This study evaluated the effectiveness of elementary students implementing the HELPS reading program with younger students as peer tutors compared to adult tutors. Four upper elementary students were trained to deliver the HELPS program, which incorporates research-based fluency and comprehension strategies, to four younger students 3 times per week as peer tutors. Younger students also received the program from adult tutors. Results from reading assessments found that adult tutors yielded slightly greater benefits for student reading gains compared to peer tutors. However, with more sessions, the differences in gains between peer and adult tutors may become negligible. The study was limited by a small sample size and less structured afterschool setting compared to a classroom.

1. A Case Study Evaluation of Elementary-Aged Students Using the
HELPS Reading Program with Younger Students
North Carolina State University
Introduction
Mahalakshmi Krishnasami, Rebecca A. Levy, Ashley Bennetone, Katelin Bigelow, Jessica Loehman, John Begeny
Purpose
Methods
HELPS Program
Results
Peer tutoring (PT) is a validated intervention to improve
reading outcomes for both tutor and student. Fluency-based
peer tutoring can be effective in improving students’ oral
reading fluency, including students with/without reading
difficulties (Abbott et al. 2006).
There are many advantages to using PT in the classroom.
Positive outcomes for the tutor include improved self
confidence and renewed feelings of responsibility. PT also
provides individual attention to the student that is often
difficult to achieve in a typical classroom (Dufrene et al.
2010). Finally, application of PT requires relatively less
teacher-time than other instructional options (Kreuger &
Braun, 1998).
Most peer tutoring programs only integrate very basic
instruction procedures, such as strategies (Dufrene et al.
2010). Therefore, this study focuses on the integration of
a manualized, research-supported intervention
(HELPS) instead of a basic, unstructured peer tutoring
program.
• Examine whether the effects of the HELPS
program differ when children receive HELPS
from peer tutors versus adult tutors.
• Evaluate students’ use of a manualized,
research-supported reading fluency and
comprehension intervention program in a
peer tutoring setting.
• 4 upper elementary students (peer tutors) in
grades 3–5 were trained by a research
assistant experienced with the HELPS
implementation methods.
• The peer tutors learned how to implement
the program procedures and use the
program with 4 younger elementary aged
students, grades 1–3, in a local afterschool
program.
• The students receiving HELPS (tutees) each
received the program approximately 3 times
per week from either an adult tutor or a
peer tutor.
• Each tutee was randomly paired with an
adult or peer tutor.
• The students ultimately received at least 10
sessions from an adult tutor and at least 10
sessions from a peer tutor.
• AIMSweb assessments were completed for
each peer tutor and tutee at three different
points throughout the study.
• Evidence-based oral reading fluency program for
elementary-aged students.
• Incorporates the following eight research-based
instructional strategies to improve oral reading fluency
and comprehension: repeated reading, model reading,
systematic error-correction procedure, verbal cues for
students to read with fluency, verbal cues for students
to read with comprehension, goal setting,
performance feedback, and use of systematic praise
and structured reward system (Begeny, 2009).
• The following graphs display individual student gains when working with
adult tutors and peer tutors, as examined on three levels: Retention Passage
Gains (RPG), Immediate Passage Gains (IPG), and Generalized Passage Gains
(GPG)
• According to the application of standard error measurement (Christ &
Silberglitt, 2007), the overall results demonstrate that there are some
idiosyncratic practical differences between PT and AT passage gains.
• There were practical differences between
all AT and PT gains for Student 1
• Student 1 never met any of the HELPS
Program reading goals
• Student 1 read 4 new passages with AT and
4 new passages with PT
• The AT yielded more benefits for Student 1
• There were practical differences between
the AT and PT for Student 2’s RPG and IPG
• Student 2 met reading goals with AT 8 times
and with PT 7 times
• Student 2 read 9 new passages with AT and
8 new passages with PT
• The AT yielded more benefits for student 2
in regards to RPG and IPG
• There were practical differences between
the AT and PT for Student 3’s GPG
• Student 3 met reading goals with AT 7
times and with PT 6 times
• Student 3 read 9 new passages with AT and
8 new passages with PT
• The AT yielded more benefits for Student 3
in regards to GPG
• There were practical differences between the
AT and PT for Student 4’s RPG and IPG
• Student 4 met reading goals with AT 5 times
and with PT 4 times
• Student 4 read 6 new passages with AT and 6
new passages with PT
• The AT yielded more benefits for Student 4 in
regards to RPG and IPG
Discussion & Limitations
The overall practical results of this study suggest that
the implementation of the HELPS program by peer
tutors did not yield the same benefits as when the
program is implemented by adult tutors. However,
the non-practical results of this study suggest that in
some cases, peer tutors and adult tutors elicited
similar gains in the student’s oral reading fluency.
Because this study was limited in the amount of time
each tutor worked with a student it is possible that
with more time, the practical differences found
between peer tutors and adult tutors would become
non-practical. Future research with a larger sample is
needed to further explore whether peer tutoring
using the HELPS program can be as beneficial as adult
tutoring. Finally, future studies conducted in a
classroom setting may yield different results than
those found in a more unstructured afterschool
setting.
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
RPG IPG GPG
AverageWCPM
Student 1
AT PT
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
RPG IPG GPG
AverageWCPM
Student 2
Adult Tutor Peer Tutor
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
RPG IPG GPG
AverageWCPM
Student 3
Adult Tutor Peer Tutor
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
RPG IPG GPG
AverageWCPM
Student 4
Adult Tutor Peer Tutor