University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The nature of a literacy-based tutoring program for at-risk youth: mentorship, professional development, and implementation

(USC Thesis Other)

The nature of a literacy-based tutoring program for at-risk youth: mentorship, professional development, and implementation

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

i

THE NATURE OF A LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM FOR AT-RISK YOUTH:
MENTORSHIP, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, AND IMPLEMENTATION
by

María Asusena López-Guerra

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2013

Copyright 2013 María Asusena López-Guerra
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

ii

Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to my entire family. To my beloved husband, Isidro, for being my
pillar of strength and support and for reviewing and editing my papers on short notice, in the
middle of the night and for picking up the pieces of my life during the process. Thank you for
ensuring I had balance during this process. I love you! To the greatest of my blessings, my
daughter Isabella, who had to share mommy’s time, but hopefully gained an understanding of the
importance of hard work and the value of dedication and education. !Te adoro vida mía! To my
Mom and Dad for always supporting me and believing in me. !Gracias Mammy y Daddy! I thank
God for the opportunity to reach this dream and for the love and support of my amazing family.

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

iii

Acknowledgements

I will be forever grateful to my family for believing and supporting me. Thank you to my
mentors, Eugenia Mora-Flores, Kim Hirabayashi, and Susan Foulk, for guiding me and
providing their expertise and knowledge through this process. Thank you also to my family and
friends, without whom I could not have accomplished this dream.

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

iv

Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vi
Abstract viii
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Background of the Problem 3
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 6
Methodology 7
Assumptions 7
Definition of Terms 8
Organization of the Study 9
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 10
Literacy as a Precursor for Academic Success 11
Impact of Policy on Literacy Instruction 12
Essential Literacy Skills 13
Factors Which Impact Literacy Development in At-Risk Youth 20
Preparation and Professional Development of Paraeducators and Educators 29
Professional Development in Literacy 31
Alternative Education for At-Risk Youth 36
Conclusions 41
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 43
Research Questions 43
Research Design 44
Methods of Data Collection 47
Data analysis 50
Summary 50
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 51
Participants 52
Results 52
Research Question One 53
The Role of a Mentor versus the Role of a Tutor 53
Personal Bonds 57
Research Question Two 60
Knowledge 60
Skills 63
Dispositions 70
Research Question Three 74
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

v

Outline of Professional Development Plan 74
Outline of Professional Development Content 74
Summary 80
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 82
Summary 82
Discussion 85
Implications 88
Recommendations 89
Limitations 91
Delimitations 92
Future Studies 92
References 94
Appendix A 111
Appendix B 114
Appendix C 118
Appendix D 122
Appendix E 124
Appendix F 125
Appendix G 126
Appendix H 127

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

vi

List of Tables

Table 1: Research Question and Data Matrix 46
Table 2: Practices of Good Mentors 54
Table 3: Role of a Mentor/Tutor 57
Table 4: The Three Cueing System 63
Table 5: Common Questions to Support Semantic Cueing System 65
Table 6: Comprehension Strategies 66
Table 7: List of Comprehension Strategies and Use Frequency 68
Table 8: Skills 69
Table 9: Day One of New Tutor Training 75
Table 10: Day Two of New Tutor Training 76
Table 11: Day One of Literacy Training 77
Table 12: Day Two of Literacy Training 80

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Flow of Five Literacy Development 17
Figure 2: Key Findings 81
Figure 3: Professional Development Support 86

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

viii

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to gain and provide an in-depth, holistic description and
interpretation of the knowledge and literacy instruction tutors at Readers Advance provide
students. Guided by a post-positivist realist framework and grounded theory methodology,
qualitative inquiry design strategies were used to guide this research. This study applies
grounded theory and a phenomenological method to analyze the nature of a literacy-based
tutoring program for at-risk youth by considering its approach to mentor/tutoring, the structure of
the professional development provided to tutors, and the implementation of literacy strategies. A
random sample was used to select 18 out of 49 literacy tutors in three out of the five schools
where Readers Advance provide tutoring services along with the program director and two
graduate advisors. Data was collected through a combination of individual meetings, interviews
and two tutoring session observation per tutor. Findings from this study indicate Readers
Advance provides tutors with information regarding literacy during the initial training, but fail to
provide support and build capacity throughout the year. This study begins to analyze the
structure of literacy-based mentor/tutoring programs for at-risk youth and the need to establish
qualitative measures to gauge the effectiveness of alternative literacy education programs and
their preparation and support of tutors as well as student’s academic development.
Keywords: literacy, at-risk youth, alternative literacy programs
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

1

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

The American education system is currently in a critical state, unable to address the needs
of its diverse student population. Students are struggling to meet the growing Federal and State
mandates that seek to close the education gap between students in the United States and other
countries (Ames, 2003). Although students in elementary school outscore their national and
international peers in the core academic areas of math and science, academic achievement
declines by the time they reach middle school (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2011).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) focused on establishing guidelines for teacher preparation and
student achievement, but failed to consider the diverse student population consisting of a myriad
of nondominant communities speaking different languages and coming to school with a wide
range of experiences (Ames, 2003). NCLB’s focus is primarily on developing literacy in primary
grades, not on addressing students’ reading proficiencies in grades 5-12 and providing them with
the necessary interventions to address their literacy deficiencies (Allington, 2002). Adolescents,
in the United States, primarily those belonging to nondominant communities continue to struggle
in reading, unable to meet literacy and academic demands required to succeed and continue their
academic development (Ames, 2003). Overwhelmed with the school environment and negative
factors, which influence their environment, many students of nondominant communities are
deemed at-risk (Johnson & Perkins, 2009). Students who struggle with reading and writing since
elementary school are not able to meet academic demands as they proceed from grade to grade
and have a greater probability of dropping out of school (Alexander, Entwisle, & Kabbani,
2001).
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

2
According to Unruh, Bullis, Todis, Waintrup, and Atkins (2007), the drop out rate
produces an impetuous for educators to become aware and be proactive in providing alternative
learning experiences beyond the traditional school setting for at-risk youth. As students continue
their academic career, they are unable to read at basic grade-levels required, thus limiting their
access to the curriculum and unable to meet academic expectations (Allington, 2002).
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative aims to provide an opportunity for
educators across the United States to focus their skills and strategies on student learning in order
to ensure all students will be working toward the college and career readiness critical to their
future success (Williams, 2012). However, there is no mention or consideration of students’
social and cultural literacies to enhance learning. Literacy refers to various language and
knowledge use to communicate in different social and academic situations. There is a need to
incorporate, connect, and value students’ knowledge with literacies presented and expected in
academic settings. Au (1998) focuses on the still present achievement and literacy gap of
African-American and Latino students in relationship to their European American peers. Au’s
article focuses on a socio-constructivist approach to reshape the current school system in an
attempt to overcome and address five factors: 1.) linguistic differences, 2.) cultural differences,
3.) discrimination, 4.) inferior education, and 5.) rationales for schooling. These factors are
primarily institutional and professional barriers, which further alienate students of diverse
nondominant linguistic communities. The current school structure and practice focus on a
coercive power further creating a divide between students and their academic potential. There
must be a collaborative power approach in which educators facilitate learning through
opportunities for students to connect their prior knowledge and literacies while providing
authentic and purposeful learning opportunities (Moje, Ciechanowski, Kramer, Ellis, Carrillo, &
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

3
Collazo, 2004). This would lead to the creation of the third. Third space is the funds of
knowledge and connection between community and school (Morje et al., 2004). The explicit
connection between academic and social literacies provides students the opportunity and
guidance to connect their knowledge (literacies) and academic expectations. The consideration of
student’s literacies presents literacy through a socio-cultural approach/construct which bridges
and acknowledges student’s knowledge and the connection to academic literacies. Alternative
education programs support literacy development and provide students with the opportunity to
bridge their literacies with academic expectations (Au, 1998, Gutierrez, Morales & Martinez,
2009; Warikoo & Carter, 2009; Hill & Torres, 2010; Hooper, Roberts, Sideris, Burchinal, &
Zeisel, 2010, and Stipek, Newton, & Chudgar, 2010).
Background of the Problem

Students identified as at-risk are faced with social and academic barriers hindering their
academic success in traditional academic settings (American School Counseling Association,
2006-2008). It is essential for educators working with at-risk youth to understand how students
learn in order to provide students with alternative education approaches to minimize academic
failure (Johnson & Perkins, 2009). Alternative education programs prepare at-risk youth to
further their academic education (Weingarten, 2010). With current NCLB demands expecting all
students to achieve proficiency levels by 2014 and a continuing increase in students from
nondominant communities continue dropping out of school, there is a need for current scholarly
research to address the role of alternative education settings in the academic development of at-
risk youth. Nondominant communities refer to minority communities.
There are a few alternative education programs providing literacy support for at-risk
youth, such as Reading Recovery and Success for All, which employ certified teachers as tutors
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

4
and Howard Street Tutoring Program and Book Buddies, which uses community volunteers
(Wasik, 1998). Reading Recovery is a one-on-one tutoring program providing services to first
grade students having difficulty with reading and writing. Teachers supported by teacher leaders
and university trainers provide services. Success for All is a comprehensive K-6 school- and
home-based reading program with a focus on improving students’ reading skills through
collaboration with a team of teachers, tutors, facilitators, advisors, and family work. Howard
Street Tutoring Program focuses on improving reading and reading comprehension skills in
struggling first grade students with one-on-one instruction two days a week for seven months by
an adult volunteer. Book Buddies is a tutoring program designed to help first grade students with
reading through 40 structured lessons plans delivered by community volunteer tutors who are
supported by a reading specialist who writes and supervises the lessons and also trains and gives
feedback to the tutors.
Although there are a variety of alternative education programs and settings intended to
support the academic and emotional development of at-risk youth throughout the country, there
are no set guidelines to prepare or support educators, measure their efficacy and provide them
with academic support and development in addressing the diverse needs of their students
(Hammond, 2004, NEA, 2008, Obiakor & Johnson, 1997). To date, there are limited studies,
which have examined the impact of mentor-tutor’s efficacy and knowledge in delivering literacy
support and instruction to at-risk youth in alternative education settings. Research supports the
importance and effects a comprehensive literacy program, composed of phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, has on students’ later academic success
(Ellery, 2009, National Early Literacy Panel, 2000, National Reading Panel, 2000, Pruisner,
2009, & Shanahan & Lonigan, 2010, and National Center for Education Statistics). However, it
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

5
is still unclear whether comprehensive alternative educations programs providing literacy
instruction use such frameworks. Readers Advance is an alternative education program, which
provides mathematics and literacy tutoring for students identified as at-risk according to the
California Standardized Test (CST) and teacher recommendation in a suburban city.
Statement of the Problem

There is a lack of understanding about the current state of tutor effectiveness in
addressing the literacy needs of at risk youth in alternative education settings and the structure of
the programs’ preparation and training of tutors. The current education system with its mandates
and high-stakes testing and accountability leaves at-risk youth unable to achieve academic
success (Johnson & Perkins, 2009). The impact of the traditional education has on the classroom,
the increase of at-risk youth, and the academic gap in nondominant communities has lead to
academic failure and future economic and financial hardships, primarily in students of
nondominant communities (Tyler & Lofstrom, 2010). Alternative education settings seek to
provide at-risk youth with supplemental academic instruction, interventions, and emotional
support (Network for Dropout Prevention Center, 2007, Quinn, & Poirier, 2006). As at-risk
youth continue to struggle, there is a need to study alternative education programs, which
provide on-going literacy support for students from nondominant communities. There is a need
to identify strong instructional practices, train teachers and support providers, and evaluate
program’s effectiveness. This qualitative study is necessary in order to evaluate the efficacy and
professional development of mentor-tutors in addressing the literacy needs of the at-risk youth
they service.

