The Language Teacher
December 2001
The Big Sister Program: Cross-Age Peer Tutoring in an EFL Writing Class
Kristen Doherty
Kyoto Sangyo University
In this paper I discuss the genesis and outcome of the Big Sisters in Rhetoric Program (BSP), an extracurricular program used in Rhetoric, a compulsory writing course for third year students at a private women's university. Started in 1999 and lasting for two years, the BSP used in-class, cross-age, group peer tutoring sessions to help English literature and linguistics majors in their struggle to write a 10 page research paper. Because about 10 percent of the students must repeat the class each year, Rhetoric can be termed a high-risk class in which students are often in need of extra help with the course content as well as organizational strategies and time management.
Research on Supplemental Instruction, an out-of-class group peer tutoring program used in traditionally difficult courses at more than 500 North American, European, and Australian universities, has shown that the learning process is improved when students work together to overcome their difficulties (Shaya & Petty, 1993; Supplemental Instruction, 2000; Wallace, 1996). Because the tutors are students and thus a similar age to the tutees, they are able to understand some of the problems of their younger peers better than the actual course teachers (Wallace, 1996).
Other benefits are that cross-age group tutoring provides students with feedback on their studies and allows them to interact and learn in a nonthreatening environment through negotiation with their group leader and peers (Commander & Stratton, 1996; Shaya & Petty, 1993; Supplemental Instruction, 2000; Wallace, 1996). In addition, students who participate in group peer tutoring tend to earn higher semester grades than their classmates who don't participate (Commander & Stratton, 1996; An Overview, 2000; Shaya & Petty, 1993; Supplemental Instruction, 2000).
Similar in theory to Supplemental Instruction, the BSP was the idea of Catherine Vreeland, who has been teaching Rhetoric at the university since 1970. In the mid nineties, Vreeland found that most of her students needed extra writing and language support, so she began a grassroots peer tutoring program. She met with three of her best students from a previous Rhetoric class and asked them to come to her class for one period to discuss the process that they went through while completing their research papers. During the designated class period, Vreeland left the room and allowed the "Big Sisters" and Rhetoric students to hold their discussion in Japanese. "It worked SO WELL -- beyond my wildest dreams, and so I kept it up," she said (C. Vreeland, personal communication, November 6, 2000).
Two years later, Vreeland advocated a course-wide program with a dedicated group of Big Sisters that Rhetoric teachers could invite to their classes for a 90 minute "Big Two years later, Vreeland advocated a course-wide program with a dedicated group of Big Sisters that Rhetoric teachers could invite to their classes for a 90 minute "Big Sister Session" (BSS). With the consensus of the members of the English Department and the support of seven of the eight Rhetoric instructors, the BSP was enacted at the end of the 1998 school year. At that time, I was chosen as program coordinator and was placed in charge of sending out introductory letters that explained the concept of the program to Rhetoric teachers and potential Big Sisters. The program was then put into full practice from the start of the following academic year.
Setting Up a Cross-Age Peer Tutoring Program
Although each peer tutoring program will vary according to the needs determined by the coordinator, the following description of the BSP's set up, and the description of the duties of each of the key players, should give an idea of what it entails.
BSP coordinator: In addition to the program introductory letters, I wrote other material to help familiarize teachers and Big Sisters with the program. Teachers received an email with suggestions on how to carry out a BSS, such as making sure to invite more than one Big Sister so that the tutors would not have to face the class alone. Teachers were also encouraged to either email or phone the Big Sisters at least two weeks before the class date in order to give Big Sisters enough time to organize their schedules. If a student was not available for the requested day, the two-week advance notice would give the teacher time to contact a different student. Another recommendation was that teachers arrange a group pre-session meeting so that the Big Sisters could get together and hear the teacher explain her goals for the session. If a meeting could not be planned, further email or phone correspondence was encouraged.
Both teachers and Big Sisters were given a "Big Sister Session Pre-Session Outline" to be used when they discussed the goals of their upcoming sessions. Suggested BSS topics included the structure of an English essay, the process that one goes though while writing an essay or research paper, words of wisdom from the Big Sisters' experiences, and a question and answer session. Rhetoric teachers were invited to use the outline to determine what topics they wanted the Big Sisters to discuss or to use their own ideas as they saw fit.
Once these materials were distributed, my job simply involved setting up a Big Sister orientation session, putting together teacher and Big Sister contact information, and emailing notes of encouragement to the Big Sisters throughout the year. I was also responsible for planning an end-of-the-year "thank you" party to which all of the Big Sisters were invited.
Rhetoric teachers: All Rhetoric teachers were asked to nominate their best students to become Big Sisters. It was then up to each teacher to decide whether to have a BSS in their class, as well as to organize all aspects of the session. Although the teacher was not required to come to the class on the day of the BSS, the time spent organizing a session far outweighed the time they would have spent preparing for and teaching that day's class.
