Peer-Reviewed Article

Exploring the Peer Tutor

Experiential Learning Process
James Cole
Indiana University

Page Keller
Knack Technologies, Inc

Jillian Kinzie
Indiana University

George D. Kuh
Indiana University

findings have implications for tutoring program

Abstract administrators, experiential educators, and oth-
ers to enhance the effects of peer tutoring and
While peer tutoring is a valued experiential other experiential learning activities.
activity, little is known about the peer tutor-
ing experience and its relationship to desired
21st-century outcomes of college. This paper
features the results from a multi-institution Introduction
study of the characteristics and benefits of peer
tutoring for tutors. The National Survey of Stu- Experiential learning aims to have students par-
dent Engagement was administered along with ticipate in structured, educationally purposeful activ-
a set of experimental questions specifically de- ities tied to concrete, real-world situations so students
signed to interrogate the process of peer tutor- can practice applying what they know in new con-
ing at 30 four-year institutions. A total of 3,715 texts. Such activities emphasize the process of learn-
seniors were included in the study. In general, ing more than the product of learning, highlighting
peer tutors who identified as seniors in college working with others in ways that foster meaningful re-
showed patterns of engagement and gains in lationships, develop trust, and create a growth mind-
learning and personal development that ex- set in students (Roberts & Welton, 2022). Today, dif-
ceeded substantially those of their non-tutor ferent forms of experiential learning are recognized
counterparts, especially for those who received as valuable for all students in higher education as
training and feedback from supervisors. These institutions strive to engage more undergraduates in

64 ELTHE Volume 7.1

high-impact practices (Kuh, 2008; Roberts & Welton, ence (Astin, 1993; Kuh, 2003; Pascarella & Teren-
2022; Wurdinger & Carlson, 2010). To achieve the zini, 2005). Educationally purposeful peer interac-
powerful outcomes of experiential learning, students tions (EPPIs) are congenial with academic values
must interact with others, reflect on their experience, and help foster student development (Anderson,
and receive feedback about their performance. 2021; Kuh et al., 2021). For example, student con-
tact with supportive, right-minded peers can pos-
Given this educational value, it is no surprise itively influence overall academic development,
that many instructional approaches feature learning knowledge acquisition, analytical thinking, prob-
through experience (Dewey, 1939; Kolb, 1984; May- lem-solving, and self-esteem (Kuh, 1993, 1995).
hew et al., 2016). In addition to “learning by doing,” Although peer support among students can come
such approaches often emphasize the importance of in many forms, including from roommates, class-
peer influence on student development. Indeed, ac- mates, co-workers, and friends, it can also stem
cording to Astin (1993, p. 398), peers are “the single from participation in more formal, structured expe-
most potent source of influence ... affecting virtually riences, such as learning communities (Goldman,
every aspect of development—cognitive, affective, 2012; Kuh, 2008; Zhao & Kuh, 2004), supplemen-
psychological, and behavioral.” Vygotsky’s (1978) tal instruction (Moore & LeDee, 2006; Ogden et
zone of proximal development theory features peers al., 2003), and tutoring (Ashwin, 2003; Preszler,
as sources of support and guidance, especially when 2009). Peer support in the form of peer teaching
students are similar in stage of development and expe- and tutoring helps students feel connected to their
rience (Mayhew et al., 2016). college community and effectively respond to new
academic challenges (Carini et al., 2006; Cruce et
Fundamentally, the more interaction students al., 2006). Moreover, the opportunity for students
have with their peers (and with faculty), the more to help peers learn by serving as tutors is a formal
satisfied overall they are with the college experi- way for students to learn by doing.

April 2024 65
 Peer tutoring in higher education, the experien- sition of future career skills, although the literature
tial learning focus of this paper, refers to the practice is promising. For example, fundamental to tutoring
where undergraduate students presumed to have rel- is making complex information accessible and com-
evant knowledge provide course-specific content and prehensible to others; this requires that tutors know
study skills support to their fellow students (Colvin, the material more thoroughly than if they were only
2007; Keller & Porter, 2020). The existing scholar- studying it for themselves, which in turn is thought to
ship about peer tutoring focuses predominantly on foster critical thinking skills. Tutoring presumably also
the academic and personal developmental gains re- requires adapting to diverse learning styles, facilitating
alized by those being tutored (Colvin, 2007; Mayhew problem-solving, and managing scheduling demands,
et al., 2016). Indeed, in their massive synthesis of the which helps cultivate effective communication, time
research about college student learning and personal management (Annis, 1983; Bargh & Schul, 1980), and
development, Mayhew et al. (2016) concluded that cognitive engagement and conceptual learning (Ben-
peer tutoring helps foster tutored students’ verbal, ware & Deci, 1984; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
quantitative, and subject matter competence.
Some evidence suggests that tutoring also fos-
Less attention has been given to the benefits ters feelings of belongingness, heightened self-es-
that may accrue to tutors themselves including their teem, and self-efficacy, thereby contributing to
academic achievement, personal growth, and acqui- overall psychosocial well-being and academic moti-