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

6
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to determine the role and level of literacy preparation of
mentor/tutors in an alternative literacy program for at-risk youth. The study’s purpose is to
determine the nature of a tutor/student relationship in an alternative literacy program through the
observation of tutoring sessions, and tutor and director interviews. Utilizing grounded theory and
a phenomenological framework, information and data obtained though document analysis, tutor
and director interviews, and tutoring observations, will be collected and analyzed in order to
forward the literature on alternative education programs for at-risk youth.
Research Questions

The research questions that guide this study are:
1.) What is the nature of a tutor/student relationship in an alternative
literacy program?
2.) What are the self-reported literacy knowledge, skills and dispositions
of tutors in the area of literacy development and instruction as it relates
to literacy in an alternative program?
3.) What is the role and level of literacy professional development and
training of tutors in a mentor-tutor program?
Significance of the Study

The significance of this qualitative study will contribute to the literature regarding
literacy in alternative education settings. It has the potential to influence education policy and
guidelines for developing and providing tutors with support to address the literacy needs of at-
risk youth. This study’s significance will have implication for assessing tutors’ knowledge and
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

7
efficacy in delivering literacy instruction to at-risk youth in an alternative setting. Through
discovering tutor’s effectiveness in lesson delivery, alternative education programs providing
literacy support to at-risk youth will be able to apply findings to support mentor-tutors in their
delivery of literacy instruction. Findings will provide evidence to support alternative and
traditional education settings as well as educators and paraeducators with literacy components
necessary to address the literacy development of at-risk youth, and hence impact their academic
outcomes and opportunities. Addressing at-risk youth’s literacy needs allows students to flourish
and reach their academic potential.
Methodology

This qualitative study used grounded theory and a phenomenological approach.
Document analysis of students’ report cards and standardized exam results provided information
regarding students’ current English language proficiency and their literacy levels as a form of
descriptive statistics. Interviews conducted with the director and mentor-tutor (Appendix A and
B) helped to answer research questions regarding literacy instruction and support provided to
students. Observations of tutoring sessions for each mentor-tutor yielded information regarding
the interaction between tutors and students as well as their implementation of literacy instruction
and efficacy in addressing the literacy needs of at-risk youth in an alternative education setting.
Assumptions

It is assumed mentor/teachers honestly responded during surveys and interviews,
which will accurately reflect their efficacy and ability to address the needs of at-risk youth in
alternative settings. It is also assumed the researcher-recorded observations and conducted
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

8
interviews objectively. This qualitative study hypothesized effective professional development in
literacy instruction had a positive impact on at-risk youth’s literacy and academic development.
Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this study, the following terms will be operationally defined.
Academic Discourse: Presentation of ideas (usually in written form) in academic or
scholarly contexts, which display conventional characteristics in form and expression.
(education.com)
Alternative Education Programs: Programs designed to provide specialized instruction to
students who have discontinued their enrollment in a traditional school setting, after-school or
community programs offering specific intervention or support, non-profit or for-profit
organizations with provide students with supplemental academic support (Munoz, 2005).
At-risk youth: Student who, due to negative social factors and influences, are considered
disadvantaged (American School Counseling Association, 2006-2008).
Decodable words: words students can read using phonemic knowledge (Schutzenberger
& Marcus, 1959)
Efficacy: the extent to which individuals believe they can organize and execute actions
necessary to bring about a desired outcome (Anderman & Anderman, 2012)
High frequency words: words appearing in the English language with greater frequency
(Macizo & Petten, 2007)
Literacy: One's ability to academically read, write, comprehend, discus, and study,
multiple forms of text, especially in the dominant language of one's society (Alvermann, 2002 &
Literacy, 2010)
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

9
Organization of the Study

This study was organized in five chapters. Chapter One provided an introduction
and explanation of the problem, research questions guiding the research, and outlines the purpose
of the study. Chapter Two was a review the existing literature in the area of literacy in the
context of tutor relationships with at risk youth in alternative settings. Chapter Three presented
the methodology, detailing information about the research design, and tools. The process of data
collection and data analysis as they pertain to the research questions, was defined for the reader.
Chapter Four will report data gathered and its analysis. Themes emerged during the study were
organized and described in detail. Chapter Five explained the implications and findings of the
study as it relates to the effectiveness of mentor/tutor in providing literacy instruction to at risk
youth in alternative settings. Based on the findings, recommendations and suggestions for further
study were presented.

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

10
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this study is to examine tutor’s knowledge and efficacy in addressing the
literacy needs of at-risk youth in an alternative education setting in an urban community.
Research supports the purpose of this study and provides evidence regarding the need and
importance of the study due to a gap in the literature regarding the preparation of mentor-tutors
in addressing the literacy needs of struggling readers. The literature review focuses on four main
points: literacy as a precursor for academic success, factors which impact literacy development
in at-risk youth, preparation and professional development of paraeducators and educators, and
alternative education settings for students performing below grade level. Research has centered
on essential components of literacy programs, factors impacting literacy development in at-risk
youth, general education teacher preparation, and alternative education programs. Scholarly
research has yet to analyze the effectiveness of tutor programs for at-risk youth. There remains a
need to explore programs and professional development in addressing the needs of at-risk youth
in these settings. Each main point in the literature review will explore components, which impact
the literacy development of at-risk youth in alternative education settings and how the transfer of
professional development and efficacy to implementation can impact students’ academic
progress, particularly in literacy development.
The first section of the literature review, Literacy as a Precursor for Academic Success,
consists of the five literacy components and their impact on students’ academic success.
Research supports a positive correlation between literacy development, primarily in the earlier
years of education, and students’ future academic success. Section two of the literature review,
Factors Which Impact Literacy Development in At-risk Youth, explores social, cultural,
behavioral, and academic factors, which impact the academic and literacy development of at-risk
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

11
youth. The third section of the literature review, Preparation and Professional Development of
Paraeducators and Educators, presents literature regarding effective teacher preparation
programs, mentor, tutor, and volunteer professional development, preparation and support.
Section four of the literature review, Alternative Education Settings for At-risk Youth, reviewed
studies and research on a range of alternative education programs, their structure, effectiveness
and purpose.
In order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the importance of tutor preparation
in alternative education settings, the literature review focused of studies addressing the literacy
needs of at-risk youth, paraeducators and professional development, and alternative education
settings addressing the needs of at-risk youth. Journal articles, scholarly reviews, studies, and
texts were analyzed to construct the basis of this study and the need for scholarly research
focusing on the efficacy of paraeducators in delivering literacy instruction in alternative
education settings
Literacy as a Precursor for Academic Success

Research supports the development that strong early literacy skills lead to successful, on-
going literacy development and academic success (National Early Literacy Panel, 2000). The No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 requires all students in the public education system to
receive effective English language arts instruction to develop high levels of literacy success by
expecting 100% of students to score advanced in standardized exams by the year 2014. This goal
has further confounded students’ limited literacy development and literacy mandates and
expectations. A series of studies have revealed young children entering school for the first time
vary greatly in their basic literacy skills and abilities, many of which are not aligned with the
traditional literacy skills of school, which provide the basis for future literacy success (West,
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

12
Denton, & Germino-Hausken, 2000; West, Denton, & Reaney, 2000). Deficiency in literacy
development in early childhood is greater in ethnic minority students and greatly contributes to
the large number of minority students failing in the education system (Gandara, 2010). In order
to address literacy deficiencies, comprehensive literacy classrooms, which consist of a
comprehensive curriculum, assessment to evaluate students’ literacy development, intervention
to address their specific needs and guide instruction, and differentiated instruction to support on-
going literacy development are essential (Ellery, 2009). This section of the literature will focus
on essential literacy skills, the impact of effective early literacy instruction on future literacy
achievement, and how policies affect literacy instruction.
Impact of Policy on Literacy Instruction

Recent national education reform is having an impact on early literacy instruction, and
consequently, on students’ literacy and academic achievement. The Report of the National
Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read (2000) reviewed research to identify ways to improve
reading and writing achievement and found literacy development was essential for students’
overall academic success. However further research on specific student populations and teacher
preparation was necessary to understand the issue in its entirety. During this time, the
implementation of NCLB challenged the literacy climate, the relationship between teacher and
students, of classrooms and schools all over the nation, placing greater emphasis on results, and
thus on students’ academic success (Stewart, 2004). These accountability measures required
research to support best practices and transformed teaching to a science, rather than an art and
for the first time, establishing specific measures for student outcomes. To support and ensure
Title I schools had the necessary resources to meet NCLB’s accountability measures. Schools
were awarded money to guarantee all children received equal, fair, and significant opportunity to
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

13
obtain a high quality education and reach their academic potential (NCLB, 2001). In order to
meet the demands of NCLB, Reading First legislation affords schools grants, and stringent
mandates to provide students with scientifically based reading instruction. NCLB’s focus on
reading include five basic literacy components (phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary,
fluency, and comprehension), but fails to emphasize the importance of oral language
development and social and cultural literacy experiences, as well as the interrelatedness of
reading and writing, which are essential components in developing literacy (NICHD, 2000).
Many publishers have developed curriculum to match said literacy requirements, consequently
spreading reading first mandates and standards across the nation, and imposing stringent
curriculum for all students. However, essential literacy skills to increase students’ literacy and
academic success fail to consider gaps between students’ home experiences and school
expectations.
Essential Literacy Skills

Increasing Federal demands do not consider or account for children’s gap between socio-
cultural literacies and academic expectation from birth through the age of five, and its impact on
literacy development. The National Early Literacy Panel (NELP), NCLB, National Reading
Panel (NRP), and researchers set to establish essential skills, which would be identified as
precursors to literacy achievement later in students’ academic career. An array of variables was
representative of early literacy skills and predictive of later literacy development. Five essential
skills, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, simultaneously
taught, were found to be evident as being necessary components of a comprehensive literacy
curriculum (Ellery, 2009, NELP, 2000, NRP, 2000, Pruisner, 2009, & Shanahan & Lonigan,
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

14
2010). Basic literacy skills acquired in elementary school are the building blocks for future
academic success (Spriam, Bracken, & Fischel, 2005).
Phonemic awareness is the knowledge and ability to recognize words are composed of a
combination of phonemes, individual sounds (Ellery, 2009 & NRP, 2000). It is the strongest
school-entry predictor on how successful students will read after two years of instruction,
accounting for as much as half of the difference in students’ reading proficiency at the end of
first grade (Ellery, 2009 & Shriver, 2006). It allows the reader the opportunity to explore
similarities and differences in the sounds of the words by rhyming, isolating, identifying,
blending, segmenting, and manipulating phonemes, which provides students with an insight into
the meaning and physical form of language (Ellery, 2009). Phonemic awareness focuses
primarily on sound, allowing students to play and manipulate sounds without graphics thus
significantly improving students’ literacy development (Pruisner, 2009 & Shriver, 2006).
Phonics instruction is the connection between phonemic awareness and alphabetic
principles; it is the initial stage of writing, which provides students with the tools to decode text
(Pruisner, 2009). This link between reading and writing provides the reader’s ability to
contextualize, analyze, and synthesize the patterns and spellings of words (Ellery, 2009). Phonics
is the relationship between letter(s) and their sounds (NRP, 2000 & Shriver, 2006). It establishes
the connection between sounds and print, and is most effective when instruction is explicit and
systematic and allows the reader to decipher unknown words. Phonics instruction significantly
improves students’ spelling, reading and ability to comprehend text, primarily in improving
alphabetic knowledge and word reading skills of children, primarily low socioeconomic status
(SES) children (Shriver, 2006).
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

15
Fluency requires a certain level of expertise where the reader employs the appropriate
phrasing and intonation while reading with automaticity and is a critical role in developing
reading comprehension (Ellery, 2009 & Shriver, 2006). The dependency of fluency on higher
word recognition skills moves students from decoding to focusing on meaning (NRP, 2000).
Fluency requires graphophonic foundations, phonics and phonemic awareness. Oral language
further supports fluency because it is essential in providing the reader with basic familiarity of
syntax and grammar functions (Chard & Pikulski, 2005). Limited fluency caused by poor
phonemic awareness and Phocis, forces the reader to focus on the decoding process limiting the
opportunity to construct meaning from text (Chard & Pikulski, 2005). Developing oral and
vocabulary skills of English language learners and those in language and social restricted
environments present the greatest challenge for educators who are unable to link academic
literacy requirements with students’ socio-cultural literacies. Educators must develop students’
phonemic awareness and phonics, as well as develop students’ academic language in order to
enhance students fluency as it relates to reading comprehension and learning across the
curriculum (Chard & Pikulski, 2005, Ellery, 2009 & Shriver, 2006).
Vocabulary development requires both direct and indirect instruction. Students learn new
words directly when explicitly taught and indirectly through their experiences and interactions
with others and texts (NRP, 2000, & Shriver, 2006). Research (Shriver, 2006) indicates
vocabulary instruction leads to academic gains when the methods of instruction are appropriate
to students’ developmental age. A reader’s vocabulary directly influences comprehension and
fluency (Ellery, 2009). Context-rich vocabulary instruction embedded in a literacy program
improves students’ reading comprehension (Lawrence, White & Snow, 2010). Developing oral
language, while developing vocabulary, provides the necessary foundation for reading,
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

16
particularly in students’ early years of literacy instruction (Reese, Suggate, Long, &
Schaughency, 2010). Vocabulary instruction provides students with opportunities to manipulate
and learn new vocabulary words, building meaning and developing vocabulary in context for a
deeper conceptual understanding of new vocabulary in real-life applications (Ellery, 2009). In
the current academic system, members of a community who have less power, might be oppressed
by their limited vocabulary in relationship to the academic requirements (Freire, 1970). Coyne,
Simmons, Kame-enui and Stoolmiller (2004) conducted a study with 96 kindergarten students
with low initial vocabularies. After 108 half-hour lessons with explicit instruction in the starter
words, students made the same vocabulary gains as their not at-risk peers. Students who are not
part of the dominant community have limited vocabulary increases over time, which has a direct
correlation to their literacy development, it is essential to develop students’ vocabulary through
experience and direct instruction (Darrow, 2009, Myers, 2007).
Comprehension is the core of reading, as the purpose of reading is to gain understanding
and interact with literature (Ellery, 2009). It is the active engagement between the reader and text
and happens when the reader is able to respond to or transform the information presented with
understanding. The simultaneous use of a variety of strategies to create meaning from text allows
the reader to monitor comprehension, make connections, summarize, and use prior knowledge in
order to comprehend the text (NRP, 2000). In their meta-analysis of intervention studies between
1994 and 2004, Edmonds, Vagughn, Wexler, Teutebuch, Cable, Tackett, & Schankenber (2009),
found students with reading difficulties improve their comprehension when presented with
reading intervention lessons in comprehension, multiple reading components and word reading
strategies. Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency and vocabulary all come together in order to
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

