Academic and Behavioral Changes in Tutored Inner-City Children Roseann F. Umana, M.A.* Andrew I. Schwebel, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT: The effectiveness of a short-term tutoring program in producing academic and classroom behavior changes in inner-city children was examined. The value of holding supervision meetings for tutors and the importance of tutee motivation were also studied.

The role of nonprofessionals in the help-giving fields has expanded rapidly in the last decade. A number of studies (Little & Walker, 1968; Taylor, 1969; Carkhuff, 1968; Brown, 1965) have indicated that nonprofessionals, within the traditional roles of counseling and therapy, can act as effective change agents. Additionally, there is evidence that the work of nonprofessionals can be further enhanced by providing them with assistance through a support system (Colarelli & Siegel, 1966). Counseling and therapy activities reach a small number of people. The greatest impact of nonprofessional help givers may well be felt in activities that reach a larger number of people. One example of this would be the tutoring programs for culturally disadvantaged children (Deutsch, Katz, and Jensen, 1968) that are currently burgeoning across the country. These programs typically use nonprofessional tutors who are uncertified, have no special credentials, and, in fact, frequently lack formal training of any kind (Chesler, 1965). TUTORIAL RELATIONSHIPS Those who design and implement tutoring programs for the culturally disadvantaged believe that the tutorial relationship can affect changes both in children's academic performance and classroom behavior. The present study was designed to test that belief and to provide data on two related issues. Short-Term Tutoring and Academic Achievement What is the relationship between short-term tutoring and academic achievement? Academic improvement has been the traditional goal of tutoring. A number of studies have demonstrated that following a period of tutoring (generally 4 to 9 months) children show significant gains in academic performance relative to controls (Cloward, 1967; Levine, Dunn, Brochinsky, Bradley & Donlan, 1970; Weitzman, 1965). * Ms. Umana is connected with the Family Crisis Unit, Columbus Area Community Mental Health Center, 1515 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43205. The article is based on her master's thesis. Dr. Schwebel is with the Departmen! of Psychology, Ohio State University. Community Mental Health Journal, Vol. 10 (3), 1974

309

310

Community Mental Health Journal

Short-Term Tutoring and Classroom Behavior What is the relationship between short-term tutoring and behavioral change in the classroom? Facilitating behavioral change has recently been advocated by those developing tutoring programs. Although this goal is often phrased vaguely in terms of "improving the child's attitudes toward education," specific recommendations for change mentioned often include increased appropriate verbalization, increased attention span, and less disruption. The achievement of behavior change seems to be less directly related to the content of tutoring sessions and more directly related to the extent to which the tutee identifies with a knowledgeable and credible role model. Supervision and Tutor Effectiveness To what extent do group supervision meetings enhance tutor effectiveness.7 Studies focusing on the effectiveness of nonprofessionals in other help-giving fields, such as counseling and psychotherapy, generally report that nonprofessionals are most effective when they themselves receive support and supervision (Colarelli & Siegel, 1966; Carkhuff, 1968). Most tutoring programs do not provide the opportunity for tutors to share their experiences on a regular basis, to examine alternate approaches to tutoring, or to talk with experienced tutors. As a result tutors generally have little contact with each other (Chesler, 1965). Control Groups In designing a study to evaluate a tutoring program, what type of control group(s) is (are) adequate and appropriate.2 Since children almost always enter tutoring by self-selection, they must be considered "volunteer" subjects. At the college level, Lucas, Gaither, and Montgomery (1968) reported significant differences in academic performance between subjects in "volunteer" and "nonvolunteer" control groups. Further, Ewing and Gilbert (1967) concluded that the act of volunteering itself is a more important factor in producing academic improvement than the effects of specific counseling procedures employed. Such findings suggest that motivation for change is a variable that may account for academic improvement found in subjects who volunteer to be tutored. PRIMARY GOAL OF P R O G R A M The present study was done in and with the support of the tutoring program operated by the Urban League of Columbus, Ohio. The primary goal of the investigation was to determine the effectiveness of short-term (10 week) tutoring in producing improvement in tutees' academic performance and classroom behavior. Although previous studies have attempted to deal with this basic issue, it was felt that a satisfactory answer could not be given until at least two subissues were examined. These two subissues were the role of tutor support and supervision and the role of volunteering on the part of tutored children. With regard to tutor support systems, an area that has not been systematically studied, it was hypothesized that those tutors provided with weekly