66 ELTHE Volume 7.1

vation (Kuh, 1993, 1995). Such outcomes are argu- undergraduate peer tutoring experience and peer
ably beneficial to academic success and transferable tutors’ student engagement and self-reported gains
to settings on and off campus during and after col- on a variety of desired learning and personal devel-
lege. Finally, peer tutors may receive stipends for opment outcomes of college. More specifically, the
their work; in some instances, academic credit may study was guided by four questions:
be awarded (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), there-
by addressing vital equity goals in postsecondary 1. What are the salient features of the
education. Through the tutor experience, students peer tutor experience?
learn by doing—acquiring relevant practical knowl-
edge and practicing essential proficiencies needed 2. Are peer tutors more engaged in
for their career and life beyond college. effective educational practices
compared with their counterparts
who are not tutors?
Warrant for the Study
3. Do peer tutors report greater gains
Peer tutoring is a widespread phenomenon in desired learning and personal
involving a large-though-unknown number of stu- development outcomes compared with
dents as tutors and those being tutored (tutees). their counterparts who did not tutor?
More than two-thirds of post-secondary institu-
tions in the United States implement some form 4. Are peer tutors’ engagement and
of peer tutoring (Kim et al., 2016). According to learning and personal development
Topping (2018), 85% of institutions in 15 different outcomes associated with tutoring
countries have at least one form of peer tutoring frequency, tutoring mode (in-person or
program, suggesting a global trend toward the ac- online), training, and supervisor feedback?
ceptance and institutionalization of peer tutoring.
Given the ubiquity of peer tutoring and the in-
terest in expanding experiential learning to more Methods
students, it is important to explore the effective
qualities and outcomes for tutors. This study uses data collected via the spring
2022 administration of the National Survey of Stu-
Most of the research about peer tutoring in dent Engagement (NSSE). NSSE annually collects
U.S. colleges and universities is based on single in- information from first-year and senior students
stitution convenience samples of students, many of about their participation in activities that institu-
which target particular groups of students, courses, tions provide for their learning and development.
and subject matter (e.g., first-year students in Intro- Students at participating institutions are invited to
duction to Chemistry). Absent from this research respond to NSSE via an email request that includes
are inquiries using a nationally normed instrument a unique link to the online questionnaire. The av-
measuring engagement in effective educational erage institutional response rate in 2022 was 28%
practices and selected learning and personal devel- (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2023).
opment outcomes of tutors at multiple colleges and The dependent variables used in this analysis in-
universities including both in-person and online tu- clude NSSE’s ten Engagement Indicators and Per-
toring formats. To verify the claims about the ben- ceived Gains items. Appendix A contains more in-
efits of peer tutoring for tutors, evidence is needed formation about these variables.
to demonstrate that confidence and institutional in-
vestments in peer tutoring are warranted. This study also uses data collected from an
experimental Tutoring Item Set (see https://hdl.
The purposes of this exploratory study are: handle.net/2022/29399) that was appended to the
(a) to identify the salient features of peer tutoring, NSSE questionnaire administered at 30 institutions.
and (b) to examine the relationships between the These institutions represent a diverse mix of bach-