17
decode text effortlessly and understand the message authors are trying to convey and leads to
later success in academia.
These five areas of literacy development, identified by the NRP report (NHCHD, 2000)
are essential components of a successful literacy curriculum, which must be explicitly taught
allowing for a sequence of lesson delivery and student interaction (Shriver, 2006). Research
supports the interconnectedness of the five literacy components and the impossibility of teaching
the components in isolation (Figure 1) (Chard & Pikulski, 2005, Ellery, 2009, NRP, 2000, and
Shriver, 2009). A child’s prior knowledge, according to Ellery (2009) should guide the
development of effective literacy instruction; interconnected literacy skills must be emphasized
in varying degrees depending on a student’s needs and developmental abilities thus addressing
their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), designing and scaffolding instruction specific to
students literacy development, which includes oral language, reading and writing connections
(NRP, 2000).
Figure
1: Flow of Five Literacy Development

Impact of Early Literacy Instruction
Early literacy instruction is a predictor of students’ later academic success. In addition, a
focus on building on students’ prior knowledge and strengths and the impact of effective
teaching (Stewart, 2004). In their study on the impact of instructional practices in first and
Comprehension

Vocabulary
Fluency
Phonics
Phonemic

Awareness

Phonemic
Awareness
Phonics Fluency
Vocabulary Comprehension
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

18
second grade on reading and spelling in 17 high poverty schools Foorman, Schatscheneirder,
Eakin, Fletcher, Moats, and Francis, reduced 20 literacy activities into seven patterns of literacy
which predicted reading and spelling outcomes. The study revealed connections between
teachers’ lesson preparation, time spent on reading, structural analysis and vocabulary as
predictors of reading ability in first and second grade. Explicit phonics instruction in first and
second grade, which focuses primarily on phonemic awareness and phonics positively affects
children’s reading outcomes (Foorman et al., 2006). Classroom instruction must include
excellent classroom management and a cooperative atmosphere, which reinforces students’ prior
knowledge and builds on their literacies. Explicit instruction provides students with opportunities
to explore and improve their literacy (Pressley, 2001). Effective instruction matches students’
literacy levels, focuses on instruction, which allows students to self-regulate, and addresses
students’ specific literacy needs. Designing instruction to serve students’ specific needs is a
combination of experience, skill, judgment, intuition, pedagogical, and content knowledge
(Farstrup, 2002). According to Cunningham and Stanovich (1997) first grade reading ability is a
strong predictor of students’ academic success in 11
th
grade. Students, who experience difficulty
in developing the ability to break the literacy code and developing strong literacy skills, are less
exposed to literature. This deficiency in decoding skills and lack of practice further impacts their
literacy development and hinders their reading experience.
Early literacy instruction in first and second grade, which focuses on print concepts,
phonemic awareness, and phonics, is critical in literacy development for struggling readers
(Connor, Morrison, & Underwood, 2007). Upon investigating literacy trajectories for students
entering first grade falling below the 30
th
percentile, Spira et al. (2005) found a large percentage
of students who demonstrated growth in reading by the end of second grade continued making
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

19
literacy progress, however those who ended second grade without making adequate progress,
continued to struggle ranking in the bottom 9
th
percentile. Research supports the following key
elements as having a positive impact on reading; strong leadership, high expectations, strong
accountability, ongoing professional development of researched based effective literacy
strategies, and continuous monitoring of student achievement (Eakin, Fletcher, Francis,
Foorman, Moats & Scatschneider, 2006).
The growing achievement gap between white and Hispanic fourth grade students
continues to increase due to the partial mastery of literacy skills fundamental to reach proficiency
(Eakin, Fletcher, Francis, Foorman, Moats & Scatschneider, 2006). Low-achieving readers in the
upper elementary school grades continue to focus on learning to read, rather than shifting to
reading to learn and therefore require explicit instruction depending on their specific needs to
benefit from differentiated instruction (Guthrie, McRae, Coddington, Klauda, Wigfield, &
Barbosa, 2009). Multiple literacy skills, explicitly addressing areas within literacy are needed to
support diverse learners and provide positive student outcomes (Guthrie, McRae, Coddington,
Klauda, Wigfield, & Barbosa, 2009). Consistent instructional support which includes teacher
modeling, scaffolding, and guided practice in small homogenous groups increases students’
literacy achievement and allows students to develop the necessary components to develop their
literacy.
In summary, the development of early literacy skills is a strong indicator of students’
academic success (Guthrie, McRae, Coddington, Klauda, Wigfield, & Barbosa, 2009). Educators
and policymakers must consider the implication of literacy development on achievement and
guide schools and districts on effective literacy practices to guide instruction to develop essential
literacy skills (NICHD, 2000). Explicit instruction and intervention have a positive impact on
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

20
children’s early literacy development. Individual literacy skills in their earlier years greatly
contribute to students’ literacy development (Spira, Bracken, & Fischel, 2005). Literacy research
has focuses primarily on normatively developing the literacy of dominant communities.
Additional research focusing primarily on at-risk youth in alternative literacy instructional
development is necessary to provide students who are lacking specific literacy components to
ensure their reach their academic potential.
Factors Which Impact Literacy Development in At-Risk Youth

Aside from receiving instruction with all the five literacy components (phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), research supports there are many
social factors, which impact the literacy development of at-risk and foster youth and contribute
to an achievement gap. Some of these factors include belonging to nondominant communities,
culture, language, literacy development, and the education system (Gutierrez, Morales &
Martinez, 2009; Warikoo & Carter, 2009; Hill & Torres, 2010; Hooper, Roberts, Sideris,
Burchinal, & Zeisel, 2010, and Stipek, Newton, & Chudgar, 2010). Literature affirms a
correlation between the development of strong early literacy skills and future academic
achievement, and the ability to overcome risk factors, which impact the development of literacy
and identity (August, Shanahan, & Escamilla, 2009).
Over one third of U.S. fourth graders fail to achieve basic levels of reading achievement,
with that percentage even higher for low-income families, nondominant communities, and
English-language learners (Gutierrez, Morales & Martinez, 2009, Grant & Wong, 2003). In
fourth grade, 14% of Latino students read at the proficient level, and 54% read at the below basic
level (Hill & Torres, 2010). Latino students are currently the most segregated ethnic group,
attending the most poorly equipped schools in the most impoverished communities, being taught
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

21
by the least experienced teachers, underrepresented in advanced placement, and overrepresented
in special needs classes (Hill & Torres, 2010). Negative perceptions of students’ academic
success have both positive and negative effects on minority students in a community setting,
particularly African-American, Mexican-American, and Native American students. The role of
literacy in a society is viewed as the social evolution and the development of a literacy
community (Gutierrez, Morales & Martinez, 2009). In an attempt to educate a diverse
population, the American education system has encountered many challenges, most of which
have expanded and multiplied in complexity as the student population has dramatically changed.
This has left the education system often ill equipped to address students’ specific learning needs
(Ames, 2003).
Cultural Differences
There is limited research on the tension between symbolic cultural boundaries established
by nondominant communities through acceptable language and cultural norms and cultural
markers used to measure academic achievement (Warikoo & Carter, 2009). Although the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was the first piece of legislation to require schools to report
student results by race, it did not account for education deficiencies created by a historical
neglect of nondominant communities (Warikoo & Carter, 2009). In order to address students’
needs, it is necessary to understand how race and ethnicity influences students’ schooling and
academic achievement. Many theories serve to understand the impact culture has on literacy
development and the paradox between the education aspirations and achievements of
nondominant communities regardless of being native or immigrant minorities (Gutierrez,
Morales & Martinez, 2009 and Hill & Torres, 2010).
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

22
Misconceptions and stereotypes of students from dominant communities regarding
literacy have a negative effect on at-risk and foster youth. Literacy theory based on a functional
systems approach supports the study of literacy in a social context, allows for the development of
alternative methods of study to address student’s literacy needs, and calls into question the
deficit thinking of teachers in the way they define literacy in nondominant communities viewing
literacy in isolation of cultural influences (Hill & Torres, 2010). It is imperative educators are
aware of students’ primary and academic discourses, as well as the discourses in the hidden
curriculum designed by dominant communities, for dominant communities, and excluding all
others (Mays, 2008). In their research regarding the paradox of aspiration and achievement
among Latino students and the interaction between their community and schools, Hill and Torres
(2010) focus on the lagging achievement of Latino students. Their research describes the
incongruence between the cultural worldviews in the education system and their families.
Cultural differences contribute to immigrant parents’ overwhelmed feelings about their
limited knowledge of the education system and their rights (Hill & Torres, 2010). They make
sacrifices to provide better opportunities for their children, but are faced with cultural barriers.
Warikoo and Carter (2009) discuss the importance of understanding influences of identity and
context in order to understand the relationship between culture and academic achievement by
stating they are interconnected and support students’ academic success.
Research reveals differences in beliefs and expectations between parents and teachers
regarding the role of parents in their child’s education lead to confusion and lack of involvement
(Hill, 2009). Teachers perceive students’ culturally embedded values and beliefs challenge and
disconnect with student academic requirements, thus creating a barrier for parental involvement
(Hill & Torres, 2010). Educators must understand their own discourse, cultural identity and
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

23
cultural prejudices and misconceptions, as well as those of their students in order to
accommodate the curriculum to address their students’ needs and build on their cultural capital
(Assaf & Dooley, 2006). This proves to be a struggle between teaching the expected curriculum
while providing them with the knowledge they need to succeed in school (Williams & Venus,
2005).
Although children acculturate with greater ease than their parents through school, they
continue to experience cultural discontinuities between home and school (Hill & Torres, 2010).
Perceptions of racial identity play a factor in how youth perceive and embrace academic
achievement (Warikoo & Carter, 2009). The multiple dimensions of culture are not always
related to the intention of cultural producers. Some students might be perceived to dress and act
in a certain manner deemed wrong or unacceptable in society and academia, however those are
cultural norms imposed by the dominant communities (Warikoo & Carter, 2009). Research
supports there is great variability between racial and ethnic groups and their social and cultural
identities and adaptations (Lamont & Small, 2008). The lack of understanding and awareness of
the cultural differences between parents, youth, communities, and school by dominant
communities, failing to account for students’ web of cultural identities further limits literacy and
academic success of students of nondominant communities.
Language and Literacy Barriers
Confounding cultural differences are language barriers, such as limited English language
and non-standard English. Due to regional, cultural, and ethnic diversity of the student
population in the United States, many students live in homes where standard English is not
spoken and therefore lack an understanding of the English language conventions required in
academic environments. A hegemonic perspective discrediting alternative literacies does not take
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

24
into account multiple literacies and nondominant communities’ wealth of knowledge (Collins,
1995). This hegemonic approach in combination with limited educators’ knowledge and
preparation regarding nondominant communities’ language acquisition impacts the language and
literacy development of minority and at-risk students. To further comprehend the needs of
nonstandard English speaking students, teachers must first understand the development theories
of second language acquisition and vocabulary development. Krashen (1981) found second
language first or second acquisition occurs when comprehension of real messages occurs, and
when the acquirer is receptive to learning. Language acquisition does not require extensive use
of conscious grammatical rules and does not occur immediately, but rather develops slowly and
speaking skills emerge significantly later than listening skills, even when conditions are perfect.
Although students successfully pass English language placements exams, they continue
to have deficiencies in specific language and literacy development as well as sociolinguistic
competencies because they lack the academic language and vocabulary to comprehend more
demanding curriculum (Pu, 2010). Lack of structured language development inevitably results in
low performance on standardized tests (Teaching African American English to Standard
American English Speaking Teachers, 2006). Florence Myles (2010) of Newcastle University in
the United Kingdom provides a research timeline of English language development. Research
and development in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) is a new field of inquiry
formally focusing on foreign language learners practicing grammatical patterns, memorizing
vocabulary and rote-memorization in order to form new language “habits” which would
stimulate a “new stimulus-response pairing” becoming stronger with reinforcement (Myles,
2010). Therefore, focus on the five literacy development components (phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), and effective literacy instruction for English
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

25
language learners and nondominant youth are essential for academic achievement and language
development (August & Shanahan, 2010). Language acquisition must be viewed as a
sociocultural experience, which builds on students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds and
literacies to make meaning of what is being taught (Willis, 2000).
Misunderstanding of the acquisition of the English language leads to an
overrepresentation of minority students labeled as at-risk, or developmentally delayed (Mays,
2008). The difference between the discourses in family and community differs between the
nondominant community and the dominant curriculum and assessment tools used to gauge
students’ levels of academic achievement (Mays, 2008). Research reveals over half of school age
children, within the next twenty years, will be identified as language, ethnic, and socioeconomic
minority groups (Mays, 2008, Joshi, Binks, Hougen, Dahlgren, Ocker-Dean & Smith, 2009).
Differences between nondominant community students’ primary discourse and academic
discourse, designed for a white middle class, hamper students’ ability to reach their academic
potential (Mays, 2008). Through their research, Slavin and Cheung (2005) found that children
form their identity as learners through academic discourse, accessing cultural capital and
embracing home practices allows nondominant community children to achieve their academic
potential. It is only through teachers’ knowledge of and ability to understand students’ cultural
context and address their language development needs that they can effectively design
instruction to support language development (Freeman & Freeman, 2001). Teachers use English
language placement results to guide their instruction. Such labels fail to consider the differences
in language proficiency and specific areas of language development needed to achieve a higher
proficiency level (Pu, 2010).
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