Roseann F. Umana and Andrew I. Schwebel

311

g r o u p s u p e r v i s i o n m e e t i n g s w o u l d be m o r e e f f e c t i v e c h a n g e a g e n t s t h a n t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s w h o lacked s u c h s u p p o r t . W i t h r e g a r d to t h e role of volu n t e e r i n g , t h e e v i d e n c e cited a b o v e i n d i c a t e s t h a t a c a d e m i c a n d p o s s i b l y b e h a v i o r a l c h a n g e could r e s u l t p r i m a r i l y f r o m m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s a n d n o t f r o m specific i n t e r v e n t i o n s . F o r t h i s r e a s o n t w o c o n t r o l g r o u p s w e r e e m ployed: v o l u n t e e r c o n t r o l s w h o r e q u e s t e d t u t o r i n g a n d n o n v o l u n t e e r c o n t r o l s w h o n e i t h e r s o u g h t n o r r e c e i v e d t u t o r i n g . A l t h o u g h it w a s felt t h a t t h e v o l u n t e e r c o n t r o l g r o u p w a s a m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e g r o u p w i t h w h i c h to c o m p a r e t u t e e s , the n o n v o l u n t e e r c o n t r o l g r o u p w a s a c l o s e r a p p r o x i m a t i o n to t u t o r i n g c o n t r o l g r o u p s u s e d b y s o m e i n v e s t i g a t o r s . In t h i s s t u d y it w a s h y pothesized that the v o l u n t e e r control group would show significant improvem e n t in p e r f o r m a n c e r e l a t i v e to t h e n o n v o l u n t e e r c o n t r o l s . I n c o n c l u s i o n , it w a s e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e g r o u p t u t o r e d b y t u t o r s w h o h a d support would show greater improvement than their counterparts whose t u t o r s lacked such s u p p o r t ; t h a t t h o s e in t h e l a t t e r g r o u p w o u l d s h o w g r e a t er i m p r o v e m e n t t h a n t h e v o l u n t e e r c o n t r o l s and, finally, t h a t t h e v o l u n t e e r controls would show greater improvement than the nonvolunteer controls. T h u s it w a s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t s h o r t - t e r m t u t o r i n g w o u l d be a n e f f e c t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n a n d t h a t b o t h t u t o r e d g r o u p s w o u l d do s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r t h a n both control groups.

METHOD Subjects

The subjects (Ss) were 60 fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade elementary school children from an inner-city school (Merriman, 1970). Forty-five Ss were randomly selected from the pool of students who had requested tutors and who had received the consent of their parents. These Ss were randomly assigned to Groups 1, 2, and 3. Group 1. The Ss assigned to Group 1 (N = 15) were tutored for 10 weeks by college undergraduates who were fulfilling a requirement of a psychology course. Their tutoring activities were discussed in weekly group supervision meetings led by advance-level psychology graduate students. Group 2. The Ss in Group 2 (N = 15) were tutored for 10 weeks by college undergraduates who volunteered as part of a community project. These tutors received no academic credit, held no group meetings, and received no formal supervision. Group 3. The Ss in Group 3 (N - 15) requested but were not assigned tutors. They functioned as the "volunteer" control group.

Additionally, 15 Ss were selected from among students who had not requested tutoring. Group 4. The Ss in Group 4 (N = 15) were those who most closely matched the Ss assigned to Groups 1, 2, and 3 on two criteria: previous academic performance, as measured by grade reports, and current classroom behavior, as rated by teachers. Since these Ss did not request or meet with tutors, they served as the "nonvolunteer" control group. Instruments

The Adjective Rating Scale. (Kaswan & Love, 1974) was used as a measure of classroom behavior. The scale consists of 10 adjectives rated on a 9-point unipolar scale. The Wide Range Achievement Test (Jastak & Jastak, 1965) was used as a measure of academic achievement in the areas of arithmetic, spelling, and reading.

