have a negative correlation with the increase of
associative play. The associative play behaviors were defined operation-
ally as engaging in a cooperative project such as measuring an object and
writing it down, assigning different roles in a buying or selling interac-
tion, negotiating for turn-taking in the math game, or reading a story
together and answering questions related to the story. Data analysis
indicated that both groups had significant associative or cooperative play
during intervention. During baseline conditions, children in both groups
engaged frequently in parallel play, and very few engaged in associative
or cooperative play. When intervention was implemented, the data
changed the other way around: Associative play increased significantly,
and parallel play reduced greatly. Especially in Class 1, parallel play fell
to zero during the first intervention phase. The decrease of parallel play
indicates the effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviors
such as associative and cooperative play. This result may imply that
CWPT is an effective strategy for encouraging children to play associa-
tively or cooperatively.
Second, the tutor-tutee partnership that CWPT requires may contrib-
ute to the increase of children’s associative and cooperative play.
Although children were observed during free play time after CWPT was
implemented rather than during the CWPT process, the significant
difference can still be counted toward the effectiveness of the interven-
tion because effects from peer tutoring can carry over for at least 24
hours (Brady, 1997). However, the effects of CWPT were not maintained
after students returned to the baseline condition the next week. This
finding could result from environmental influence in the classroom
during teacher-directed instruction. For example, during baseline, all
USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 97

16. students were assigned to sit at their own seats, side by side with each
other. This formal classroom format might restrict students’ choice for
social interaction. Even during free play time after the teacher’s instruc-
tion, when students could have a choice of activities, they were not
encouraged to leave their seats. Therefore, they tended to work at their
own desks with their neighbors or by themselves instead of working as a
team.
Furthermore, the interaction during baseline was mostly one dimen-
sional, with the teacher instructing and students receiving. This one-
dimensional teacher-student pattern could affect the student-student
interaction. For example, after teacher instruction during baseline week,
a student was observed becoming the leader in the math game every time
it was played. Even when another student repeatedly asked to be the
leader, the other students ignored her requests.
On the other hand, during CWPT week, students were encouraged to
sit wherever they chose, and the students, rather than the teacher, were
in control of the learning and teaching procedure. Every student had the
opportunity to be the tutor and tutee during this process. This two-
dimensional, child-initiated interaction during CWPT prepared children
to be more interactive during the free play time that immediately
followed. The effects of CWPT on positive social interaction behaviors
were not maintained when CWPT was withdrawn because teacher-
directed instruction influenced the students’ behavior. To find out the
lasting effects of CWPT, alternative observations could be made at
different times after CWPT is implemented but without applying teacher-
directed instruction.
The finding that children from both groups engaged more in parallel
play but less associative and cooperative play during baseline, and more
associative and cooperative play but less parallel play during interven-
tion, implies that the routine classroom setting is more appropriate for
parallel play than for associative play. Two pedagogical implications can
be drawn from this finding: (a) English language learners and native
English speakers have a similar pattern of peer interaction in the
classroom setting. Therefore, teachers should always hold the same high
expectations for both groups in terms of social skill development. (b) A
relationship seems to exist between the instructional method and
children’s social interaction. Specifically, when teacher-directed instruc-
tion (baseline) was applied, parallel play dominated in both groups;
when student-initiated instruction (CWPT) was employed, cooperative
play increased significantly. Based on this finding, teachers may want to
encourage more student-initiated activities to promote social skill devel-
opment by creating a classroom environment that facilitates such social
interaction.
98 TESOL QUARTERLY