26
Adding to the issue of English language acquisition for minority students is the failure of
teacher preparation programs to adequately prepare teachers to address the language needs of
English learners and the lack of research on English reading development of second language
learners (Grant & Wong, 2003). As the population of minority students in the United States
continues to grow and higher levels of literacy are expected of all students, educators and policy
makers must consider how culture and language development impact literacy development
(Grant & Wong, 2003). Conflicting paradigms in literacy development, which focus on certain
components of literacy development without consideration of cultural and contextual learning
experiences, contribute to the barriers of literacy in nondominant communities.
Political and historical conditions have formed the education of linguistically diverse
students (Grant & Wong, 2003). Policy constraints on education have limited students from
using their social capital and culture to demonstrate their academic potential while limiting their
ability to learn English. These constraints ignore the sociocultural construction and development
of language (August, Shanahan, & Escamilla, 2009). English-only movements, controversy
about the effectiveness of bilingual education, and cultural and linguistic deficit models has
contributed to the limited access of academic literacy for minority students (Bartolome, 2008).
The current monolingual focus in education fails to account for globalization in the
multilingualism necessary and embraced by other developing countries (Duursma, Romero-
Contreras, Szuber, Proctor, & Snow, 2007). The deficit paradigm, primarily rooted in a racist
society, blames cultural and linguistic diversity for students’ lack of academic achievement
based on pathological or cultural deficiencies (Lewis, James, Hancock, Hill-Jackson, 2008). To
address the specific needs of minority students and at-risk youth, fundamental changes in daily
teacher and student interactions must take place (Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung, & Davis,
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

27
2009). Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung & Slavin’s 2009 study used valid achievement
measures independent of the experimental treatments during a 12 week period, which concluded
instructional process programs designed to change daily teaching practices have substantially
greater research support than programs that focus on curriculum or technology alone. Programs,
which provide extensive professional development in increasing and maximizing strategies for
student engagement and require higher-level thinking have proven to be most impactful in
student achievement (Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung & Slavin, 2009, Lewis, James, Hancock,
& Hill-Jackson, 2008).
Research findings reveal there is interdependence between first language proficiency and
second language development and acquisition (August, Carlo, Proctor, & Snow, 2006, Cárdenas-
Hagan, Carlson, & Pollard-Durodola, 2007). The use of students’ primary language to develop
and support vocabulary development through English cognates and direct instruction of meaning
within context are effective strategies for English language learners (August, Carlo, Dressler, &
Snow, 2005). Pedagogical decisions regarding English language should not only consider
effective instructional literacy strategies, but also students’ primary language levels to build on
their linguistic and social capital and develop vocabulary (Cárdenas-Hagan, Carlson, & Pollard-
Durodola, 2007). Literacy development and the needs of minority students should not be solely
evaluated by the labels resulting from language or high-stakes assessments, but rather by a
deeper understanding of students’ specific language needs and primary language proficiency (Pu,
2010).
Structure of the Education System
Limiting and conflicting ideologies regarding the language and literacy development of
at-risk youth and minority students contribute to the growing gap in the educational attainment
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

28
students in nondominant communities. Research identifies school cultural environments, which
fail to recognize and understand race and ethnicity in the context of the education system in order
to explain how culture influences schooling and academic achievement of at-risk youth and
nondominant communities (Warikoo & Carter, 2009).
Elementary education, which is mostly heterogonous-female, produces a disadvantaged
platform particularly for boys to succeed and learn (Kindlon & Thompson, 2000). This has led to
an erroneous identification of behavior as the reason why students, minority and particularly
boys, fail to succeed, as well as misidentifying teachers’ perceptions of students’ lack of learning
skills (Matthews, Kizzie, Rowley, & Cortina, 2010). It is essential for students to develop
literacy related skills in order overcome external risk factors such as low socioeconomic
background, or home literacy environment, primarily in students of nondominant communities
through consistent and effective instruction from teachers and parental support (Matthews,
Kizzie, Rowley, & Cortina, 2010). Unequal access to the education system and educational
inequalities, which rely on standardized curriculum and high-stakes assessment, create additional
barriers for nondominant communities, with the number students of nondominant communities,
particularly Hispanic and African-American, dropping out of school and failing to continue their
academic career (Yosso & Solórzano, 2006).
Although the gap between students of nondominant communities and white students
seems narrow during the first years of school, it widens through their academic years (Reardon &
Galindo, 2009). There is conflicting research regarding what this gap means for students in
nondominant communities. Reardon and Galindo (2009) found the Hispanic-White achievement
gap lessened through their first six years of education, where the African-American-White gap
grew. Allen, Bonous-Hammarth, and Teranishi (2002) report a larger amount of African-
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

29
American students (76%) graduate college, in comparison to Latino Students (45%). Over half of
Hispanic students do not graduate from high school, demonstrating the lowest level of education
attainment in the United States (Yosso & Solórzano, 2006).
The impetus for change lays with the school system and policies in place guiding
curriculum design, high-stakes assessments, and requirements, not the children the system is
designed to serve (Mays, 2008). The modern educational systems deliver stratified literacies
reflecting a stratified social system further perpetrating social limitations through education,
which determines income and class status (Collins, 1995, Harris & Herrington, 2006). Education
reform has to include the preparation, and efficiency of a work force of educators held
accountable for the achievement of all students (Harris & Herrington, 2006).
In summary, literacy development primarily predicts behavior rather than skill outcomes,
which, in the case of at-risk youth, is essential to their academic success (Stipek, Newton &
Chudgar, 2010). Culture, language, and the structure of the education system create barriers for
the literacy development of culturally and linguistically diverse students and hence, a barrier for
their academic success and behavior. Adequate preparation of teachers and educators, including
mentors and tutors, which address the literacy development of youth is an essential component to
overcome barriers (Lewis, James, Hancock, & Hill-Jackson, 2008).
Preparation and Professional Development of Paraeducators and Educators

There is limited research in the development and structure of mentor-tutor programs,
particularly those that support literacy for at-risk youth. Structure and expectations within and
between programs, and the selection and preparation of volunteer are guided by individual
organizations (Davenport & Jones, 2005, Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco & Pelsue, 2009, and Baele,
2001). Current federal mandates have increased the responsibilities and roles of paraeducators,
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

30
coupled with reduction in funding and lack of structure in their professional development,
competencies in curriculum and standards requirements, and structure in their responsibilities
(Baele, 2001 and Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco, & Pelsue, 2009). In order to understand the role of a
tutor in the literacy development of at risk-youth in alternative settings, this literature review will
explore teacher preparation, professional development in literacy for educators, effective
components of mentor-tutor programs, and the evaluation of student outcomes.
Teacher Preparation
The attempt to attract and produce highly qualified teachers has brought forth the
question of program effectiveness and its effect on student achievement (Berry, et. al, 2004;
Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003). In order to address the current education crisis, NCLB has
dictated the need for an established set of minimum requirement of standards for each grade and
content area. These standards are intended to guide effective lesson design and delivery. Said
mandates have also defined a highly qualified teacher as one who has completed a teacher
credential program, and successfully passed all exit exam requirements. Recent findings indicate
teachers have the greatest influence in student achievement, thus the gap in the quality of
teaching is directly correlated to the gap in student achievement (Berry, 2010). This focus on and
demand for highly qualified teachers, and standards based instruction has led to high scrutiny
and demand for teacher preparation programs. Despite this research, there is limited research on
the effects teacher skills, training, and support has on the academic outcomes for at-risk youth
(Berliner, 2010). Research on the effect of teachers, school, and environment on students’
academic outcome is limited to literacy development, teacher preparation, and the influence
students’ background has on academic development. The effect educators have on the students’
academic outcomes, particularly those at-risk are limited because of their concentration in
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

31
underperforming schools (Berliner, 2010). Research must be guided by data, which addresses
students’ particular academic needs, and the impact their home life has on their academic success
(Doecke & Kostogriz, 2003).
Professional Development in Literacy

The purpose of professional development is to provide teachers with the necessary
instructional tools to effectively design and deliver instruction across the curriculum (Carlisle &
Berebitsky, 2010). Teacher knowledge and effective instruction in reading ameliorates reading
failure (Moats, 2009). In their study Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco, and Pelsue (2009) interviewed 313
paraprofessionals working in 77 elementary, middle, and high schools about their practice and
knowledge in addressing students’ needs and found most reported moderate levels of
understanding across core knowledge standards. Most of the paraprofessionals requested
additional training needs in each area. In light of recent initiatives focused on increasing the
quality of the special education workforce, recommendations for future research and improved
practice in this area are provided. To address deficiencies in teacher preparation programs, meet
Federal mandates, and address the reported number of students who drop-out of school because
of poor reading and writing skills, professional development for teachers and tutors has been
designed and delivered in a wide range of instructional contexts without the proper training in
particular areas (Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco, & Pelsue, 2009, Carlisle & Berebitsky, 2010, and
Partnership in Reading, 2003). National reports reveal the effect of systematic, explicit
professional development to support phonics instruction in early reading, however many pre-
service and in-service teacher preparation programs fail to provide teachers with the linguistic
knowledge necessary to develop literacy instruction and address students’ literacy deficiencies
(Joshi, Binks, Hougen, Dahlgren, Ocker-Dean & Smith, 2009). Research reveals improved
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

32
knowledge about literacy does not lead to student outcomes, but rather, establishes the
importance of a teacher’s capacity to provide effective instruction through constant support.
Carlisle and Berebtsky (2010) found when teachers were reflective about lesson delivery, design,
and student outcomes to guide instruction in connection with literacy coaching and teacher
collaboration they were able to address student’s diverse needs (Carlisle & Berebitsky, 2010 and
Shaw 2009). There is a strong body of evidence supporting the role of literacy coaching to
support teachers’ effectiveness and result in higher student outcomes through supportive
professional development (Shaw, 2009). Literacy coaches who effectively develop, deliver and
support teachers through professional development improve teachers reading instruction,
individual and collective efficacy and engagement in improving instruction (Carlisle &
Berebitsky, 2010 and Ames, 2009). Research finds teachers’ support and participation as
volunteers in literacy programs as mentors has positive effects on students’ literacy development
and academic outcomes (Otaiba & Pappamihiel, 2005).
Professional development must be aligned with both paraprofessionals’ areas of need and
students’ literacy development (Carter et al., 2009). Just as teachers, paraprofessionals and
volunteers providing reading instruction, particularly to at-risk students, must be provided with a
well-developed, structured reading program, high-quality professional development, support, and
supervision (Wasik, 1998).
Mentor Professional Development
As in effective teacher preparation programs and professional development, there are
essential program components which research finds to be fundamental in mentor-tutor programs,
including the selection of volunteers and tutors, and essential program components, which
include academic and emotional support (Otaiba & Pappamihiel, 2005, Rhodes, 2008, Jun,
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

33
Ramirez & Cumming, 2010, Rhodes, 2008). Mentor programs constitute effective low-cost
options, which expand the number of youth who receive intervention and provide a positive
outcome (deAnda, 2001). The first component in ensuring an effective tutor program is the
recruitment and selection of tutors, which proves to be difficult in lower socioeconomic and
nondominant communities where parents speak a language other than English or are working
(Otaiba & Pappamihiel, 2005, Wasik, 1998). It is imperative that volunteers are competent in
supporting literacy skills such as phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary
development, and comprehension, providing students with the essential literacy support to
address specific academic and literacy needs (Otaiba & Pappamihiel, 2005). Otaiba and
Pappamihiel (2005) found that using one-to-one tutoring within inclusive general education
classrooms to provide individualized instruction to at-risk students can be very effective in
preventing reading failure and supplementing literacy, especially during the primary grades.
The second step in ensuring an effective mentor-tutor program is determining the
components necessary for the students being serviced. Although there is longstanding research to
support one-on-one tutoring, there are conflicting findings in literature (Jun, Ramirez, &
Cumming, 2010). Formal one-on-one mentoring programs have provided evidence of improving
social, behavior and academic outcomes of youth at risk (Rhodes, 2008). It can be effective
when used within inclusive classrooms to prevent reading failure, primarily in the primary grades
(Otaiba & Pappamihiel, 2005). Using paraeducators for one-on-one instruction significantly
improves literacy development of children (Bingham, Hall-Kenyon & Culatta, 2010). Research
from Ivernizzi, Rosemary, Juel, and Richard (1997) found one-on-one tutoring twice a week for
a period of 20 weeks, by a trained tutor, was an effective intervention for students with reading
difficulties for it provided individualized instruction addressing students’ specific needs.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

