The usual focus of a cooperative peer teaching (tutor) program is to have a peer without a disability teach a skill to a peer with a disability. For example, a 12-year-old child without disabilities works on a one-to-one basis to teach picture sequencing skills to a 6-year-old child with a disability. The focus of a cooperative peer companionship (friendship) program is to promote positive social interactions between a child with a disability and a child without a disability. In a typical application of this arrangement, two young peers of the same age — one with a disability and one without — make a giant puzzle, painting the pieces together, gluing macaroni, and yarn on the pieces together, and so forth. The material that follows describes how to structure the two types of activities/ roles.

Structuring an Activity for Cooperative Peer Companionship

1. Age of Peers: Peers without disabilities and peers with disabilities should be approximately the same age so as to create an expectation of friendly socialization, turn taking, sharing, and so forth. If peers without disabilities are 1-2 years older that is fine; but for encouraging ongoing friendships, peers without disabilities generally should not be younger than peers with disabilities. Research shows that when people with disabilities are more than 2 years older than their partners without disabilities social awkwardness often occurs (Cole, Vandercook, & Rynders, 1988). Same-age peer interactions can be thought of as "horizontal"; that is, relatively equal and reciprocal on a socialization contribution basis (Sailor & Guess, 1983).
   
   
2. Activity: Choose activities that are not highly project-skill oriented but are socializing oriented. Structure task directions so that mutual effort, not individual effort, is rewarded (e.g., a peer with a disability and a peer without a disability together put ingredients on a pizza, sharing in eating it later).
   
   
3. Preparing Peers without Disabilities for Socialization:
   
   
   • Show them how to prompt cooperative interaction (e.g., "Chris, let's paint this picture together").
     
     
   • Show them how to encourage their partner's cooperative participation (e.g., "Bill, I'll bet that you are good at sanding. Can you help me sand this tray?").
     
     
   • Show them how to reinforce their partner for trying (e.g., "I like the way we painted the fence together. You're a good painter!").
     
     
4. Recreation Professional's Role During Peer Socialization Interactions:
   
   
   • Encourage cooperative activity (e.g., "Mary, I'd like to see you and Joan take turns kicking the soccer ball").
     
     
   • Reinforce cooperative interactions (e.g., "I like the way you're setting the table together").
     
     
   • Redirect participants back to the cooperative task when one or both become distracted.
     
     
   • Step in if a socialization problem occurs between participants.
     
     
5. Limitations:The purpose of cooperative peer companionship is to promote positive social interactions. It will not necessarily lead to increased skill development in a specific task in a child with a disability (unless, of course, the sill itself is of a social nature). So, if the leader's goal is to assist a child with a disability to become a more proficient reader, then an older peer without a disability (peer tutor) or an adult will need to provide reading instruction and guided reading practice. Cooperative socialization-based companionship would not meet this task skill development goal very well.

Structuring an Activity for Cooperative Peer Tutoring

1. Age of Peers: Peers without disabilities should be considerably older than the partner with a disability (twice as old is a good rule of thumb) because the primary purpose of teaching is to enhance the tutoring recipient's skill in some task. This relationship is a vertical one (Sailor & Guess, 1983) ("I'm the 'teacher,' you're the student"). Because it is a vertical relationship, the real teacher must supervise it so that it does not become "dictatorial" or "over mothering" on the part of the partner without disabilities.
   
   
2. Activity: Activities should feature cooperative skill teaching practice instead of socialization. For example, the older student without disabilities teaches the younger child with disabilities to use a hand mixer. After giving the child with a disability a chance to demonstrate the steps that he or she can do correctly, the peer tutor teachers the younger child the steps that he or she cannot do. For instance, if the child with a disability does not know how to identify the various speeds on the mixer's control dial, then the peer tutor will label each setting verbally while pointing to the corresponding printed words on the dial. The tutor will show how the printer word on the dial translates into mixer speed as the dial is moved from speed to speed. After that, the tutor might print the words on pieces of cardboard and use them like flash cards until the child with a disability can identify them very quickly and accurately. After that is accomplished, dial position commands are given (e.g., "Turn to high") with the tutor watching for errors and hesitations, correcting errors if they occur. Finally, the speed-dial operation is reinserted into the whole task of using a mixer to mix batter for a cake. Food becomes the reward for achieving this cooperative tutorial outcome, with both individuals enjoying a piece of cake together for their joint effort.
   
   
3. Preparing Peers without Disabilities for Tutoring:
   
   
   • If old enough, show them how to use a variety of instructional techniques such as modeling, reinforcing, prompting, fading, and so forth to promote task achievement.
     
     
   • Show them how to create and use a task analysis.
     
     
4. Recreation Professional's Role During Interactions:
   
   
   • Reward tutorial attempts by the child without disabilities, and reward attempts of the child with a disability to respond to the tutoring.
     
     
   • Model good instructional techniques.
     
     
   • Step in to prevent/ correct instructional problems.
     
     
   • Redirect participants if off-task behavior occurs.
     
     
5. Limitations:
   
   
   • A tutoring situation's social dynamics can turn autocratic if not monitored carefully.
     
     
   • The tutor may lose interest in instruction if the partner's progress is very slow. The teacher can blunt this possibility by keeping the cooperative structure in place, tying rewards to something under the tutor's control (e.g., number of practice trials given), rather than to the recipient's success (though success usually occurs when the task or step of the task is broken down into small, simplified pieces). The outcome of the task that is taught often can be rewarding itself, as in the case of the cake batter-mixing task in which the pieces of the finished cake become a reward for both participants.

A third type of structure — one that should see increasing popularity in community recreation programs — is the cooperative tutoring/ cooperative companionship combination whereby, for example, an older peer without a disability tutors a younger peer with a disability while a peer without a disability of the same age as the child with a disability serves as a social companion. This trio structure may have at least three advantages. First, because of the participant's age differences, peers without disabilities can assume either a teaching or socializing role, one that feels comfortable to them and suits the task. Second, if teaching becomes necessary to achieve a task then there is an older peer without a disability in the group to teach while the younger peer without a disability concentrates on socializing. Third, this structure (dubbed the "one-room school" model), with its various participant ages, takes advantage of the age and ability differences, which are familiar because they occur naturally in families. For example, a young child without a disability and a young child with autism, both of whom are nearly the same age, ride horses together at the local stable (cooperative companionship). At the same time, an older peer without a disability teaches riding skills to both of the younger children (cooperative tutoring).


References

Cole, D., Vandercook, T., & Rynders, J. (1988). Comparison of two peer interaction programs: Children with and without severe disabilities. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 415–439.

Sailor, W., & Guess, D. (1983). Severely handicapped students: An instructional design. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.