312

Community Mental Health Journal

Procedure Seven raters were trained by the investigators in the use of the present instruments. When training was complete, interrater reliability on the Adjective Rating Scale was calculated to be .79. The raters, in pairs, were then assigned to participating classrooms to obtain baseline Adjective Rating Scale data for all Ss. In using this scale, the raters observed the same two children for an hour. Neither the teacher nor the pupils were aware of which children were being rated at any given time. At the conclusion of the hour, Adjective Rating Scale ratings of the two pupils were independently made by the two raters. They assessed and rated each child's behavior in relation to the teacher and also in relation to his fellow classmates. An interrater reliability figure of .77 was obtained during a check made midway through the baseline data collection. When the Adjective Rating Scale baseline data were complete, the Wide Range Achievement Test was administered and then tutoring began. At the conclusion of the 10-week tutoring period, the entire testing procedure was repeated. Again a reliability check was made during data collection yielding an interrater reliability of .82 on the Adjective Rating Scale. RESULTS From the original pool of 60 Ss, 19 w e r e lost. O f these, 15 m o v e d f r o m the school district during the study. O t h e r investigators h a v e r e p o r t e d similar losses due to mobility (Levine, Wesolowski, & C o r b i t t , 1966; Levine et al., 1970). O f the r e m a i n i n g f o u r Ss, t w o w e r e w i t h d r a w n because of parental objection to t h e i r participation and t w o because t h e y failed to complete the Wide R a n g e A c h i e v e m e n t Test. At the conclusion of the s t u d y there w e r e 8 Ss in G r o u p 1, 8 Ss in G r o u p 2, 12 Ss in G r o u p 3, and 13 Ss in G r o u p 4.

A cademic Achievement Pre and post standard scores on the spelling, a r i t h m e tic, and reading subtests of the Wide Range A c h i e v e m e n t T e s t are s h o w n in Table 1. Although all g r o u p s i m p r o v e d in reading, only G r o u p s 1 and 3 showed positive change in spelling and arithmetic. T h e fact t h a t G r o u p I Ss had the g r e a t e s t m e a n i m p r o v e m e n t on all t h r e e subtests is statistically significant (p ~ .02). Analyses of variance tests (Winer, 1962) w e r e used to evaluate the preand p o s t c h a n g e s on each subtest. T h e s e analyses s h o w e d a t e n d e n c y t o w a r d differential p r e - p o s t change in spelling and in a r i t h m e t i c (.10 ~ p ~ .05). S u b s e q u e n t one-tailed t tests (Table 2) indicate that: In arithmetic, G r o u p 1 i m p r o v e d m o r e t h a n b o t h G r o u p 2 (p ~ .05) and G r o u p 4 (p .05). Further, G r o u p 3 i m p r o v e d m o r e t h a n G r o u p 2 (p K .05) and G r o u p 4 (p ~ .05). In spelling, G r o u p 1 s h o w e d m o r e i m p r o v e m e n t t h a n G r o u p 2 (p .05) and G r o u p 4 (p ~ .05). Analysis of reading a c h i e v e m e n t scores indicates that there was significant overall i m p r o v e m e n t (p ~ .01) f r o m pretesting to posttesting. A l t h o u g h the t u t o r e d children s h o w e d the g r e a t e s t m e a n i m p r o v e m e n t , statistically reliable i n t e r g r o u p differences in change scores w e r e not obtained, partly because of large interindividual variability.

Classroom Behavior O n the Adjective Rating Scale each child's score was calculated on each adjective b o t h in relation to the t e a c h e r and in relation to peers by obtaining the m e a n rating m a d e by the t w o o b s e r v e r s . Since the data so obtained appeared n o r m a l l y distributed, analyses of variance tests w e r e ap-

Roseann F. Umana and Andrew I. Schwebel

313

TABLE 1 The Pre-*, Post-, and Change Scoreson the Wide Range Achievement Test Spelling

Pre

Post

Croup i

81.0

83.6

Group 2

83.0

80.1

Group 3

85.3

Group 4

94.8

Reading

Arithmetic

Change

2.6

Pre

Post

83.0

86.9

-2.9

94.9

92.1

86.7

1.4

88.5

91.6

91.2

-3.6

89.5

89.4

Change

3.9

Pre

Post

Change

78.1

92.0

14.0

92.6

102.6

10.0

3.1

87.3

91.6

4.3

-0.1

97.8

99.5

1.7

-2.8

*Expressed In standard scores.