17. Different from a preschool setting, the primary-grade classrooms are
more academically arranged. For example, each child has an assigned
desk with his or her name on it. More academic activities are involved in
primary-grade children’s play than in younger children’s play (Brewer,
1998). Children may be more used to and trained to do their own work
for an assignment in class because of the schedule or the curriculum
requirement. Furthermore, although Parten (1932) and Howes and
Matheson (1992) all suggested that parallel play decreases as age
increases, it never completely disappears. Children at different age levels
always engage in some type of parallel play. Regardless of the participat-
ing children’s culturally and linguistically different backgrounds, every
child in the study showed a significant increase in all 7 positive social
interaction behaviors.
Table A1 also shows that positive social interaction behaviors were
more obvious for the English language learners than for the native
English speakers during CWPT intervention. The greater effectiveness of
the intervention for English language learners implies that they are
more willing to interact with their peers when the environment is
appropriately prepared for them (see Table 1). In Table 1, among the 10
verbal statements made by children from the English language learners
group, 8 were about the social initiation and response beyond the CWPT
procedure (e.g., “Good job. You are a genius!” “It’s your turn. I will
wait.”). Fewer verbal statements were observed in the native English
speakers group and most of their comments were required by the CWPT
procedure. For example, 4 of the 5 statements from the native English
speakers comment directly on the partner’s CWPT task behavior (e.g., “I
want to be the tutor today.” “Can you say again, please?”). Compared
with the native English speakers, the English language learners were not
only doing their job (as assigned CWPT partners), but also interacting
with each other with natural social prompts (“You are a genius!” “You are
great!”).
According to Montessori’s theory, children learn best in a well-
prepared, child-centered environment in which children can do things
for themselves (Morrison, 1998). Children are always curious about new
information and knowledge. The diverse cultural and linguistic back-
grounds among English language learners can actually stimulate children’s
motivation to interact with each other. For example, when a new student
from Bosnia came into Class 1, almost every child in the class was trying
to learn some new words in this student’s language. At the same time,
they all volunteered to teach the student English words and phrases such
as sit down, books, go to lunch, and let’s play. More peer interaction was
observed during the week when the new student was introduced to the
class.
USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 99

18. TABLE 1
Qualitative Data From Videotaped Observation During Intervention
ID No. Source Verbal Statement
Child 5 Tape 6 “You know you can do it.”
Child 5 Tape 10 “You are doing good.”
Child 2 Tape 6 “Can you make a ten? You are great!”
Child 1 Tape 11 “Good job. You are a genius!”
Child 13 Tape 12 “Try your best!”
Child 3 Tape 6 “I like it! This is fun!”
Child 5 Tape 15 “You can join us. This is fun.”
Child 12 Tape 17 “Try it again. I know you can do it.”
Child 14 Tape 17 “You guys are doing better today.”
Child 7 Tape 9 “Can you read this to me?”
Child 7 Tape 11 “It’s your turn. I will wait.”
Child 3 Tape 18 “When will we do CWPT again? I like it!”
Child 6 Tape 17 “I got better points today.”
Child 9 Tape 9 “I want to be the tutor today.”
Child 10 Tape 9 “Can you say again, please?”
Note. Children 1–7 are English language learners; 8–14 are native English speakers.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Although researchers and educators agree on the critical role of
children’s social competence, few studies have been conducted to
examine the social skills of English language learners and how that
would influence child development. Using a fine-grained and well-
designed peer-mediated instructional strategy, CWPT, this study focused
on the social aspects of English language learners and native English
speakers in the general education setting.
The present study indicates that CWPT was effective in increasing and
improving the social interaction behaviors of both English language
learners and native English speakers. However, because of this study’s
small sample size, the statistical power for group comparison is low.
Further studies need to compare these two groups by using a larger,
randomly selected sample. In addition, English language learners in this
study were primarily from Hispanic backgrounds. More data are needed
for English language learners from diverse cultural and linguistic
backgrounds.
This study indicates an inverse relationship between the intervention
and parallel play. Future studies can examine the relationship between
100 TESOL QUARTERLY

19. children’s parallel play, the educational setting, and the instructor’s
teaching style. Further study is also needed to investigate the relationship
between parallel play and children’s cultural differences. Additionally,
the lasting effects of CWPT need to be further examined. Instead of
being withdrawn during baseline for statistical purposes, as in this and
some other studies (e.g., DuPaul et al., 1998; Locke & Fuchs, 1995),
CWPT could be applied on a continuous basis across settings, students,
and events.
Despite the need for more research, this study shows that CWPT will
be an effective instructional approach for teachers of primary-grade
English language learners as well as native English speakers. The
strength of CWPT lies in the equal opportunities it provides for all
students to learn and interact in the same setting, regardless of their
different skill levels. As a student-centered approach, CWPT can be easily
incorporated into the lesson plan and does not deprecate the active role
of the classroom teacher. As a facilitator, the teacher prepares a develop-
mentally appropriate environment in a friendly, nonthreatening atmo-
sphere. Students interact with each other as a group and as individuals.
Furthermore, in an inclusive setting with both English language learners
and native English speakers, CWPT’s partnership feature will promote
positive social interactions. The strategy of CWPT also helps English
language learners and all individuals with specific needs to overcome the
fear of failure and embarrassment. CWPT provides English language
learners with multiple opportunities to succeed in spite of their limited
language proficiency.
THE AUTHORS
Yaoying Xu, is an assistant professor in the Department of Exceptional Education at
the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Dr. Xu’s research interests include using
peer-mediated instruction to increase social interactions of children with diverse
backgrounds and linking assessment and early intervention for young children with
developmental delays or disabilities and their families.
Jeffrey Gelfer is a professor in the Department of Special Education at the University
of Nevada, Las Vegas. Dr. Gelfer’s research interests include developing teacher
training programs for inclusive early childhood settings.
Peggy Perkins is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Psychology
at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Dr. Perkins’s research interests include self-
efficacy of young children and application of instructional strategies.
USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 101