34
Current research is primarily founded on four effective tutoring programs, Reading
Recovery and Success for All, which uses certified teachers as tutors, Howard Street Tutoring
Program and Book Buddies, which uses community volunteers as tutors (Wasik, 1998). The
programs follow specific guidelines, (a) certificated reading specialist supervising tutors, (b)
ongoing tutor training and feedback, (c) structure and basic elements in each tutoring session, (d)
intensive and consistent tutoring, (e) availability of quality instructional materials to facilitate
instruction, (f) ongoing student assessment, (g) constant communication between school and
tutors, and (h) coordination of tutoring with classroom instruction. All of these programs focus
on providing reading support to elementary students in urban cities, and vary in program design
and theoretical perspective on addressing students’ reading programs. These programs, as well as
others, share common components essential to making tutor programs effective in delivering
systematic reading instruction (Wasik, 1998). In order to have a successful volunteer program,
which promotes literacy, a reading specialist must supervise and support tutors by providing and
developing lessons, student observation, and feedback as they work with students (Otaiba &
Pappamihiel, 2005, Wasik, 1998, Rhodes, Bogart, Roffman, Edelman & Galasso, 2002). Tutors
also need ongoing observations and feedback as they work with students by a reading expert,
training, and support in literacy development (Jun, Ramirez & Cumming, 2010).
Research also finds effective tutor programs need to be structured and contain basic
elements such as; reading familiar text, word analysis, writing, modeling, and scaffolding of
lessons (Ivernizzi, Rosemary, Juel & Richards, 1997, Jun, Ramirez & Cumming, 2010, Rhodes,
2008, Otaiba & Pappamihiel, 2005, Wasik, 1998). Understanding what constitutes effective and
quality instruction for at-risk youth can yield the best student outcomes (Rhodes, 2008).
Consistency, frequency, and focus in a tutoring program is important for it allows the child and
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

35
tutor to build a relationship as well as bring stability for at-risk youth and those placed in foster
care (Ivernizzi, Rosemary, Juel & Richards, 1997, Rhodes, 2008). In order to support tutors and
the development of literacy, quality materials such as books in a range of levels and basic
materials to facilitate instruction and learning are necessary. To ensure students’ literacy needs
are meet and instruction is tailored to their specific areas of needs, constant assessment and
evaluation is needed (Wasik, 1998). Instruction enhanced through a variety of activities engages
students in learning such as read aloud, research, and shared reading and provide opportunities to
practice literacy in a variety of context and across the curriculum (Bingham, Hall-Kenyon &
Culatta, 2010). Although there is limited research supporting the short-term and long-term
effects of mentoring programs, it is essential to understand what constitutes effective and quality
instruction, primarily for students at-risk, in order to address students’ specific academic needs
(Portwood, Ayers, Kinnison, Waris, & Wise, 2005). Finally, tutoring must be aligned with
classroom instruction and students’ instructional level in literacy to enhance their learning
experiences. Effective mentoring programs support the success of both the volunteer and the
student (Wasik, 1998, Rhodes, Bogart, Roffman, Edelman & Galasso, 2002).
Meaningful and productive mentor-tutor relationships with mentees are also essential
components in an effective and productive mentor-tutor program (VanderVen, 2004). Positive,
sustained relationships between at-risk youth and adult mentors provide a support similar to that
of parents. Although mentoring programs are associated with academic and social benefit of
students, research finds the programs only discreetly improve students’ emotional, behavioral,
and academic outcomes (VanderVen, 2004, Rhodes, Bogart, Roffman, Edelman & Galasso,
2002). Mentoring programs such as Big Brother and Big Sisters are intended to serve
participants’ developmental and emotional needs and offer individualized supportive
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

36
intervention (Rhodes, Bogart, Roffman, Edelman & Galasso, 2002). The effectiveness of a
program depends primarily on the characteristics and quality of the program and the relationship
developed with tutors (Rhodes, 2008). Poorly implemented and designed programs have an
adverse effect on students’ academic outcomes such as limited vocabulary or comprehension
(DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002).
In conclusion, untrained volunteers and a program without the adequate support and
structure to support literacy development can result detrimental to students and volunteers
(Wasik, 1998). Research reveals youth in foster care who partake in mentoring relationships are
associated with positive behavior adjustments and dispositions, because of the positive influence,
during their transition to adulthood (Ahrens, DuBois, Richardson, Fan, & Lozano, 2008).
Effective skills training for alternative education mentors and volunteers are contributing factors
to at-risk youths’ social and academic gains (Durlak, Weissber & Pachan, 2010)
Alternative Education for At-Risk Youth

Current complex challenges in addressing students’ needs in the classroom have been
confounded by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, which was crafted to improve the
educational outcomes of underrepresented students in nondominant communities (NCLB, 2001).
NCLB mandates present a myriad of challenges for school districts, which service a large
percentage of students from nondominant communities (Hammond, 2004). Despite NCLB
mandates, some of the nation’s most underrepresented and at-risk youth are not receiving the
quality education needed to address their needs (NEA, 2008). This inequality in education leads
to dropout rates for at-risk students, which are 3 times greater than their peers across the nation
(Johnson & Perkins, 2009). Traditional teacher education programs provide content and
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

37
pedagogical preparation, which utilize direct instruction and systematic strategies to build on
students’ strengths, but fail to provide candidates with the tools needed to address academic
limitations of at-risk youth. Confounded by limited resources, federal mandates, and schools’
poor response to the unique needs of at-risk youth, comprehensive intervention support models
which provide multifaceted interventions at all levels are essential to ensure the academic
success of this population (Obiakor & Johnson, 1997).
Alternative education approaches and programs provide the needed support to limit the
academic failure of at-risk youth (Johnson & Perkins, 2009). Effective alternative programs for
these students must provide a variety of strategies and approaches to ameliorate the causes for
students’ academic deficiencies, as well as provide them and their tutors with the appropriate
tools to strengthen their academic and behavioral weaknesses (Anthony, Alter, & Jenson, 2009).
Alternative education programs such as; juvenile facilities, alternative education programs, after
school, and community mentoring programs provide at-risk youth with a range of emotional and
academic tools and strategies to succeed.
Juvenile Facilities
Limited literacy skills and ability has been associated with incarcerated youth in juvenile
facilities. Youths’ limited literacy abilities have been associated with repeated delinquency and
incarceration once released (Houchins, Jolivette, Shippen, & Lambert, 2010). In their article,
Houchins reviews the juvenile justice personnel and researchers with methodological and
practical considerations for improving the quality of juvenile justice literacy instruction for
incarcerated youth. Since et al. (2010) found a large percentage of incarcerated youth fail to
return to school, revealing the importance for juvenile facilities to provide students with effective
and research-based literacy instruction. Effective literacy instruction during incarceration can
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

38
supplement traditional education by engaging students through literacy and their ability to
express themselves through writing (Jacobi, 2008). There is a parallel between the
overrepresentation of minority youth within the juvenile justice system and special education
(Drakeford & Staples, 2006). Studies find when educators are able to see themselves as
mediators of students’ social and political consciousness, they are able to effectively guide
students to creatively express themselves despite their limited literacy ability (Jacobi, 2008 &
Drakeford & Staples, 2006). The ability to express themselves through writing, allows at-risk
youth to develop their creativity and critical self-awareness (Jacobi, 2008). Alternative literacy
approaches, such as writing, may engage otherwise reluctant students by allowing them to relate
their experiences. Multi-modal design in literacy instruction allow students to develop academic
competencies such as print, visual, and oral literacies, as well as social/behavioral values such as
creative problem-solving, which are essential to successful transitioning upon release (Jacobi,
2008). Addressing students’ literacy deficiencies will address public misconceptions about at-
risk youth. Alternative literacy practices such as collaborative writing workshops and publishing
opportunities offer incarcerated youth the opportunity to accomplish meaningful literacy skills,
which are key to any education program (Jacobi, 2008).
After School Programs
On average, 1/3 of children ages 12-14 participate in after school programs across the
United States providing after school assistance, student supervision, and activities from the end
of the school day until parents return from work (Capldi, 2009, & U.S. Census Bureau of 2005).
After school programs provide at-risk youth of nondominant communities the opportunity to
participate in academic tutoring and remediation and extracurricular activities, which provides
much needed and essential health, personal growth, and educational support (Jenner & Jenner
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

39
2007). A meta-analysis of after-school programs, found programs should promote personal and
social skills in the students they service, along with academic support (Durlak, Weissberg, &
Pachan, 2010). Well-structured programs offering small group instruction by knowledgeable
adults proved to yield significant gains in reading and math, primarily in schools with a large
concentration of students of nondominant communities (Forbes, 2008). Findings from a two-year
longitudinal study found students who participated in high quality after school programs
demonstrated gains across the curriculum, in comparison with peers who did not attend (Vandell,
Reisner & Pierce, 2007). Improved attitudes toward school and academic potential, decline in
behavior problems and drop out, and improvement in academic performance as measured by
standardized exams, were some of the outcomes found to be associated with participation in after
school program (Little, Wimer, & Weiss, 2007).
Mentoring
Research findings reveal the focus of most mentoring programs is to offer students
strategies to modify behavior which positively influence academic outcomes and behavior
through the development and nurturing of human relationships, particularly in at-risk youth
(Baker & Maguire, 2002, Moore, 2007, & Skiba & Wu, 2005). Students who have active
mentors involved in their lives are more likely to overcome self-esteem and academic problems
(Lee, 2001). Mentoring also allows students to address their sense of disconnect, which is
associated with poor attendance and academic achievement, primarily in at-risk youth (Jackson,
2005). Positive adult relationships, research finds, provide at-risk youth with a range of positive
academic and behavior factors, which contribute to the negative cycles in at-risk youth, such as
teen pregnancy and delinquency and develop positive relationships with positive role models
(Network for Dropout Prevention Center, 2007).
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

40
Alternative Education Programs
Research is inconclusive on the effectiveness of alternative education programs in
addressing the academic needs of at-risk youth. An alternative education classroom setting with a
smaller population cultivates a more meaningful educational experience for students. Educators
believe alternative schooling provides academic and behavior options for students who are not
successful in a regular classroom setting, particularly when traditional school settings can no
longer address students’ needs (Network for Dropout Prevention Center, 2007, Quinn, Poirier,
Faller, Gable, & Tonelson, 2006). Functioning under the umbrella of local districts and counties
of education, alternative schools allow local education entities to comply with legal mandates by
providing equal access to education to all students. Alternative education programs provide
students with alternative instruction delivery options and classroom settings using traditional
teaching methodologies (Network for Dropout Prevention Center, 2007).
In contrast with the Network for Dropout Prevention Center’s findings (2007), Wikerson,
Gagnon, Melekoglu, and Cakiroglu (2010) found access to general education curriculum and
NCLB mandates present a challenge for educators in alternative education programs. Limited
literacy skills, which affect academic success across the curriculum is reportedly the most
common academic problem faced by at-risk youth. In order to address students’ literacy
deficiencies, teachers in alternative education programs must be provided with the materials,
resources, and professional development necessary to address the literacy development of the at-
risk youth they are servicing (Wikerson, Gagnon, Melekoglu, and Cakiroglu, 2010). Another
problem faced in alternative education programs is the large number of students identified with
learning deficiencies, while the expectation continues for instruction to be guided by the general
population by using the standard curriculum (Foley & Pang, 2006). Research by Kim and Taylor
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

41
(2008) further support alternative education programs offering a caring environment for students,
fail to provide at-risk youth with an equitable education, further reinforcing the cycle of
educational equality.
Overall, literature supports essential characteristics for effective alternative education
programs, regardless of the program’s structure are: 1.) Based on trusting and caring
relationships, 2.) Based on effective assessment of individual student’s needs, 3.) Student-
centered, 4.) Focused on purposeful academic and behavior student outcomes, 5.) Flexible and
accessible, 6.) Delivered by highly skilled and knowledgeable staff, 7.) Guided by data to
constantly monitor and assess student’s needs, and 8.) Supported by family and community
(Gutherson, Dabies, Daszkiewicz, 2011, & Kim and Taylor, 2008, Wikerson, Gagnon,
Melekoglu, and Cakiroglu, 2010). Along with positive academic outcomes for at-risk youth, an
effective program allows students to establish a positive relationship with adults, develop a
positive attitude towards their academic development, and improves their self-esteem and
interpersonal relationships. Well implemented, quality alternative education programs have the
potential to promote positive academic and behavior changes in at-risk youth (Little, Wimer, &
Weiss, 2007, Riggs, Bohnert, Guzman, & Davidson, 2010).
Conclusions

There is limited literature and research on the preparation and effectiveness of mentor-
tutors in alternative education settings to address the literacy needs of at-risk youth (Berliner,
2010, Carlisle & Berebitsky, 2010, Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco, & Pelsue, 2009, Carlisle &
Berebitsky, 2010, and Partnership in Reading, 2003). Research is primarily focused on the five
components of literacy (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension),
how they are inter-related and their importance in the future academic success of students in all
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

42
academic areas (Chard & Pikulski, 2005, Darrow, 2009, Ellery, 2009, Myers, 2007, NRP, 2000,
Reese, Suggate, Long, & Schaughency, 2010, Shriver, 2006). It fails to show how these
components are developed with at risk youth through alternative settings to support higher levels
of literacy and academic success.
The gaps noted in this literature review are indicative of the need to explore the efficacy
and professional development of mentor-tutors to address the literacy needs of at-risk youth in
alternative education settings. Although extensive research exists on the importance of literacy
development as a foundation of academic success, there is limited research on the literacy
development of at-risk youth and impact it has on their academic success. No research was found
on the professional development and efficacy of tutor’s addressing the literacy needs of at-risk
youth in an alternative setting. This study yielded necessary information regarding the efficacy of
mentor-tutors in addressing the literacy needs of at-risk youth through document analysis,
observations, and interviews, to provide Readers Advance with information regarding their
professional development and efficacy of mentor-tutors.
Through a series of director and mentor-tutor interviews, and tutoring sessions, Chapter 3
explored the efficacy of mentor-tutors in their literacy support and instruction to at-risk youth in
an alternative education setting. Chapter 3 presented the research design, population and sample,
instrumentation, data collection, research limitation, data analysis, and research summary.