April 2024 67
elor’s-granting public and private colleges and uni- measure the proportion of variance explained.
versities, including five minority-serving institutions. The dependent variables included NSSE’s ten
The Tutoring Item Set asks about peer tutoring ex- Engagement Indicators (EIs) and Perceived Gains
periences and services available at colleges and uni- items. More information about the Engagement
versities, students’ exposure to tutoring and—impor- Indicators, including psychometric properties,
tantly—seniors’ experiences performing as tutors. can be found here on the NSSE website (https://
We focus exclusively on seniors since they have had nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/survey-instruments/en-
more occasions than first-year students to perform gagement-indicators.html).
as tutors. The questions were designed by tutoring
services and tutor training content experts and sur-
vey item development experts at NSSE. They are Results
phrased to align with NSSE’s emphasis on student
behavior and perception. Item validity on the Tutor In this section, we share results of our anal-
Item Set benefited from the use of standard stems ysis beginning with a description of the salient
and response options tested on NSSE. features of the peer tutor experience as they re-
late to principles of effective experiential learn-
ing including framing (a structure or place for
Respondents tutoring and training), interaction, and feedback.
Then we compare the outcomes of senior tutors
The dataset includes responses from 3,715 se- to seniors who did not tutor to assess the impact
niors. For the purposes of this paper, we created of the peer tutor experience.
two distinct groups: Seniors who tutored (N = 538)
and seniors who neither tutored nor were tutored What are the salient features of the
(N = 3,177). About one-half (49%) of the students peer tutor experience?
were first-generation. The largest proportion of
students identified as White (56%), followed by Most peer tutors performed as tutors in
Black or African American (13%), Hispanic or two settings. About one-third tutored out of an ac-
Latina/o (12%), Multiracial (10%), and Asian ademic support center, and another third did pri-
(3%). Unfortunately, the numbers of peer tutors vate tutoring (not affiliated with their institution).
in some of these groups are too small to conduct Of the remainder, 23% worked in a departmen-
reliable statistical comparisons by specific demo- tal tutoring program, and about 15% tutored in
graphic and social identity characteristics. writing or math centers. Only 5% tutored in a stu-
dent-athlete tutoring program. These percentages
total 110 as some respondents tutored in more than
Data Analysis one context. Nine of ten tutors did so for courses
in their major (90%); almost half (48%) tutored in
Because the NSSE questionnaire and the general education courses outside their major. In
Tutor Item Set are composed predominantly addition, 71% of tutors conducted their tutoring
of close-ended prompts in different formats, we in all or mostly in-person formats, and only 8%
used quantitative approaches to analyze the data. tutored completely online. As to frequency of tu-
First, we conducted descriptive analysis summa- toring, about two-fifths (38%) tutored only “occa-
rizing the variable frequencies to capture the sionally” (10 or fewer sessions while attending this
defining features of the tutoring experience. To institution), while about 30% tutored “moderate-
estimate the effects of tutoring on peer tutors, ly” (between 11 and 30 sessions), and 32% tutored
we compared seniors who were peer tutors with “intensively” (more than 31 sessions).
seniors who did not tutor across a range of de-
pendent variables using a series of t-tests. Partial Preparation or training for peer tutoring is
eta squared is used to measure the effect size of considered important for providing effective tutor-
different variables in our ANOVA models and to ing (Keller & Porter, 2020). Training is akin to the

68 ELTHE Volume 7.1

Table 1
Comparing Tutors to Non-tutors by NSSE Engagement Indicators.

Mean SD N M diff

Non-tutor 41.1 13.69 3177 1.6* .001

Higher-Order Learning
Tutor 42.6 13.33 489

Non-tutor 39.3 12.66 3177 2.0** .003

Reflective &
Integrative Learning Tutor 41.2 12.56 489

Non-tutor 31.1 16.56 3177 3.8*** .006

Quantitative Reasoning
Tutor 34.9 16.17 489

Non-tutor 39.9 14.19 3177 0.1 .000

Learning Strategies
Tutor 40.0 14.40 489

Non-tutor 30.7 15.48 3177 6.7*** .022

Collaborative Learning
Tutor 37.4 13.98 489

Non-tutor 39.1 15.90 3177 3.1*** .004

Discussions with
Diverse Others Tutor 42.2 14.80 489

Non-tutor 24.3 16.11 3177 9.3*** .037

Student-Faculty
Interaction Tutor 33.6 16.68 489

Non-tutor 40.9 14.31 3177 1.1 .001

Effective Teaching
Practices Tutor 42.0 12.95 489

Non-tutor 43.1 12.57 3177 0.4 .000

Quality of Interactions
Tutor 43.5 12.06 489

Non-tutor 33.2 14.32 3177 3.2*** .006

Supportive Environment
Tutor 36.4 13.67 489

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

April 2024 69
Table 2
Comparing Tutors to Non-Tutors Estimates of Institutional Contribution to Knowl-
edge, Skills, and Personal Development across Ten Key Learning Gains.