20. REFERENCES
AmeriStat (2002, May). English-speaking ability. Retrieved February 12, 2004, from
http://www.prb.org
August, D. L. (1987). Effects of peer tutoring on the second language acquisition of
Mexican American children in elementary school. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 717–736.
Berk, L. E. (1999). Infants and children. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Brady, N. C. (1997). The teaching game: A reciprocal peer tutoring program for
preschool children. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 123–149.
Brewer, J. A. (1998). Introduction to early childhood education: Preschool through primary
grades. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Chun, C. C., & Winter, S. (1999). Classwide peer tutoring with or without reinforce-
ment: Effects on academic responding, content coverage, achievement, intrinsic
interest and reported project experiences. Educational Psychology, 19, 191–205.
Cowen, E. L., Pederson, A., Babigian, H., Izzo, L. D., & Trost, M. A. (1973). Long-
term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 41, 438–446.
Delquadri, J., Greenwood, C. R., Stretton, K., & Hall, R. V. (1983). The peer tutoring
game: A classroom procedure for increasing opportunity to respond and spelling
performance. Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 225–239.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy & education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
New York: Macmillan.
Dodge, D. T., Jablon, J. R., & Bickart, T. S. (1994). Constructing curriculum for the
primary grades. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies.
DuPaul, G. J., & Eckert, T. L. (1998). Academic interventions for students with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A review of the literature. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 14, 59–82.
DuPaul, G. J., Ervin, R. A., Hook, C. L., & McGoey, K. E. (1998). Peer tutoring for
children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Effects on classroom behav-
ior and academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 579–592.
Faltis, C. J. (1997). Joinfostering: Adapting teaching for the multilingual classroom (2nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Flavell, J. H. (1977). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Garfinkle, A. N., & Schwartz, I. (2002). Peer imitation: Increasing social interaction
in children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive pre-
school classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22(1), 26–38.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000a). Practices for English-language learners. An overview of
instructional practices for English-language learners: Prominent themes and future direc-
tions. Topical summary. Newton, MA: Education Development Center. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 445176)
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000b). What we know about effective instructional
practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454–470.
Greene, R. W., Bieberman, J., Faraone, S., Wilens, T., Mick, E., & Blier, H. K. (1999).
Further validation of social impairment as a predictor of substance abuse
disorders: Findings from a sample of siblings of boys with and without ADHD.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 349–354.
Greenwood, C. R., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Utley, C. A., Gavin, K. M., & Terry, B. J. (2001).
Classwide peer tutoring learning management system. Remedial and Special Educa-
tion, 22(1), 34–47.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Carta, J. J. (1988). Classwide peer tutoring. Seattle:
Educational Achievement Systems.
102 TESOL QUARTERLY

21. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., & Carta, J. J. (1997). Together we can: Classwide peer
tutoring for basic academic skills. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of
classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371–383.
Guralnick, M. J. (1990). Social competence and early intervention. Journal of Early
Intervention, 14, 3–14.
Henniger, M. L. (2002). Teaching young children. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Howes, C., & Matheson, C. C. (1992). Sequences in the development of competent
play with peers: Social and social pretend play. Developmental Psychology, 28, 961–
974.
Ivory, J. J., & McCollum, J A. (1999). Effects of social and isolate toys on social play in
inclusive setting. Journal of Special Education, 32, 238–245.
John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and
development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31, 191–206.
Kamps, D., Kravits, T., Stolze, J., & Swaggart, B. (1999). Prevention strategies for at-
risk students and students with EBD in urban elementary schools. Journal of
Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 7(3), 178–194.
Kreimeyer, K., Antia, S., Coyner, L., Eldredge, N., & Gupta, A. (1991). Social
interaction observation system: Project interact. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.
Locke, W. R., & Fuchs, L. S. (1995). Effects of peer-mediated reading instruction on
the on-task behavior and social interaction of children with behavior disorders.
Journal of Behavioral Disorders, 3, 92–99.
Maheady, L., & Harper, G. F. (1987). A classwide peer tutoring program to improve
the spelling test performance of low-income, third- and fourth-grade students.
Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 120–133.
Mahn, H. (1999). Vygotsky’s methodological contribution to sociocultural theory.
Remedial and Special Education, 20, 341–350.
Mather, M., & Rivers, K. (2003). State profiles of child well-being: Results from the 2000
census. Retrieved February 12, 2004, from http://www.kidscount.org
McCay, L. O., & Keyes, D. W. (2001/2002). Developing social competence in the
inclusive primary classroom. Childhood Education, 78(2), 70–79.
Morrison, G. S. (1998). Early childhood education today. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are
low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.
Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27, 243–269.
Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1998). Perspectives on learning. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Strain, P. S., & Odom, S. L. (1986). Peer social initiations: Effective intervention for
social skills development of exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 52, 543–
551.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 103

22. APPENDIX
TABLE A1
Means and Standard Deviations of the Main Effects for the SIOS
Week Baseline (A) Intervention (B) Baseline (A)
M SD M SD M SD
1. Positive Interactions
ELL (n=7) .20 .19 .95 .066 .18 .16
NES (n=7) .44 .21 .89 .12 .32 .12
2. Negative behaviors
ELL (n=7) .024 .063 .012 .032 .060 .12
NES (n=7) .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
3. Nonplay behaviors
ELL (n=7) .15 .14 .024 .041 .012 .032
NES (n=7) .024 .041 .012 .032 .060 .063
4. Solitary play
ELL (n=7) .21 .20 .012 .032 .23 .22
NES (n=7) .14 .19 .036 .066 .095 .10
5. Parallel play
ELL (n=7) .42 .24 .00 .00 .65 .17
NES (n=7) .69 .27 .060 .079 .70 .19
6. Associative and/or cooperative play
ELL (n=7) .14 .16 .96 .045 .095 .16
NES (n=7) .13 .18 .89 .093 .14 .10
7. Positive linguistic interaction
ELL (n=7) .51 .20 .95 .045 .46 .33
NES (n=7) .65 .20 .90 .075 .45 .13
8. Peer initiates interaction
ELL (n=7) .27 .12 .89 .12 .18 .15
NES (n=7) .37 .22 .74 .16 .20 .16
9. Child responds positively
ELL (n=7) .21 .12 .89 .12 .083 .096
NES (n=7) .31 .19 .73 .15 .20 .16
10. Child responds negatively
ELL (n=7) .012 .032 .00 .00 .060 .093
NES (n=7) .012 .032 .00 .00 .00 .00
11. Child makes no response
ELL (n=7) .036 .045 .00 .00 .036 .045
NES (n=7) .048 .066 .00 .00 .00 .00
(Continued on p. 105)
104 TESOL QUARTERLY