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

43
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to examine an alternative literacy tutoring program’s
mentorship approach to tutoring, professional development and support structure, and
implementation by looking at tutor’s knowledge and efficacy in addressing the literacy needs of
at-risk youth by conducting a series of interviews with mentor-tutors, program directors, and
trainers, as well as through literacy instruction observations and surveys. Current literature
focuses on the components of literacy and teacher development, but fails to provide research on
successful alternative education programs addressing the literacy needs of at-risk youth.
This chapter presented the research questions which guided this study, the research
design, population and sample selection, instrumentation, procedures for data collection and
analysis, and limitations.
Research Questions

This research study sought to explore the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of mentor-
tutors in alternative programs and their efficacy in addressing the literacy needs of at-risk youth.
The study will be guided by the following three questions:
1.) What is the nature of a tutor/student relationship in an alternative
literacy program?
2.) What are the self-reported literacy knowledge, skills and dispositions
of tutors in the area of literacy development and instruction as it relates
to literacy in an alternative program?
3.) What is the role and level of literacy professional development and
training of tutors in a mentor-tutor program?
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

44
This study explored the knowledge and efficacy of mentor-tutors in an alternative
program providing supplemental education resources for at-risk youth in an urban setting. The
following section provides the research design, which outlines the study based on the problem
under investigation as well as the population and sample, instrumentation, data collection and
analysis, limitations, and summary.
Research Design

Using Grounded theory and a phenomenological method, this study explored tutors’
effectiveness and knowledge in literacy to address the needs of their mentees at Readers
Advance. Grounded theory method involves the inductive discovery of empirical phenomena,
which is followed by the deductive construction of theory to explain the phenomena. In the case
of this study, Grounded theory was used to explore the efficacy of mentor-tutors in addressing
the literacy needs of at risk youth; building theory through an analytic process of qualitative
research (Glaser, 1992). The inductive reasoning guiding Grounded theory grounded data and
results in the development of a theory emerging from events and conversations. Patton (2002)
suggests beginning with a basic description, moving to conceptual ordering and codifying, and
finally theorizing about findings. The purpose of this research was to gain and provide an in-
depth, holistic description and interpretation of the effectiveness of the knowledge and literacy
instruction of tutors at Readers Advance, a program providing one-on-one tutoring to at-risk
students at five local elementary schools. The program has a long-well respected history in the
community for providing literacy support to students. It has continued to expand and grow in its
acceptance in the community primarily for its socio-cultural approach to literacy development.
Students are classified at-risk according to their academic ability levels, social and
developmental skills, and behaviors observed in an education setting (Johnson & Perkins, 2009).
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

45
The use of Grounded theory allowed the researcher to be guided by the trends and themes as they
appear through the observations and interviews.
Guided by a post-positivist realist framework and Grounded theory methodology,
qualitative inquiry design strategies were used to guide this research. The researcher followed
naturalistic inquiry to observe and study tutor relationship with a mentee during literacy
instruction at different sites in an urban supplemental education setting for at-risk youth as they
naturally unfolded without manipulation or interferences. Emergent design flexibility allowed
the researcher to maintain responsiveness and pursue new paths of discovery as they emerged
(Patton, 2002).
An initial meeting with the program director yielded insight into the program’s
philosophy and practical approach in ensuring mentor efficacy and preparation in addressing
students’ literacy development. An informal first visit to the tutoring site and introduction to the
program’s tutors, and mentees provided information about the program’s structure and approach
to literacy development. Interviews with the program director (Appendix A) and each of the
tutors (Appendix B) provided necessary evidence regarding training, services, and knowledge
about literacy and literacy instruction. Finally, tutor session observations (Appendix C),
primarily provided data regarding tutor’s literacy knowledge, as well as corroborated data
gathered from the interviews to assist in answering research questions regarding tutors’ efficacy
in providing literacy instruction to at-risk youth. Gathering data through these qualitative means
allowed the researcher to interpret findings based on inductive methods in a natural setting
(Patten, 2002). The focus of this study was to explore the efficacy, training, and knowledge of
volunteer mentor-tutors and their relationships with at-risk youth mentees in a program providing
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

46
supplemental literacy resources. Table 1 presents a matrix of the research questions and
resources used to collect data to answer research questions.
Table 1 Research Question and Data Matrix
Data Source Research Question 1
What is the nature of
a tutor/student
relationship in an
alternative literacy
program?
Research Question 2
What are the self-
reported literacy
knowledge, skills and
dispositions of tutors
in the area of literacy
development and
instruction as it relates
to literacy in an
alternative program?
Research Question 3
What is the role and
level of literacy
professional
development and
training of tutors in a
mentor-tutor
program?

Initial Meeting X X
Professional
Development
X X X
Informal First Visit X X
Interviews X X
Tutor Session
Observations
X X

Population and sample
Readers Advance is an alternative education program to assist teachers and
administrators in addressing the educational needs of local elementary schools through the
promotion of reading and math development in at-risk children. The program is comprised of a
program director, two graduate advisors, and 49 undergraduate students who are certified as
literacy tutors. The 49 undergraduate students include a site coordinator and assistant coordinator
for each of the five elementary schools. Each site has an average of 20 math and literacy tutors
working between 8-20 hours providing students with one-on-one instruction in literacy and math.
For the purpose of this study, the focus was on five literacy tutors in three of the five schools.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

47
The number of tutors allowed for a purposeful sampling at Readers Advance as all were
interviewed and observed twice: this provided insight into the effectiveness of the program in
providing tutor’s with literacy professional development and support (Patton, 2002). Although
the study observed mentees, the focus of this research was on the participants, tutors, their
knowledge and efficacy in addressing the needs of at-risk youth.
Methods of Data Collection

Five sources of data were used in this study.
1) Initial meetings
2) Professional Development
3) An interview with the program director
4) Individual interviews with each of the 15 tutors in the program
5) Two tutoring session observations per tutor
Each of the interview and observations protocols, adopted from samples in BC Teachers
for a New Era (2007). Outline observation protocols, directions for teaching practices, pupil
learning, and social justice classroom and were purposely designed and selected to answer the
study’s research question.
The program director, literacy graduate assistants, site coordinators, and assistant site
coordinators were contacted via email and during a meeting to inform them of the study. Tutors
were asked to reply to the researcher regarding their willingness to participate in the study and
were also informed about the focus of the study and ensured their anonymity. The interview
protocol of the program director (Appendix A) consists of 10 open-ended questions with
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

48
additional follow up questions to guide the interviewee into answering the questions with the
appropriate level of depth required to address the intent of this study, took place via a telephone
conversation and took approximately 45 minutes(Patton, 2002). The individual tutor interview
protocols (Appendix B) were structured in the same manner as that of the director, but with the
perspective of each mentor-tutor and focused on literacy instruction, professional development,
and mentor-tutors’ knowledge in providing literacy instruction to at-risk youth. Due to tutors’
time constraints, they were provided the interview via email and were asked their preference in
conducting the interview (email, telephone, or face to face).
Tutoring session observations were an essential component of qualitative research for
they allowed the researcher to witness and record interactions between tutors and students
(Patton, 2002). Observations contained program background, which set the context, and
background for the observation. It also included information about the site, general student
background, and physical characteristics of the learning environment. A script of events, where
the researcher focused on the activity format, tutors prompts, student responses, and literacy
materials and components were used. Finally, a chronology of events chart allowed the
researcher to code and organize the observation to identify codes and themes. Observation
protocols (Appendix C) were created to capture all steps of the observation design. The
observations, took place at tutors’ assigned sites for an average of 45-60 minutes and allowed the
researcher to answer questions regarding mentor-tutors’ literacy knowledge and efficacy,
preparations, and interactions with mentees.
Data collection
Data was collected over a period of three months due to the time limitations of the study,
from August to November. A naturalistic inquiry approach guided the identification of mentor-
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

49
tutors’ knowledge and efficacy of literacy instruction, their level of preparation, and the nature of
their relationship with students in the program (Patton, 2002). Initial data was gathered through
document analysis of professional development materials. Using grounded theory, data was
gathered through inductive reasoning from interviews with the director and mentor-tutors to
tutoring session observations. This information provides information regarding the knowledge
and efficacy of mentor-tutors in providing literacy instruction to at-risk youth (Patton, 2002).
Grounded theory allowed for a theoretical framework, which explained the relationship between
mentor-tutors and students and their efficacy in developing the literacy skills of the students at
Readers Advance (Patton, 2002). Through interviews and observations, a phenomenological
perspective focused on the essence of the mentor-tutors’ shared experiences to explain their
effectiveness in addressing the literacy needs of the at-risk youth they serve (Patton, 2002). Each
mentor-tutor’s experiences, obtained through the process of the observations and interviews, was
coded, analyzed, and compared to identify the essence of their efficacy in literacy instruction.
Participant interviews were held individually with each participant in order to obtain
background information, and interviewees’ perceptions of their literacy development and
instruction knowledge, and program efficacy in addressing the literacy needs of at-risk youth.
Each of the ten mentor-tutors was individually interviewed using the same interview protocol
(Appendix B). Each of the interviews was personally recorded with the permission of each
participant. Thirty tutoring session observations, two for each of the fifteen tutors, which lasted
the duration of the session and recorded in the observation script and transferred to the
chronology of events graph to codify and identify themes.

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

50
Data analysis

Aligned with a grounded theory methodology, data analysis consisted of organizing data
to identify themes and code findings into patters (Patton, 2002). Qualitative data was analyzed to
provide a formative evaluation of mentor-tutors knowledge and efficacy in addressing the
literacy needs of at-risk youth at Readers Advance through an inductive process (Patton, 2002).
Data gathered from the interviews helped answer the three research questions guiding this study.
Through interviews, mentors self-reported their literacy knowledge, skills and dispositions in the
area of literacy development and instruction in an alternative program. Mentor and director
interviews yielded information regarding the role and level of literacy professional development
and training of mentors in a mentor-tutor program.
Summary

This chapter outlined the research design, instrumentation, data collection, and analysis
of data collected through individual interviews of the program director and mentor-tutors, as well
as mentor-tutor: mentee tutoring session observation. This study used grounded theory
methodology as a conceptual framework for exploring and identifying themes in the knowledge
and efficacy of mentor-tutors ability to address the literacy needs of at-risk youth in an
alternative education program. The findings helped inform literature on the role of tutors in
supporting the literacy needs of at-risk youth.