Big Sisters: Potential Big Sisters were nominated because their essays and work habits indicated that they were diligent students who had an excellent understanding of how to write an English essay. Nineteen of the 23 students nominated accepted the invitation.
In an effort to show the recommended students that their hard work was being rewarded with an important and responsible post, the invitations to join were personalized and included a congratulatory message. In addition to an English explanation of the program, a shorter Japanese explanation was included in order to avoid any misunderstandings. The letter explained that the Big Sisters would probably be asked to attend just one class period for the entire year and would have the right to refuse the request if they were unavailable. Once they had agreed to attend, however, they were responsible for meeting with the teacher, preparing their presentation, and attending the class.
As was hoped, many of the nominees were very proud of their achievement and expressed this, as well as their willingness to help, in their acceptance letters. Some students also conveyed their feelings of surprise and apprehension. As one student wrote, "This offer for the big sister program in Rhetoric surprised me a lot; at the same time I feel so proud of myself. (Do I deserve it?) It is totally my pleasure to be in its program" [sic].
In addition, several expressed regret that the Big Sister Program had not been around when they were Rhetoric students. Despite not having had the chance to benefit from the program as Rhetoric students, several mentioned that acting as a Big Sister would be a good experience. Many students even recognized what research on peer tutoring has shown -- that student leaders often solidify their understanding of the subject they are helping with (Gaustad, 1993; Supplemental Instruction 2000; Wallace, 1996).
Big Sister orientation session: At the start of the 1999 school year, Big Sisters were invited to a lunchtime orientation session and were urged to send me any questions or concerns that they had about the program. The questions were passed on to Big Sister mentor Ms. Kazue Minamide, a graduate student at the college and one of Vreeland's original Big Sisters.
During the orientation, Minamide spent the bulk of the hour talking in Japanese about her experiences as a Big Sister and answering the aforementioned questions. The Big Sisters also contributed some valuable ideas that were implemented, such as distributing teacher contact information to the Big Sisters. In addition to this group orientation, pre-session meetings held between teachers and Big Sisters were also used as an opportunity to make sure that the Big Sisters understood the program's ideology, as well as the mechanics of the information they were asked to convey.
Big Sister Sessions: Big Sister Sessions were held during the regular class period and in the regular classroom in order to insure that the greatest number of students could benefit from them.
Participant Responses to the BSP
The evaluations filled out by Big Sisters, students, and teachers who participated in the program help give an idea of what actually occurred before, during, and after the sessions. Teachers who did not organize a BSS also responded to questionnaires.
Big Sisters: The post-BSS evaluations of the seven Big Sisters who returned them show that they felt their sessions were a success. When asked whether they were able to do what the teacher had asked of them, and also whether or not they thought the students had understood them, all respondents answered positively. They also reported that many Rhetoric students eagerly asked questions about all aspects of the writing process, from choosing a topic to the use of references.
Rhetoric students: The surveys of Rhetoric students show that they too were pleased with the program. They were asked if spending one entire class period with Big Sisters was useful, a little useful, or not useful at all. Of the 70 surveys returned by students from four of the eight Rhetoric classes, 61 circled useful (with several writing in the word "very"), 7 circled a little useful, and 2 did not circle anything.
Students were also asked to write short answers about the "positive (if any)" and "negative (if any)" aspects of having Big Sisters come to their class. Fifteen students wrote both positive and negative comments, with the remainder writing only positive responses. The negative comments included complaints from two students who wrote that the Big Sisters were either confusing or not concrete and from two others who felt that the Big Sisters couldn't gauge the students' levels.
In contrast, many of the students who responded positively mentioned that talking with the Big Sisters helped them understand the answers to questions they were harboring, think about how they would go about writing their research paper, and thus feel less anxiety about writing. Other comments included, "It is easier to ask questions to Big Sisters than to ask questions to professors," "I could understand what to do easier than doing by myself" [sic], and "Big Sisters know well which point is difficult to understand for us" [sic].
The Rhetoric students were also given nine statements and were asked to, "Circle the letters of all the answers that apply to your experience." The statements, followed by the number and percentage of students (out of 70), can be found in Table 1.
| Statments |
|
|
| The Big Sisters helped me feel more confident about writing. |
|
|
| I learned new things from the Big Sisters (things that my Rhetoric teacher hasn't talked about yet). |
|
|
| I didn't learn anything new, but things that my Rhetoric teacher has taught us were reinforced and I understood them better than I did before. |
|
|
| I didn't learn anything new and the Big Sisters didn't reinforce anything I had learned before. |
|
|
| I felt that the Big Sisters really understood the things they were talking to us about. |
|
|
| I hope that Big Sisters come to my class again. |
|
|
| I would like to be a Big Sister next year. |
|
|
| The Big Sisters only confused me more. |
|
|
| I would have preferred to have had class with my teacher instead of the Big Sisters. |
|
|
As can be seen, student responses were overwhelmingly positive. The fact that more than 60% of the students felt more confident about writing after just one 90 minute BSS, and that the same percentage wanted to have a future BSS indicates that the program was a success.