Mean SD N Mean diff

Writing clearly and Non-tutor 3.1 0.87 3598 0.1 0.001

effectively
Tutor 3.1 0.9 524

Non-tutor 3.0 0.91 3598 0.1** 0.002

Speaking clearly and
effectively Tutor 3.1 0.91 524

Non-tutor 3.3 0.78 3598 0.1** 0.002

Thinking critically and
analytically Tutor 3.4 0.74 524

Non-tutor 2.9 0.95 3598 0.2*** 0.003

Analyzing numerical and
statistical information Tutor 3.1 0.97 524

Acquiring job- or Non-tutor 3.0 0.94 3598 0.1 0.001

work-related knowledge
and skills Tutor 3.0 0.93 524

Non-tutor 3.1 0.88 3598 0.0 0.000

Working effectively
with others Tutor 3.1 0.87 524

Developing or clarifying Non-tutor 2.9 0.96 3598 0.0 0.000

a personal code of values
and ethics Tutor 2.9 1.02 524

Understanding people Non-tutor 2.9 0.95 3598 0.0 0.000

of other backgrounds
(economic, racial/eth-
nic, political, religious,
nationality, etc.) Tutor 2.9 0.98 524

Non-tutor 2.9 0.94 3598 0.1* 0.001

Solving complex
real-world problems Tutor 3.0 0.93 524

Being an informed and Non-tutor 2.8 0.97 3598 0.0 0.000

active citizen
Tutor 2.8 1.01 524

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

70 ELTHE Volume 7.1

Figure 1
Percentage Senior Tutors Indicating “Substantial” Tutoring Contribution to Eight
Personal Gains (N = 519).

key experiential learning principle of framing, or a supervisor to improve their tutoring. Forty-sev-
how the experience is set up as a learning endeav- en percent received very little feedback, no feed-
or (Roberts & Welton, 2022). More than two-fifths back, or did not have a supervisor.
(44%) of the peer tutors reported no training or for-
mal preparation. Thirty-seven percent were trained Are senior peer tutors more engaged
by their institution’s tutoring or academic success in effective educational practices com-
center with another fifth trained by their major de- pared with their counterparts who
partment. Only 5% were certified by the College
never tutored?
Reading and Learning Association, Association for
the Coaching and Teaching Profession, or Associa-
tion of Colleges for Tutoring and Learning. Compared with their counterparts, senior
peer tutors were significantly more engaged in ef-
Another key component of effective peer tu- fective educational practices across the board (Ta-
toring and experiential learning is getting feed- ble 1). The strongest relationships were found in
back from supervisors. Indeed, lack of supervi- four NSSE Engagement Indicators: Student-Fac-
sion and feedback could limit opportunities for ulty Interaction (p<.001), Collaborative Learning
reflection on pedagogical intent. Feedback is also (p<.001), Quantitative Reasoning (p<.001), and
central to the substantive interactions common to Discussions with Diverse Others (p<.001). Though
high-impact practices done well (Kuh, 2022) and the effect sizes were small, these areas represent crit-
relationships with educators that exemplify rela- ical dimensions of effective educational practices.
tionship-rich college experiences (Felten & Lam- Senior tutors were also significantly more engaged
bert, 2020). More than one-half (53%) of tutors in Reflective and Integrative Learning (p<.01) and
reported receiving at least “some” (very much; Higher-Order Learning (p<.05), as well as perceiv-
quite a bit; or some) amount of feedback from ing a more Supportive Environment (p<.001).

April 2024 71
Table 3

Differences in Gains in Knowledge, Skills, and Personal Development for Tutors Re-
ceiving Substantial Feedback vs. Minimal to No Feedback.

Feedback

Gains1 Yes No Significant difference

Writing clearly and effectively 82% 70% ***

Speaking clearly and effectively 75% 68% *

Thinking critically and analytically 88% 82% *

Analyzing numerical and statistical information 75% 69%

Acquiring job-or work-related knowledge

76% 66% **
and skills

Working effectively with others 76% 70%

Developing or clarifying a personal code of

70% 56% ***
values and ethics

Understanding people of other backgrounds 70% 60% **

Solving complex real-world problems 75% 61% ***

Being an informed and active citizen 68% 53% ***

1 Percent indicating “Very much” or “Quite a bit”

* p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Do senior peer tutors report higher education. Seniors who tutored had significantly high-
gains in desired learning and person- er gains in “Speaking clearly and effectively” (p<.05),
al development outcomes than their “Thinking critically and analytically” (p<.01), “Ana-
lyzing numerical and statistical information” (p<.001),
counterparts who never tutored?
and “Solving complex real-world problems” (p<.05).