plied. Significant pre-post main effects (p <~ .05) were noted on several adjectives, suggesting t h a t Ss became more clear, less phony, more friendly, more patient, more active, and less bored in relation to their teacher, whereas they became less phony, more patient, and less rude in relation to fellow pupils. Only one adjective showed differential improvement among groups. This was considered as possibly a chance finding due to the large number of calculations made. Although significant differential changes between groups were not found on individual adjectives, ratings of Group 1 tutees in relation to teachers showed the most extreme changes on 9 of the 10 adjectives (Table 3). Specifically, in contrast to the other three groups, G r o u p 1 changed most in the direction of becoming less afraid, less controlling, less angry, less patient, less friendly, less active, less clear, and more bored. The probability of any one group being at one extreme on 9 of the 10 change measures is less t h a n .02 (binomial expansion). Since the tutorial was essentially a relationship between a child and an adult tutor, behavior change in relation to the teacher was expected. A similar analysis of the Adjective Rating Scale ratings in relation to peers (Table 4) was performed, but no significant trends were noted. TABLE 2 ts for Group Comparisonson Spelling and Arithmetic ChangeScores d~

Spelling

Arithmetic

Groups 1 and 2

14

2.00"

2.24*

O r o u p s 1 and 3

18

0.47

0.19

Groups i and 4

19

1.79"

2.31"

G r o u p s 2 and 3

18

1.49

2.47*

Groups 2 and 4

19

0.29

0.26

Groups 3 and 4

23

1.32

2.39*

*p<

.05

0,38

6.50

0.00

3.50

4.00

4.75

2.50

0.88

Angry

Clear

Phony

Friendly

Patient

Active

Bored

Rude

0.75

2.75

4.38

4.25

4.50

0.00

5.75

0.00

1.00

0.50

Post

-.13

.25

-.37

.25

1.00

.00

-.75

-.38

-.63

-.501

ChanRe

0.88

3.50

4.00

3.38

3.25

0.38

3.63

0.38

1.00

0.88

Pre

1.00

0.75

4.88

5.50

4.63

0.25

6.63

0.88

3.00

1.13

Post

Group 2

.12

-2.75

.88

2.12

1.38

-.13

3.00

0.50

2.00

.25

Change

0.75

3.92

2.33

3.08

3.08

0.33

3.50

0.50

0.83

0.75

Pre

0.42

1.83

3.92

5.67

4.33

0.00

4.92

0.83

2.58

1.50

Post

Group 3

-.33

-2.0q

.59

2.5q

1.25

-.33

1.42

.33

1.75

.75

Change

1.38

3.31

2.46

3.54

3.08

1.23

5.15

0.62

2.08

0.62

Pre

0.31

3.15

4.00

5.54

5.08

0.38

5.62

0.54

2.77

0.23

Post

Group 4

A negative change score indicates that the child exhibited less of that behavior durinR the second observation.

1.63

Controlling

1

1.00

Pre

Afraid

Adjective

~roup 1

TABLE 3

Pre-, Post-, and ChangeScoreson Adjective Ratingsin Relationtothe Teacher

-1.07

-.16

1.54

2.00

2.00

-.85

.47

-.08

.6~

-.39

Change

&n

1.86

0.14

5.57

0.14

4.29

2.86

2.57

0.29

0.14

Controllin~

Angry

Clear

Phony

Friendly

Patient

Active

Bored

Rude

0.00

0.63

3.38

4.13

5o13

0.13

6.38

0.25

3.13

0.63

Post

-0.14

0.34

0.81

1.27

0.84

-0.01

0.81

0.ii

1.27

0.631

Change

0.50

1.25

3.25

3.63

4.75

0.38

6.00

0.25

2.00

0.88

Pre

0.00

1.00

3.75

4.13

5.13

0.13

5.00

0.00

2.38

0.63

Post

Group 2

-0.50

-0.25

0.50

0.50

0.38

-0.25

-1.O0

-0.25

0.38

-0.25

Change

1.33

2.58

3.66

2.17

4.17

0.33

3.42

0.75

2.75

0.25

Pre

0.16

0.83

3.33

4.00

5.08

0.00

6.17

0.50

O.q2

0.83

Post

Croup 3

-1.17

-1.75

-0.33

1.83

O.ql

-0.33

2.75

-0.25

-1.83

0.5R

Chan~e

1.08

1.23

4.54

3.62

5.54

1.31

6.15

0.S5

2.8~

0.15

Pre

0.62

3.15

4.0g

3.q2

5.38

0.23

4.q2

O.q2

3.15

0.23

Post

Croun 4

I A positive change score indicates that the child exhibited more of that behavior durln~ the second observation.

