A Meta‐Analysis on the Effects of Peer Tutoring on Emergent Bilinguals’ Academic Achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This meta‐analysis investigated the effects of peer tutoring interventions on the academic achievement of Emergent Bilingual (EB) students from preschool through Grade 12. Fourteen studies, including peer‐reviewed journal articles and unpublished dissertations published between 2010 and 2021, were analyzed based on study characteristics, student variables, and intervention characteristics. The findings indicate that peer tutoring yielded a moderate effect size (g = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.22–0.94) on EBs’ academic outcomes. The majority of studies focused on elementary‐aged students, with significantly fewer studies addressing preschool or secondary‐level EBs. Nearly all studies involved Spanish‐speaking students ( n = 14), and most targeted reading outcomes demonstrated a moderate effect size ( g = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.24–1.00). Only a limited number of effects came from studies involving EBs with disabilities. These findings underscore the potential of peer tutoring to support reading development among EBs while highlighting critical research gaps, particularly at the secondary level and in core content areas such as mathematics. Implications for practice and directions for future research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".