Means for the NSSE Engagement Indicator items Figure 1 shows the percentages of senior peer
for tutors and non-tutors are presented in Table 2. tutors who reported that their tutoring experience
These items represent the extent to which their college contributed substantially to their knowledge, skills,
experience contributed to their development in ten di- and personal development. The greatest contribu-
mensions representing a meaningful, relevant college tion was to “working effectively with others” (73%),

72 ELTHE Volume 7.1

followed by “speaking clearly and effectively” (70%). the pedagogical intent reflective of tutoring and is
Only about half (54%) reported tutoring made a consistent with the experiential learning principles
substantial contribution to “Analyzing numerical of interaction, evaluation, and reflection on perfor-
and statistical information.” mance. In particular, the feedback group reported
increased gains in acquiring job-related skills and
Are peer tutors’ engagement and learn- solving real-world problems, which are both im-
ing and personal development outcomes portant outcomes of the experiential learning pro-
associated with tutoring frequency, tu- cess. Overall, these results lend further credence to
the axiom that experiential learning must be done
toring mode (in-person or online), train-
well to be educationally beneficial.
ing, and supervisor feedback?

Frequency of tutoring and tutoring mode (in-per- Limitations

son or online) were not significantly related to engage-
ment or learning and personal development gains. As with any study, the findings of this inquiry
Training was associated with higher scores on four must be interpreted within certain limitations. For
Engagement Indicators (Student-Faculty Interaction, example, while the annual NSSE survey is adminis-
Effective Teaching Practices, Quality of Interactions, tered at hundreds of institutions across North Amer-
and Supportive Environment) as well as five personal ica, this study involved only a relatively small subset
and professional gains items: speaking clearly and ef- which amounts to a convenience sample of 30 in-
fectively, thinking critically and analytically, acquiring stitutions willing to include the Tutor Item Set ap-
job- or work-related knowledge and skills, developing pended to the core NSSE survey. Nothing is known
or clarifying a personal code of values and ethics, and about the nature of tutoring services at participating
being an informed and active citizen (see supplemen- institutions. Perhaps if schools were selected based
tal table results https://hdl.handle.net/2022/29402). on their College Reading and Learning Association
affiliation or some other criteria (e.g., all peer tutors
The more substantive results relating to gains meet regularly with a supervisor), the patterns of re-
for tutors are associated with feedback (Table 3). sults would differ. Too few peer tutors from various
Whether trained or not, peer tutors who said they social identity groups made it impractical to deter-
received feedback from supervisors to improve their mine whether differences existed across engagement
tutoring reported greater personal and professional and gains variables. Such equity considerations
gains compared to tutors who received very little to should be emphasized in future research. Finally, the
no feedback across 8 of the 10 measures. Those in gains representing learning and personal develop-
the “Yes” group were students who indicated that ment outcomes are self-reported, so these findings
they received at least “Some” feedback, whereas the can be presumed evocative and not conclusive ab-
“No” group were those who indicated “Very little,” sent direct measures of such outcomes.
“None at all,” or “Did not have a supervisor.” Giv-
en the importance of feedback to the experiential
learning process, we assigned “Very little” respons- Discussion and Implications
es to the “No feedback” group, as we considered
this level of feedback negligible and not substantive Taken together, the findings of this study
enough to have any positive impact. Overall, 47% suggest that for senior peer tutors, the tutoring
of tutors received minimal or no feedback (12.6% experience is associated with a range of benefits,
none; 6.8% very little; 17.2% no supervisor), and including higher engagement levels across sev-
53% indicated they received at least some feedback. en of the ten NSSE Engagement Indicators and
greater gains on multiple dimensions of person-
This pattern of statistically significant findings al and professional development considered im-
on nearly every gains item favoring tutors who re- portant for success during and after college. We
ceived substantive feedback further demonstrates set a high bar for examining these latter personal