23. TABLE A1 (continued)
Means and Standard Deviations of the Main Effects for the SIOS
Week Baseline (A) Intervention (B) Baseline (A)
M SD M SD M SD
12. Child initiates interaction
ELL (n=7) .23 .093 .87 .081 .37 .34
NES (n=7) .51 .16 .87 .11 .29 .21
13. Peer responds positively
ELL (n=7) .17 .068 .87 .081 .14 .16
NES (n=7) .43 .18 .82 .15 .25 .17
14. Peer responds negatively
ELL (n=7) .00 .00 .00 .00 .036 .045
NES (n=7) .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
15. Peer makes no response
ELL (n=7) .048 .66 .00 .00 .19 .18
NES (n=7) .083 .048 .048 .094 .036 .045
Notes. Significant at the p < .005 level. Week = the baseline or intervention week, ELL = English
language learners, NES = native English speakers, M = mean, SD = standard deviation.
TABLE A2
Paired t -Test for Week 1 vs. Week 2 and Week 2 vs. Week 3
Weeks t p
1. Positive interactions
Week 1 (M=.32, SD=.23) vs. Week 2 (M=.92, SD=.10) 7.73 .000*
Week 2 (M=.92, SD=.10) vs. Week 3 (M=.25, SD=.16) 11.96 .000*
2. Negative behaviors
Week 1 (M=.012, SD=.04) vs. Week 2 (M=.006, SD=.02) .43 .67
Week 2 (M=.006, SD=.02) vs. Week 3 (M=.03, SD=.02) .94 .37
3. Nonplay behaviors
Week 1 (M=.09, SD=.03) vs. Week 2 (M=.02, SD=.04) 2.20 .05
Week 2 ( M=.02, SD=.04) vs. Week 3 (M=.04, SD=.05) .90 .39
4. Solitary play
Week 1 (M=.18, SD=.19) vs. Week 2 (M=.02, SD=.05) 3.00 .01
Week 2 (M=.02, SD=.05) vs. Week 3 (M=.16, SD=.18) 2.7 .02
(Continued on p. 106)
USING PEER TUTORING TO INCREASE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 105

24. TABLE A2 (continued)
Paired t -Test for Week 1 vs. Week 2 and Week 2 vs. Week 3
Weeks t p
5. Parallel play
Week 1 (M=.55, SD=.28) vs. Week 2 (M=.03, SD=.06) 7.36 .000*
Week 2 (M=.03, SD=.06) vs. Week 3 (M=.68, SD=.17) 12.35 .000*
6. Associative and/or cooperative play
Week 1 (M=.14, SD=.17) vs. Week 2 (M=.93, SD=.08) 14.20 .000*
Week 2 (M=.93, SD=.08) vs. Week 3 (M=.12, SD=.13) 17.70 .000*
7. Positive linguistic interaction
Week 1 (M=.58, SD=.20) vs. Week 2 (M=.93, SD=.06) 5.65 .000*
Week 2 (M=.93, SD=.06) vs. Week 3 (M=.56, SD=.24) 6.97 .000*
8. Peer initiates interaction
Week 1 (M=.32, SD=18) vs. Week 2 (M=.82, SD=.16) 6.12 .000*
Week 2 (M=.82, SD=.16) vs. Week 3 (M=.19, SD=.14) 15.71 .000*
9. Child responds positively
Week 1 (M=.26, SD=.16) vs. Week 2 (M=.81, SD=.15) 7.30 .000*
Week 2 (M=.81, SD=.15) vs. Week 3 (M=.14, SD=.14) 13.09 .000*
10. Child responds negatively
Week 1 (M=.01, SD=.03) vs. Week 2 (M=.00, SD=.00) 1.47 .17
Week 2 (M=.00, SD=.00) vs. Week 3 (M=.03, SD=.07) 1.59 .14
11. Child makes no response
Week 1 (M=.04, SD=.05) vs. Week 2 (M=.006, SD=.02) 2.12 .05
Week 2 (M=.006, SD=.02) vs. Week 3 (M=.02, SD=.04) 1.00 .34
12. Child initiates interaction
Week 1 (M=.37, SD=.20) vs. Week 2 (M=.87, SD=.09) 9.54 .000*
Week 2 (M=.87, SD=.09) vs. Week 3 (M=.33, SD=.27) 6.09 .000*
13. Peer responds positively
Week 1 (M=.30, SD=.19) vs. Week 2 (M=.85, SD=.12) 8.98 .000*
Week 2 (M=.85, SD=.12) vs. Week 3 (M=.20, SD=.17) 9.06 .000*
14. Peer responds negatively
Week 1 (M=.00, SD=.00) vs. Week 2 (M=.00, SD=.00) ... ...
Week 2 (M=.00, SD=.00) vs. Week 3 (M=.02, SD=.04) 1.88 .08
15. Peer makes no response
Week 1 (M=.07, SD=.06) vs. Week 2 (M=.02, SD=.07) 1.84 .09
Week 2 (M=.02, SD=.07) vs. Week 3 (M=.11, SD=.15) 1.95 .07
*Significant at the p < .005 level.
106 TESOL QUARTERLY