0.00

Pre

Afraid

Adjective

Croup I

TABLE 4 Pre-, Post-, and Change Scores on Adjective Ratings in Relation to Peers

-0.46

1.92

-0.46

0.3n

-0.16

- I .n8

-1.23

0 .n7

0.30

O.Og

Cbanee

316

Community Mental Health Journal

DISCUSSION Academic Achievement The improvement by Group 1 tutees in the three academic areas assessed by the Wide Range Achievement Test suggests that with support college undergraduates can be effective tutors for inner-city children. Improvement on the academic achievement test by the children who requested but did not receive tutors (Group 3) suggests that children's motivation to seek a tutor is a significant element in bringing about academic improvement. These two findings are discussed below. The effects of a support system for tutors. Both groups of tutors consisted of college undergraduates who had received no training in tutoring techniques or procedures. The two groups of tutors, then, were equivalent in all but two respects. First, the Group 2 tutors volunteered to participate, suggesting that they might have been more highly motivated and therefore more effective. The data, however, suggest that this was not the case. The remaining difference between the tutor groups was the provision of support to those in Group 1. The group supervision meetings held for those in Group 1 dealt with issues such as the environment of the culturally disadvantaged child, differences in the backgrounds and attitudes of tutors and tutees, and the process of setting and achieving goals for tutoring sessions (for a description of these sessions see Schwebel, Gross, & Clarren, in press). As indicated by the data, in the context of such a supportive setting Group I tutors were apparently better able to define realistic goals for tutees and to develop effective methods of reaching them. The relationship between the provision of a support system to tutors and their effectiveness in producing academic improvement was corroborated by the authors' observations of weekly tutoring sessions. For instance, observation of the initial tutoring sessions showed differences in the approaches of Group I and Group 2 tutors. Group 1 tutors spent the first sessions talking with their tutees and assessing their interests and abilities. In contrast, Group 2 tutors immediately began to assist their tutees with current classwork. Over the 10-week tutoring period several additional differences between groups were noted. First, joint tutor-tutee planning was observed in almost all Group 1 sessions. Observation of Group 2 sessions provided little evidence of such planning. Second, although Group 1 tutors seemed relatively comfortable with their tutees, Group 2 tutors appeared stilted and formal in their interaction with tutees. Third, in Group 1 sessions, reward contingencies were usually clearly described. In contrast, Group 2 tutors made promises to their tutees that were not related to tutee performance and were frequently broken. Finally, Group 1 tutors generally ended a session with a discussion of goals for the following meeting whereas Group 2 sessions were often terminated more abruptly. Control group selection. Educators have shown (Merriman, 1970) that over the course of the grade-school years children who attend inner-city schools tend to fall further and further behind national norms for academic achievement. In this study it was expected that a child making "normal" progress in the present school would have lower posttest than pretest scores (adjusted for age increases) on the Wide Range Achievement Test. Change scores for the "nonvolunteer" control group (Group 4) tended

Roseann F. Umana and Andrew h Schwebel

317

to follow this pattern. In contrast, the Group 3 "volunteer" controls had higher postscores on the three academic achievement measures and improved significantly more than their Group 4 counterparts on the arithmetic subtest. This finding lends support to the hypothesis that volunteering is a significant element in academic improvement. The arithmetic subtest change scores of the Group 2 children who were tutored were poorer than the volunteer controls. It is possible that the volunteer controls' untested expectations of future help and the knowledge that someone cared about their improvement better enabled them to learn arithmetic over the 10 weeks than Group 2 Ss who actually experienced tutoring by "unsupported" tutors. This explanation makes sense in light of the authors' observations of Group 2 tutoring sessions which were described above. Although Group 1 children tended to show more improvement than the volunteer controls, the differences were not statistically significant. It is possible that both small Ns and the short-term nature of the study acted as limiting factors in this respect. However, with regard to the basic question of tutoring effectiveness, the most that can be said at present is that there is a trend for "motivated" children with "supported" tutors to improve more than their "motivated" counterparts without tutors. These findings illustrate the importance of selecting controls from the same population from which tutees are drawn and calls into doubt the validity of the common practice of drawing conclusions from contrasts between tutees and nonvolunteer controls.