April 2024 73
gains items by featuring the results for only those tion approach advocated by Felten and Lambert
students reporting that their tutoring experience (2020). Not bad for an experiential activity, espe-
made a “substantial” (“Very much” and “Quite a cially given that the frequency of tutoring was not
bit”) contribution to gains in those areas. The dif- related to these desired outcomes.
ferences attributed to tutoring would be even more
dramatic if the “Some” amount of contribution The findings underscore the importance of in-
response option were added (Appendix B). Nota- teraction with a supervisor—particularly feedback—
bly, tutors attributed their highest gains from tutor- on tutors' personal and professional development.
ing to “working effectively with others.” This result Indeed, it is worrisome that almost two-fifths of peer
is noteworthy because it was not statistically signif- tutors either did not have a supervisor or did not re-
icant in the analysis of institutional contribution to ceive any feedback about their performance as tutors.
gains. Moreover, it highlights what students valued Perhaps many students who did not get feedback or
in their tutor role, and it represents an important supervision were those who engaged in private tutor-
experiential dimension of learning with peers that ing not affiliated with a campus office or program.
is also consistent with the relationship-rich educa- Nonetheless, we should expect that peer tutors be

74 ELTHE Volume 7.1

carefully and thoughtfully trained to perform such ple benefits of peer tutoring are noteworthy. Results
roles to ensure peer tutoring exemplifies the qualities demonstrating the contribution of tutoring to gains
of an educationally effective peer interaction. in working with others strengthen the value of tu-
toring as a formal way to increase meaningful peer
As colleges and universities strive to involve interaction and educational support and of learning
more students in experiential learning opportuni- by doing. Additional examinations of peer tutoring
ties, and in particular the eleven named HIPs, it is done well (with appropriate training, supervised feed-
natural to wonder if other things students do during back for tutors, and ample structure reflection) would
college could be high impact. Tutoring is one of further reveal engagement and outcome results at an
many experiential learning activities that could even more impressive level, which would help bolster
qualify as a HIP as some have posited (Kuh, 2022; a claim for qualifying as a high-impact practice.
Kuh et al., 2017). One way to explore if tutoring is
a HIP is to formally assess tutors’ exposure to the Future research could focus on identifying strat-
eight features essential to HIPs (Kuh & O’Donnell, egies for enhancing the tutoring experience, examin-
2013). Our results offer some insights into this ques- ing the longitudinal effects of tutoring, and exploring
tion. Specifically, we see some evidence that tutors the impacts of tutoring on career success and lifelong
have high levels of substantive interactions with learning. We also need to dive deeper into the benefits
faculty and peers, are exposed to diverse perspec- of tutoring for tutees and whether discrepancies exist
tives and people, and gain opportunities for reflec- in the social identity backgrounds of those receiving
tion, integrative learning, and relevant, real-world and benefiting from tutoring. It is quite possible that
application. These results offer preliminary support such discrepancies do exist, as has been reported in
for labeling tutoring as a HIP, as do Cole, Keller, the high impact literature (Kuh et al., 2017). Addi-
Kinzie, and Kuh (2023). tional inquiries into these areas will broaden and
deepen the understanding of peer tutoring as a vehi-
In fact, confirmation of peer tutoring as a HIP cle for experiential learning and aid higher education
would require data about peer tutors’ academic per- institutions, tutoring program administrators, and
formance and college completion, information not experiential educators in creating an environment
available for this study. At the same time, the multi- conducive to both tutor and tutee success.

April 2024 75
 References Goldman, C. (2012). A cohort based learning community en-
hances academic success and satisfaction with university
Anderson, G. (2021, March 15). As students dispersed experience for first year students. Canadian Journal for the
tutoring services adapted. Inside Higher Ed. https:// Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 1–19.
www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/03/16/
face-face-peer-tutoring-decimated-pandemic-uni- Keller, P., & Porter, H. (2020). A terminological
versities-turn-new-tools-times-and study of peer education in higher education
[White paper]. College Reading & Learning As-
Annis, L. F. (1983). The processes and effects of sociation. https://crla.net/images/whitepaper/
peer tutoring. Human Learning, 2, 39-47. CRLA_2020_WhitePaper_Peer_Ed_FA.pdf

Ashwin, P. (2003). Peer support: Relations between the Kim, E., Park, J. & Cozart, J. (2016). Affective and
context, process and outcomes for the students who motivational factors of learning in online math-
are supported. Instructional Science, 31(3), 159–173. ematics courses. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 47(3), 499-510.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four crit-
ical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experi-
ence as the source of learning and development.
Bargh, J., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teach- Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. http://aca-
ing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(5), 593-604. demic.regis.edu/ed205/Kolb.pdf

Benware, C., & Deci, E. (1984). Quality of learning Kuh, G. D. (1993). In their own words: What stu-
with an active versus passive motivational set. Amer- dents learn outside the classroom. American Ed-
ican Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 755-765. ucational Research Journal, 30(2), 277-304.

Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-
Student engagement and student learning. Re- class experiences associated with student learn-
search in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32. ing and personal development. Journal of High-
er Education, 66(2), 123-155.
Cole, J. S., Keller, P., Kinzie, J, & Kuh, G (2023, Oc-
tober 30). Peer tutoring: If done well, could it be Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about stu-
a high-impact practice? [Conference Session]. As- dent engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for
sessment Institute, Indianapolis, IN, United States. effective educational practices. Change: The
Magazine for Higher Learning, 35(2), 24-32.
Colvin, J. W. (2007), Peer tutoring and social dynamics in high-
er education. Mentoring and Tutoring, 15(2), 165–181 Kuh, G.D. (2008). High-impact educational practic-
es: What they are, who has access to them, and
Cruce, T. M., Wolniak, G. C., Seifert, T. A., & Pascarella, why they matter. Washington, DC: Association
E. T. (2006). Impacts of good practices on cognitive of American Colleges and Universities.
development, learning orientations, and graduate
degree plans during the first year of college. Journal Kuh, G.D. (2022). Afterword: The HIPs just keep
of College Student Development, 47(4), 365–383. coming! In J. Zilvinskis, J. Kinzie, J. Daday, K.
O'Donnell, and C. Vande Zande (Eds.). Deliver-
Dewey, J. (1939). Experience and education (5th ing on the promise of HIPs. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
ed). New York: The Macmillan & Co.
Kuh, G.D., Citty, J., Hudson, J.E., Jr., Iruoje, T., Mladic, J.,
Felten, P., & Lambert, L.M. (2020). Relationship rich & Qureshi, S. (2021). Right before our eyes: Making
education: How human connections drive success in peer interaction matter more for all students. Change:
college. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. The Magazine for Higher Learning, 53(4), 15-21.

76 ELTHE Volume 7.1

Kuh, G.D., & O’Donnell, K. (2013). Ensuring quality and tak- for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University,
ing high-impact practices to scale. Peer Review, 15(2), 32. School of Education. https://nsse.indiana.edu/
nsse/reports-data/nsse-overview.html.
Kuh, G.D., O’Donnell, K., & Schneider, C.G.
(2017). HIPs at ten. Change: The Magazine of Ogden, P., Thompson, D., Russell, A., & Simon, C. (2003).
Higher Learning, 49(5), 8-16. Supplemental instruction: Short‐ and long‐term impact.
Journal of Developmental Education, 26(3), 2–6.
Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N.
A., Seifert, T. A., Wolniak, G. C., Pascarella, E. Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How col-
T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2016). How college affects lege affects students: A third decade of research
students: Vol. 3. 21st century evidence that high- (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.
er education works. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Preszler, R. W. (2009). Replacing lecture with
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in edu- peer‐led workshops improves student learning.
cation: A conceptual introduction. New York: Longman. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 182–192.

Miller, A. L., Sarraf, S. A., Dumford, A. D., & Roc- Roberts, J. & Welton, A. (2022, August 2). The ten
coni, L. M. (2016). Construct validity of NSSE commandments of experiential learning. Inside
engagement indicators (NSSE psychometric Higher Education. https://www.insidehigh-
portfolio report). Bloomington, IN: Center for ered.com/advice/2022/08/03/foundation-
Postsecondary Research, Indiana University, al-best-practices-experiential-learning-opinion
School of Education. http://nsse.indiana.edu/
pdf/psychometric_portfolio/Validity_Con- Topping, K. J. (2018). Trends in peer learning. Edu-
structValidity_FactorAnalysis_2013.pdf. cational Psychology, 25(6), 631-645.