Rhetoric teachers: All Rhetoric teachers were also asked to complete evaluations. The four teachers who held a BSS were asked about their reasons for having a BSS, their method of communication with Big Sisters, and their overall feelings about the program. These comments show that they too were very happy with the results; in fact, two teachers even held a second session.
When organizing their BSS's, all of the teachers used email to establish contact with the Big Sisters. They were satisfied with the reply time from the students and wrote that the tutors were enthusiastic about participating. In addition to emails, three of the four teachers met with their Big Sisters in order to explain what they wanted them to do. One teacher noted that her Big Sisters were enthusiastic from the beginning and came to the BSS well prepared, "They turned up with bunches of note cards, and covered the blackboard. They stayed even after the class to answer questions."
However, the same teacher also mentioned that she noticed some small mistakes in the sample bibliography citations that the Big Sisters had written on the board. She wrote: "On the next visit, I will stay in, make my own explanations, then ask the Big Sisters to elucidate. It will be more like team teaching."
Ideally, the BSS cycle should be completed with a follow-up session or email contact between the teacher and tutors. Of the two teachers and Big Sisters who wrote that there was some kind of follow-up session, all reported that it was both useful and necessary for the two sides to discuss what had gone on during the class. Comments by one of the two teachers and all of the Big Sisters who did not participate in a follow-up session indicated that a meeting was desired but never arranged, perhaps because each side was waiting for the other to make contact. Because a final meeting allows teachers to gain a deeper insight into their students' problems and gives the Big Sisters the opportunity to relay any questions they were unable to answer, I highly recommend conducting a follow-up meeting and suggest that teachers be responsible for arranging it.
Given all that holding a BSS entails, it is not surprising that three of the teachers who did not organize a session thought that the program was a good idea, but were unable to participate fully because of lack of time. Finally, one teacher who was against the program from the beginning wrote that there is no justification in using Japanese in what is supposed to be a course that is taught in English. His views were echoed by one of the teachers who had held a BSS: "Partly I think all this is an admission of failure -- some students simply can't take on board all that I say." However, she added, "But, if this is the reality, I suppose we had better face it."
Conclusion
The Big Sister Program was a huge success, but not only because almost all of the participant comments were positive. The BSP was a success because everybody learned something about themselves, about writing, and even about the people they were working with. Many of the Rhetoric students saw that they could write a 10 page paper, that others before them had done it and that they too would succeed. The Big Sisters, despite their worries, found that they were capable of conveying ideas that seemed impossible to comprehend just one year before. The teachers discovered that they were not alone in their teaching, that there is support from students who are intelligent, responsible, and delighted to volunteer. As both coordinator and Rhetoric teacher, I learned all of these things. But more than anything, I re-learnt a simple truth: It is much more gratifying to help struggling students than to just lament their inability to understand course content.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Stephen M. Ryan for his encouragement and helpful comments throughout the many stages of this paper. Thanks also to Catherine Vreeland for her editorial advice and for urging the BSP into existence. A final thanks goes out to my peer readers, Wilma Luth and Andy Barfield, for their excellent suggestions, sound advice, and precious time.
I will be more than happy to send the letters and handouts given to BSP participants to any interested parties. Please email me at <kdoherty@gol.com>.
References
Commander, N.E. & Stratton, C.B. (1996). A learning assistance model for expanding academic support. Journal of Developmental Education, 20, 8-13.
Gaustad, J. (1993). Peer and cross-age tutoring (Report No. EDO-EA-93-1). Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354608).
An overview of supplemental instruction. [Electronic version]. SI News. Available: <www.eosc.osshe.edu/lcenter/SIabs.htm> (2001, November 1).
Shaya, S. B. & Petty, H. R. (1993). A case study of supplemental instruction in biology focused on at-risk students. Bioscience, 43, 709-712.
Supplemental Instruction Program. [Electronic version]. University Counseling and Placement Services, Wayne State University. Available: <www.sa.wayne.edu/SuppInst-Tu/siwebsit.pdf> (2000, October 7).
Wallace, J. (1996). Peer tutoring: A collaborative approach. In S. Wofendale & J. Corbett (Eds.), Opening doors: Learning support in higher education (pp. 101-116). London: Cassell Publishers.
All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website