Behavioral Change Pre-post differences in certain classroom behaviors were found for several of the adjectives. These changes were probably due partly to the changing atmosphere in the participating classrooms. By the time of the posttesting, spring was coming and teachers had had 10 more weeks to teach the children and to "mold" the class. It is also possible that raters were consistently more lenient in their final ratings. Differential improvement between groups on individual adjectives was generally not found. The fact that a third of the sample was lost in the 10 week period during which the study was conducted may have reduced the Ns to the point at which genuine differences between the groups on individual adjectives could not be observed. There was a significant trend, however, for Group 1 tutees to show more change in their behavior toward teachers than was shown by their counterparts in other groups. The direction of these changes in Group 1 Ss was consistent with what one would expect of youngsters involved in a successful supplemental learning experience. Specifically, it would make sense that a successful tutoring experience with a significant adult would lessen the child's need to seek the teacher's attention and, in contrast to others, lead him to become less active, friendly, and patient toward the teacher. Further, as a result of successful tutoring one would expect a reduction in a child's feelings of frustration in the classroom and therefore in his expression of angry and controlling behavior toward the teacher. Finally, as the youngster masters his school work one would expect him to be more bored and less afraid in class. In summary, the data indicate that the provision of a support system for

318

Community Mental Health Journal

college tutors greatly enhances their effectiveness in helping children develop academically. Also the data suggest that tutee motivation is an important factor in bringing about academic improvement. However, the present findings underscore the fact that additional research is needed to specify further the effectiveness of providing support to tutors and the importance of children's willingness to be tutored. Finally, the present findings suggest that under certain conditions tutored children may become less manipulative and disruptive in the classroom. Further study is needed to identify the conditions under which these behavioral changes occur. REFERENCES Brown, W. F. Student to student counseling for academic adjustment. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1965, 44, 811-817. Carkhuff, R. R. Differential functioning of lay and professional helpers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, I5,117-126. Chesler, M. A. Tutors for disadvantaged youth. Educational Leadership, 1965, 22, 559-563. Cloward, R. D. Studies in tutoring. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1967, 36, 14-25. Colarelli, N. J., & Siegel, S. M. Ward H: An adventure in innovation. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1966. Deutsch, M., Katz, I., & Jensen, A. R. Social class, race, and psychological development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968. Ewing, T. N., & Gilbert, W. M. Controlled study of the effects of counseling in scholastic achievements of students of superior ability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 14, 234-239. Jastak, J. F., & Jastak, S. R. The wide range achievement test (Revised Ed). Wilmington, Del.: Guidance Associates, 1965. Kaswan, J., & Love, L. Troubled children: Their families, schools, and treatment. New York: WileyInterscience, 1974. Levine, M., Dunn, F., Brochinsky, S., Bradkey, J., & Donlan, K . Student teachers as tutors for children in an inner city school. Child Psychiatry atd Human Development, 1970, 1, 50-56. Levine, M., Wesolowski, J., & Corbitt, F. J. Pupil turnover and academic performance in an inner city elementary school. Psychology in Schools, 1966, 3,153-158. Little, D. F., & Walker, B. S. Tutor-pupil relationship and academic progress, Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1968, 47,324-328. Lucas, J. A., Gaither, G. S., & Montgomery, J. R. Evaluating a tutoring program containing volunteer subjects. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1968, 36, 78-81. Merriman, H. O. The Columbus school report. Columbus, Ohio: Columbus Board of Education, 1970. Schwebel, A. I., Gross S. J., & Clarren, S. N. An experientially based, problem-solving approach to teaching undergraduate psychology. Improving College and University Teaching. (in press). Taylor, R. G. Tutorial services and academic success. The Journal of Educational Research, 1969, 62,195-197. Weitzman, D. L. Effect of tutoring on performance and motivation ratings in secondary school students. California journal of Educational Research, 1965, 16, 108-115. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.