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

51
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

The purpose of this qualitative study was to observe, analyze and determine the level of
literacy preparation and implementation of Readers Advance, an alternative education program,
in preparing tutors in addressing the literacy needs of at-risk youth. Readers Advance is an
alternative education program, located in a large research university situated within a diverse
urban area. The focus of Readers Advance is to provide one-on-one literacy tutoring to at-risk
students in five local elementary schools. The program consists of a program director, two
graduate advisors, and 79 undergraduate students, 49 of which are literacy tutors. Each site has
an average of 16 tutors, including a site coordinator and assistant coordinator. For the purpose of
this study, site coordinators and five tutors from three out of the five schools were interviewed
and observed as well as the program director and two literacy graduate advisors. The program
director had been interested in a program evaluation for many years and was open to an honest
and informative look at her Readers Advance program. Therefore, an in-depth evaluation of the
program was conducted to determine the level of literacy preparation and implementation of
literacy skills and strategies by mentor/tutors in their literacy tutoring of at-risk youth. Follow-up
studies conducted may focus on the effectiveness of the program as it relates to student
achievement.
This chapter provided 1) a profile of study participants; 2) a description of how data was
gathered; and 3) findings and emerging themes derived from participants’ interview responses,
tutoring observation, and individual meetings.
The data analysis and presentation of this study was guided by the following three
research questions:
1. What is the nature of a tutor/student relationship in an alternative literacy program?
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

52
2. What are the self-reported literacy knowledge, skills, and dispositions of tutors in the area
of literacy development and instruction as it relates to literacy in an alternative program?
3. What is the role and level of literacy professional development and training of tutors in a
mentor-tutor program?
Participants

Site coordinators and tutors, 18 in total, are students at the local university where the
program is housed. All are undergraduate students with ages ranging from 18-23 years old. The
majority of the coordinators and tutors are female (13 out of 18) of nondominant communities
(13 out of 18). For the purpose of anonymity, sites were identified using numbers (e.g. Site 1,
Site 2, and Site 3). Tutors were identified using their site number and letter (e.g. Tutor1a, Tutor
2a, Tutor 3a…). Site coordinators were identified by their title and site number (C1, C2, and C3).
Program director as Director 1, and graduate advisors were identified by random order (e.g.
GA1, GA2).
Results

The data compiled from the initial interviews, professional development attendance,
informal visits, interviews, and tutor sessions resulted in 11 themes regarding the preparation of
Readers Advance tutors in delivering literacy instruction to at-risk youth. The themes developed
include (1) the role of mentor versus the role of tutor; (2) personal bonds; (3) reading improves
literacy; (4) identification vs. application of literacy knowledge; (5) the literacy and academic
connection; (6) reading strategies; (7) comprehension strategies; (8) engagement strategies (9)
positive reinforcement; (10) commitment to community; and (11) respect and concern of the
organizational structure. The following narrative provides an overview of each theme with
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

53
evidence from interviews and observations to answer the research questions that guided the
study.
Research Question One

What is the nature of a tutor/students relationship in an alternative literacy program?
Through initial meetings, attendance in the new tutor training sessions, interviews, and
tutoring session observations, two themes, The Role of Mentor versus the Role of Tutor and
Personal Bonds, arose to answer research question one.
The Role of a Mentor versus the Role of a Tutor

In the course of initial meetings, tutor training sessions, interviews, and tutoring sessions
the concept of mentor/tutors became evident. Although the program is intended the address the
literacy needs of at-risk youth, during the data collection it became evident the role of Reader
Advance tutors was to act both as mentors and tutors. The role of mentor requires academic
support, emotional support and guidance, where the role of a tutor is to deliver academic
assistance. At Readers Advance, tutors employ both roles while ensuring student success.
During the first day of new tutor training, tutors were presented with what it means to be
a good tutor, practices of good mentors, responsibilities of as a Reader Advance tutor. The
section, introduced the importance and components of being a tutor, which included practices of
good mentoring. Out of the 16 slides used during the first day of professional development, one
slide was dedicated to the practices of a good mentor and another one on practices of a good
tutor. In the practices of good mentors, tutors were asked to close their eyes and think of a person
in their lives which they consider a mentor, think about the important interaction they have had
with this person and reflect on how this person makes them feel. Table 2 outlines practices of
good mentors.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

54
Table 2: Practices of Good Mentors
Practices of Good Mentors
• Mentors listen
• Mentors guide
• Mentors are practical
• Mentors educate
• Mentors provide insight
• Mentors are accessible
• Mentors criticize constructively
• Mentors are supportive
• Mentors are specific
• Mentors care
• Mentors succeed
• Mentors are admirable

The remainder of the new tutor training focused on responsibilities, logistics, lesson
components and design, learning styles, and problem solving scenarios. Although it was a small
section of the initial training, it was evident from the data collected from the program director,
graduate advisors, site coordinators, and tutors that both roles take place in student interaction.
In support of new tutor training sessions, the program director stated the tutors in the
program have to balance between their academic responsibility and their role as teachers and role
models. It is nice to see such young kids (tutors) being dedicated to their students’ emotional and
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

55
academic development. She feels “lucky to have the tutors” because of their commitment and
dedication to students.
Although the graduate advisors do not work directly with students, they model the
mentor/tutor relationship with the site coordinators and tutors. Both graduate advisors stated they
appreciate being a bridge between the program and students. By meeting with tutors and helping
them find the resources they need to make sure they are helping students, graduate advisors
provide mentoring and tutoring to the tutors. Graduate Advisor 1 (G1) stated tutors know they
can come when they have problems or concerns at the school or are struggling with ways to help
students. Graduate Advisor 2 (G2) added he enjoys helping them in any ways, which ultimately
helps students. G1 stated “I like being a bridge between the house and the schools. I like meeting
with tutors and helping them find the resources they need to make sure they are helping
students.”
Site coordinators’ focus is to provide mentor/tutors with the resources and support needed
to address students’ needs. The do not have one-to-one tutoring sessions with students, but rather
provide emotional support and stability by providing consistency with their presence. Since
many of them have been tutors at the site prior to becoming coordinators, they continue to serve
as mentors to former students. Two out of the three mentors stated they believe their
responsibility is now more of a mentor. As tutors, they were both mentors and tutors; ensuring
students were doing better in school. Coordinator 2 (C2) said, “As a coordinator, I feel my job is
more of a mentor. Students I had in the past will come to me and tell me when they are having
problems with or ask me what I think about things. I think this makes me want to be a positive
role model.” C2 expressed a desire for students to want to go to college, just like he is doing. “I
know it is hard, when you live and experience things, but I know students are able to do it. I am
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

56
doing it! I like sitting and talking to them.” Both C1 and C2 stated that although they no longer
have students, they have the opportunity to talk to old students and even their friends. “It is nice
to know I can help them go to college.” The three site coordinators who participated in the study
expressed their pleasure in knowing tutors and students are comfortable coming to them when
they need help with school or personal things.
Coordinators primarily mentor the tutors at their respective site and the tutors at each site
mentor and tutor the students they are assigned to. The majority of tutors, 13 out of the 15 tutors,
who participated in the study, mentioned their main job was to address students’ literacy
“deficits in learning and try to remedy them”. Tutors from all three sites, 12 in total, found lesson
plans that both interest students and help strengthen certain skills that need improvement to be
essential to ensuring student success. Tutors stated being a mentor means being their friend and
kind to all students. Tutors noted their responsibility to understand students when they struggle
and encourage them when they need it. “I take time to listen to their stories and have
conversations with them outside of schoolwork” (Tutor3c). Tutor2c stated the responsibility of a
mentor/tutors is “to build a strong relationship with the students and to engage in conversations
about their interests.” Tutors expressed their desires to be an example to students for them to
look up too, and know that they too can succeed and do great things in their lives. Tutors shared
that they encourage students to love learning, be engaged, and driven along with providing a safe
place for students to express themselves. In their role as mentor/tutors, 7 of them agreed their
responsibility and desire to help students improve in whatever areas they are struggling in and
encourage them to learn as well as help students see the fun side of learning such as the feeling
of accomplishment when a concept has been mastered and how learning relates to their lives.
This balance between school and home was further supported by mentor/tutors focus on building
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

57
student confidence in their academic and social contexts, to lead them to independence. Tutor 2b
compared his role to “Teaching a man how to fish; you feed him for life. I look at mentor-
tutoring as the same. When my students learn how to fish, that’s when learning becomes fun and
exciting.” Table 3 captures four dominant mentor/tutor responsibilities identified by the director,
graduate advisors, site coordinators, and tutors.
Table 3 Role of a Mentor/Tutor
Role of a Mentor/Tutor
• Positive Role Model
• Academic Success
• Build Strong Positive Relationships
• Build Confidence and Independence

Research suggests alternative education programs, which offer a mentoring component
positively influenced academic outcomes (Baker & Maguire, 2002, Moore, 2007, & Skiba &
Wu, 2005). At-risk youth who develop positive, nurturing human relations, are more likely to
overcome self-esteem and academic problems (Lee, 2001). The Readers Advance tutors in the
program provide students with a balance of academic and emotional support. Though there key
purposes is that of a tutor, data revealed that tutors serve a dual purpose in the program, both
tutor and mentor.
Personal Bonds

Site coordinators and tutors provided insight into their personal bonds with students.
Through responses, interactions, and observations, personal bonds between tutors and students
became evident. Tutors expressed a vested interest in connecting with students and ensuring they
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

58
understood they had the potential to go to college and succeed. Aligned with the mentor/tutor
roles, 13 tutors stated they had a responsibility to their students either on an academic or social
level. One of the tutors used his Spanish to make personal connections with students and to help
him with his comprehension. All of the tutors observed demonstrated bonds with students. They
asked about their families, celebrated their academic successes, asked about familial
relationships, and community events. During their walk to a tutoring session Tutor3b asked,
“How was your Halloween? What kinds of candy did you get?” as the conversation continued
she asked the student “Did you read this weekend? Who helped you with your homework?” In
the process of bringing and returning students to class from a tutoring session, all the tutors
developed a genuine connection and bond with their tutees. The interactions were light, carefree,
and natural. Students were eager to share things and hold a conversation with tutors. Tutor1e
reflected on her conversation by stating, “I like knowing what students like. When we talk, I get
to find out what they are interested in and like to get books and games for them to enjoy. It
makes me happy when I see that they are getting things, feeling better about school, and
interested in what we are doing together.” All student-tutor conversations observed held a mutual
bond where both parties were eager to share information and listened to one another. Students
were eager to talk to their tutors on the way to their session and anticipated a “fun” activity at the
end of the session as a reward for hard work. The program encourages positive reinforcement
during the new tutor training, but tutors go beyond that by forming personal bonds with tutees.
All the tutors knew their tutees favorite game, followed up on conversations regarding family,
siblings, and festivities. Personal bonds produced through mentoring relationships allow students
to make meaningful connections, which ultimately mitigate academic concerns for at-risk youth
(Jackson, 2005). During the interview, coordinator2 stated, “I come from a similar background
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

59
as most of these students. I grew up in this area. I know what some of these kids have lived and
how they feel about things. I know they can do anything and want to help them.” During visits
coordinators and tutors expressed their joy and pride when students did well and graduated from
the tutoring program. Tutor3e: “I look forward to working with my students. I like to know how
they are doing and see how much they are learning.” In the course of a tutoring session the tutor-
student personal bond became evident. During a tutoring session the constant support and
positive reinforcement as well as the personal bond were evident.
Tutor1c: “Wow! You got all your words right!”
Student: “Yea!” (Smile)
Tutor1c: “I knew you could do it! I am so proud of you.”
Student: (smile)
Tutor1c: “I don’t think you will need me anymore.”
Student: (looks up and makes sad face)
Tutor1c: (touching shoulder and smiling) “I think there other things I can still teach you.”
Student: (smile) “Okay.”

In their interaction the student’s desire to continue attending the tutoring sessions to
improve her academic progress became evident. Personal bond propelled tutors to work hard to
ensure their student’s success and students worked hard to please their tutors. Five of the tutors
expressed the joy they felt by seeing students’ “little cute faces” and personalities, which made
them laugh and smile. “They are very funny and make it a pleasure to come to work” (Tutor2d).
Eight of the tutors, who were out-of-state students, stated it made them happy to come tutor
students and see they are doing good and knowing they are helping them. All tutors stated they
liked being able to work and inspire kids to do well in school and in their lives. “It’s grounding,
acknowledging the privilege I have in raising up the next generation of learners.”
Personal bonds among the program director, graduate advisors, site coordinators, and
tutors also emerged. The program director expressed a desire for graduate advisors, site
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

60
coordinators, and tutors to be able to stay in the program longer. There is such a need for tutors
at school sites, but since the program is only for undergraduate students, they can no longer work
as tutors when they graduate. Both graduate advisors noted the connection they made with the
tutors and site coordinators and the pleasure they received from watching them develop as
mentors and tutors. The nature of the tutor/student relationship in Readers Advance is one of a
mentor/tutor to student. Through their interactions tutors related to students and become
personally vested in their successes. As presented to in the new tutor trainings, tutors become
mentors and tutors, and through those interactions they build personal connections and bonds. In
this dual role, tutors provide academic support to their tutees.
Research Question Two

What are the self-reported literacy knowledge, skills, and dispositions of tutors in the area
of literacy development and instruction as it relates to literacy in an alternative program?
Data to answer research question two was obtained from initial meetings, informal visits
with tutors, interviews, and observations. Through this process, themes emerged to define the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions of tutors in the Readers Advance program.
Knowledge

Literacy instruction is a predictor of later academic success (Stewart, 2004). Therefore, it
was imperative to understand tutor’s perceived knowledge, skills, and dispositions about literacy
instruction. The theme of literacy instruction was organized into three sub-themes to provide a
detailed account of the tutor’s knowledge of what they perceived to be effective literacy
instruction and the importance of literacy instruction in academic development. Knowledge
refers to the awareness and understanding of strategies, resources, and instructional practices to
address specific academic areas (Shraw, 1998).
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

61
Reading improves literacy. What tutors perceive to be effective literacy instruction
provides information regarding their knowledge of literacy and what strategies are necessary to
provide students with support. Although tutors recognized the importance of literacy in students’
academic development and success, they had limited proficiency in the implementation of
instructional practices to support literacy development. There is a need for tutors to have a
holistic understanding of literacy development in order to include reading and writing in their
lesson design and deliver. Tutors only view literacy as involving reading, without mention or
awareness of the role and importance of writing in literacy development. Tutors understood the
importance of providing instruction at the students’ instructional level rather than independent
level, but guided their lessons by state standards. “I have found that probing the student has the
highest level of success. It pushes the student far enough out of their comfort zone, but it helps
them progress. Preparation too is the best strategy. That is why you must prepare each and every
lesson plan to conform to the students’ standards.” Tutors understood literacy limited to reading
and made no mention of the importance of a balanced literacy program, which includes reading,
writing, and speaking. Literacy was identified as the ability to understand words and sentences
and the ability to develop meaning from it (reading), not as the ability to comprehend and make
meaning of written language and ability to effectively communicate (writing and oral language).
“I like to work some of the basic (reading) skills to work on their confidence and moving on to
things they do not have much of grasp on and I think it is always good not to rush to harder
concepts” (Tutor2a).
Identification vs. application of literacy knowledge. Tutors identified interest, personal
connections, oral language development, and comprehension as components of literacy
development, however they failed to identify how these components helped develop and support
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