Moore, R., & LeDee, O. (2006). Supplemental Instruc- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development
tion and the performance of developmental educa- of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
tion students in an introductory biology course. Jour- President and Fellows of Harvard College.
nal of College Reading and Learning, 36(2), 9–20.
Wurdinger, S. D., & Carlson, J. A. (2010). Teaching for
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2007). Experienc- experiential learning: Five approaches that work.
es that matter: Enhancing student learning and success. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Bloomington, IL: Center for Postsecondary Research.
Zhao, C. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value:
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2023). Learning communities and student engagement.
NSSE 2023 Overview. Bloomington, IN: Center Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115–138.

April 2024 77
 Appendix A e) collaborative learning (4 items;
Cronbach’s α = .81 first-year, .80 senior)
Dependent Variables
f) discussions with diverse others 4
Engagement Indicators (EIs) were created with items; Cronbach’s α=.89 first-year, .90 senior)
a blend of theory and empirical analysis (https://
nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/survey-instruments/en- g) student-faculty interactions (4 items;
gagement-indicators.html#:~:text=Intraclass%20 Cronbach’s α = .83 first-year, .85 senior)
Correlation%20Coefficients%20by%20Class%20
L evel%20%28NSSE%202020%29,%20%20 h) effective teaching practices (4 items;
3.0%25%20%209%20more%20rows%20).The Cronbach’s α = .85 first-year, .87 senior)
indicators include:
i) quality of interactions (5 items;
a) higher-order learning (4 items; Cronbach’s α = .84 first-year, .81 senior)
Cronbach’s α = .85 first-year, .86 senior)
j) supportive environment (8 items;
b) reflective and integrative learning Cronbach’s α = .89 first-year, .89 senior).
(7 items; Cronbach’s α = .87 first-year,
.88 senior) All Engagement Indicators are scored from 0 to 60
with zero indicating no engagement and 60 indicating
c) quantitative reasoning (3 items; very high engagement. These scales show acceptable
Cronbach’s α = .85 first-year, .87 senior), levels of internal consistency (McMillan & Schumacher
2001) with previous research suggesting sufficient evi-
d) learning strategies (3 items; dence for construct validity with exploratory and con-
Cronbach’s α = .77 first-year, .78 senior) firmatory factor analyses (Miller et al., 2016).

78 ELTHE Volume 7.1

 Appendix B
Percentage of Senior Tutors Indicating Tutoring’s Contribution to Eight Personal
Gains (N = 519)

To what extent has peer tutoring contribut-

ed to your knowledge, skills, and personal
Very Quite Some Very Not
development in the following areas? much a bit little at all

a. Time management 29.9% 28.1% 26.0% 9.8% 6.2%

b. Writing clearly and effectively 30.4% 25.4% 21.6% 13.5% 9.1%

c. Speaking clearly and effectively 39.5% 30.6% 17.0% 7.3% 5.6%

d. Thinking critically and analytically 38.7% 30.6% 18.6% 7.4% 4.8%

e. Analyzing numerical and

statistical information 31.0% 22.7% 22.5% 13.5% 10.2%

f. Acquiring job-or work-related 33.7% 25.2% 20.4% 12.1% 8.7%

knowledge and skills

g. Working effectively with others 45.1% 28.1% 16.4% 6.2% 4.2%

h. Understanding people of 37.8% 26.8% 19.1% 8.5% 7.9%

other backgrounds

April 2024 79
 Dr. James Cole is the Associate Research Scientist and the Project
Director for the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement.
His research interests include new student experiences, academ-
ic difficulty, and student success.

After 25 years of experience in higher education, specializing in

learning assistance and peer education, Page Keller joined the
team at Knack Technologies, Inc. where she serves as Vice Pres-
ident of Academic Relations. Keller's career encompasses re-
search, writing, and practice advocating for peer education as a
high-impact practice.

Dr. Jillian Kinzie is Associate Director, National Survey of Student

Engagement (NSSE) at the Indiana University Center for Postsec-
ondary Research. She conducts research and leads project ac-
tivities on effective use of student engagement data to improve
educational quality, and is co-author Delivering on the Promise of
High-Impact Practices: Research and Models for Achieving Equi-
ty, Fidelity, Impact, and Scale (2022).

George D. Kuh is Chancellor’s Professor Emeritus of Higher Educa-

tion at Indiana University. He is the founding director of IU’s Center
for Postsecondary Research, the National Survey of Student Engage-
ment, and the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.

80 ELTHE Volume 7.1

April 2024 81