62
literacy. Six of the tutors noted practice and rewards as positive factors in increasing literacy in
their students. Overall, there were many gaps in tutor’s knowledge of literacy instruction. They
understood the components of literacy (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension), they were not able to articulate what they understood literacy to mean and how
to facilitate it. Tutors understand literacy instruction focuses on teaching students how to learn,
rather than effectively communicate through reading, writing, and speaking. They focus on
teaching students how to read, but fail to include student’s literacy (ability to communicate in
different social constructs) in their literacy development.
Bingham, Hall-Kenyon, and Culatta (2010) state literacy instruction is enhanced when a
variety of activities are used to engage learners. Students who engage in different literacy
opportunities such as read aloud, shared reading, and discussion across the curriculum develop a
desire to learn through reading. Readers Advance tutors are knowledgeable about the
components for teaching students how to read and the importance of reading in literacy
development, but do not incorporate a more holistic view of literacy to include listening,
speaking, reading and writing. Tutors further demonstrate knowledge of varied learning context
though employ predominantly read alouds, guided reading, and shared reading.
The literacy and academic connection. Through meetings, interviews, and observation,
data on tutor’s perceptions about the importance of literacy instruction was collected. Every site
coordinator and tutor concurred on the importance of literacy in student’s academic
development. Three tutors noted the importance of literacy development to include learning to
read in the primary grades and reading to learn during the rest of their academic career. “The rest
of their life depends on literacy, even once they finish school and go into work they need it for
the rest of their lives.” One tutor expressed his belief about the importance of literacy as it relates
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

63
not only to reading, but also for math and science. “I think it is one of the more basic things
students need to learn before moving on to different things.”
According to Ellery (2009) early literacy skills are predictive of later literacy
development. Basic literacy skills acquired in the earlier years of elementary education are the
building blocks for student’s future academic success (Spriam, Bracken & Fischel, 2005).
Skills

Interviews, meetings, and observations provided data about tutors’ skills in implementing
reading, comprehension, and engagement strategies implemented during their tutoring sessions.
Skills refer to the ability to transfer known knowledge into practice. This includes a repertoire of
specific strategies to deliver instruction that addresses students’ specific literacy needs.
Reading strategies. Tutors implemented the three-cueing system (grapho-phonic,
semantic, and syntactic) introduced during the first day of their literacy training. Tutors were
observed asking students to read words again, asked if they made sense, sounded or looked right.
Reading strategies require the reader to cognitively engage and decide how to decipher the words
and make meaning of them. Table 4 demonstrates the three-cueing systems as presented to tutors
during the first literacy training.
Table 4 The Three Cueing System
The Three Cueing Systems
Grapho-Phonic Cues Semantic Cues Syntactic Cues
Does it look right? Does it make sense? Did it sound right?
• Letter shape
• Letter sound
• Phonics

• Context
• Pictures
• Previous text
General meaning of
the story
• An acceptable
English language
construction

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

64

A demonstration of skill would be evident in the application of the three-cueing systems.
Readers Advance tutors demonstrated varied levels of implementation and showed the diversity
of the skills of the tutors.
Grapho-phonic cues. During the literacy tutoring sessions, tutors provided students with
grapho-phonic cues. Grapho-phonic cues focus on whether words look right. Readers tutors
focus on the letter shape and sound to guide them while reading. Tutors would ask students to
“Sound out the word. What letter does the word start with? Blend the sounds together.” The tutor
would cover part of the word and ask “What sound does this letter make? What sound does this
letter make? What sound does this letter make? Now, let’s blend them together.” Along with
supporting students during reading selected books, tutors would introduce and review specific
sounds. With student struggling with their reading, primarily those in the primary grades, first
and second grade, tutors reviewed long and short vowels and their different spelling patters.
These lessons were observed ten out of the thirty times during tutoring sessions. They asked
questions to prompt and guided students to understand the purpose of the lesson. “Today we are
going to look for words that end with the silent e.” “Today we are going to learn about the bossy
e. The bossy e makes the other vowels say its name. Read this word “at”. What if I add a bossy
e?” “Is that a short or long sound? What sound does the “e” make? Sound it out, blend…what
does the word say? When students struggled to read a, tutors would cover up the word and ask
students to sound out each letter and blend it together. The most common question during these
sessions was “Sound it out. Blend it together.” Table 5 notes the most common questions asked
by tutors

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

65
Table 5 Common Questions to Support Semantic Cueing System
• What is this word?
• Try to sound it out?
• What does it start with?
• What is this word?
• What is this letter?
• What is the sound?

Semantic. With emergent readers using semantic cues had knowledge of letter sounds
and symbols, tutors asked student whether what they were reading made sense in relationship to
the book’s content, pictures, and previous text. For emergent readers, those students beginning to
read, tutors would use shorter picture books, ask students to look at the pictures and predict what
they thought the story would be about. When students would struggle with a word, a tutor would
ask for the student to look for the picture to help them figure out what the word meant. A tutor
reading a story about sheep in a jeep asked her student who was struggling to read the word
sheep to look at the illustration to try to figure out what the sentence was about and what the
word was. The student replied, “Oh! Sheep” and pointed to the illustration. All tutors working
with emergent readers observed over 13 sessions, used semantic and context clues when reading.
They asked questions to guide students by guiding them to “look at the pictures”, “remember
what the story was about”, and “think about the title”. During these tutoring sessions tutors used
stories with a maximum of two simple sentences on each page composed of mostly easily
decodable words and high frequency words, which students had practiced memorizing.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

66
Syntactic cues. Although the syntactic cueing system was part of the three-cueing system
originally introduced, it was not used with the same frequency and consistency as the first two.
Syntactic cues ask students to focus on the sound in relationship to English language
construction using grammatical rules. Students were asked whether a word sounded right, but not
as part of English language construction, rather in relationship to the rest of the sentence or the
illustrations. The focus was on the phonemic rather than the structure and meaning of the word.
Pruisner (2009) and Shanahan and Lonigan (2010) found phonemic awareness, phonics,
fluency vocabulary, and comprehension taught simultaneously to be necessary components of a
comprehensive literacy curriculum. The skills of the tutors were limited to mostly grapho-phonic
and semantic cues to support their tutee’s literacy development.
Comprehension strategies. Comprehension strategies were introduced during the
second day of literacy tutor training. Comprehension strategies are methods readers use to help
them make meaning of the text. During the introduction of reading strategies by the literacy
graduate advisor the focus was primarily on 11 strategies. Table 6 lists the strategies presented to
literacy tutors and leading questions to guide students through the comprehension of text.
Table 6 Comprehension Strategies
Comprehension Strategies
Visualize When I read this, I can see...
Summarize The main idea is…
Make Connections This part of the text reminds me of …
Express Feelings This makes me feel…
Predict I think that _______ will happen because _________.
Ask Questions Who/what/where/when/why/how…?
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

67
Interpret I think that when the text says _______, it really means …
Clarify What does that mean?
Sequencing First, _______. Next, _______. Then, ______. Finally _______.
Setting Goals and
Purposes
The reason I am reading this is …
Monitoring Did I understand what I just read?

During the interviews, 12 tutors stated they understood the importance of reading
comprehension in literacy development. “Comprehension is necessary for the student to
understand more advanced concepts.” Only four (asking questions, make connections,
predictions, and summarizing) out of the 11 comprehension strategies introduced to them were
observed. The strategies were used when tutors read books to students, during shared reading,
guided reading, and independent reading.
A strategy of asking questions was used by 11 tutors when supporting reading
comprehension. Tutors asked primarily who, what, when, where, why, and how questions.
“Why is she having trouble at school?” “What is happening?” Comprehension questions asking
students to make connections from the text to the self were used in seven out of the 30 tutoring
session. “Have you ever had trouble at school?” What happens when you spend your money?
What makes you think that?” “Why does he think that is his mother?” “Let’s look at the
pictures?” “If you were him, who would you ask?” “Have you ever had trouble with your
friends?” Tutors used prediction six times to support student comprehension of text. “ What do
you think will happen?” “Why do you think the title of this book is Wacky Wednesday?” “Let’s
look at the pictures before we start reading.” “How do you think the characters are going to
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

68
feel?” Summarize was used eight times during the 30 tutoring sessions observed by five of the
tutors. Tutors asked simple summarizing questions asking student to recall what the text had
been about. “What happened in the story?” “How was the problem solved?”
Comprehension is an essential component in literacy development (Ellery, 2009). It is the
active engagement between the reader and text, where the readers is able to make personal
connections and respond on different levels. Edmonds et al. (2009) found interventions
programs, which provide students with multiple reading and engagement strategies, have a
positive effect on student’s literacy development. Listed in Table 7 are comprehension strategies
and the frequency with which Readers Advance tutors implemented them during tutoring
sessions.
Table 7 List of Comprehension Strategies and Use Frequency
Comprehension Strategy Frequency (# of times observed overall )
• Ask Questions
• Make Connections
• Prediction
• Summarize
• 11 out of 30
• 7 out of 30
• 6 out of 30
• 8 out of 30

Engagement strategies. The theme of engagement strategies became evident in the
analysis of interviews and tutoring sessions. Engagement strategies were used by the tutors to
interest students in the lessons and keep them focused. Attention to tutee’s personal interest was
evident through the selection of reading material, selected learning games, and assigned writing
topics. When asked how they choose books for students, 10 tutors stated they chose books they
know students would be interested in. “I try to use books they like and pick things I know they
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

69
are interested in. I want them to feel learning is fun. We pick books together and talk about
things they want to know more about.” “I chose this book for you because your mom told me
your birthday is coming up and you are getting money and also because she says you are ready
for more difficult books, and I know she is right. Do you want to learn about saving, donating,
and spending money?” Tutors stated they try using books with student’s interest in mind. During
the first week of the semester, five tutors stated they get to know students to find out what their
interests are, what makes them happy, and anything from their favorite television show to their
favorite animal. This information is then used to match my lesson plans with student’s interests,
making learning effective and fun at the same time.
Student interest was also used during writing instruction. This strategy to engage students
was observed during three of the tutoring sessions. “We are going to write about our favorite
toy? What is your favorite toy? Cool, that was one of my favorite toys when I was little. Let’s
draw a picture and then we can write out sentence.” “What color marker do you want to use to
write your words? Oh-okay, you want to use two markers. That is fine. I like writing with pretty
colors too.”
Aside from interest, it was observed that students were given choice in the selection of
their books. As a form of extrinsic motivation, at the end of every tutoring session, students were
given a sticker of their choice to place on their literacy folder. Some tutors awarded prizes for a
certain number of stickers collected.
Bingham, Hall-Kenyon & Culatta (2010) found literacy instruction enhanced with a
range of student engagement activities across the curriculum has positive outcomes, primarily for
at-risk students. Readers Advance tutors demonstrated the skills noted in Table 8.
Table 8 Skills
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

70
Skills
Reading Strategies
• Three Cueing System
o Grapho-Phonic
o Semantic
o Syntactic
Comprehension Strategies
• Ask Questions
• Make Connections
• Prediction
• Summarize
Engagement Strategies
• Student Interest
• Personal Choice
• Extrinsic Motivation
Dispositions

Dispositions refer to a persons’ character and the actions they take in relationships to
specific situations or topics. Three themes surfaced to capture the tutors’ dispositions, positive
reinforcement, Commitment to Community, Respect and Concern of the Organizational
Structure
Positive reinforcement. The theme of positive reinforcement emerged from data
collected during the interviews and tutoring sessions. Positive reinforcement is the act of
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

71
providing positive support and feedback usually resulting in a repeated behavior. Most tutoring
sessions ended with a “good job”, or “let’s add a sticker to your folder”, unless the session ran
longer. At which point, tutors asked students to remind them during their next meeting. Tutors
expressed their belief of the importance of positive reinforcement during sessions. “I make sure
to give high fives, smile when they get answers right, and let them know that they are succeeding
and doing well when they have done something right.” Although positive reinforcement was
observed during every tutoring session, reinforcement specific to learning was only observed
seven times. “Very good, you were able to complete the maze with very little help.” “Since you
have doing so well with your high frequency words, you are going to get two stickers today.” “I
knew you were reading much better. This was a very difficult book and you were able to read it
with very little help. Keep on reading!” “Good job! I knew you could read the word. Take your
time and look at every letter.”
Commitment to Community. Aligned with dispositions, community service provided
insight into the tutors willingness and concept of supporting and servicing the community by
tutoring its youth. This notion was first introduced by the program director. “We are very lucky
to have the candidates we have. Most of these tutors have worked as volunteers in their local
churches or communities. Others have been tutors or counselors in camps. They have of sense of
service and community. It is wonderful to see their sense of commitment and dedication to the
community.”
Tutors’ comments supported the director’s belief about providing service to the
community. Tutors expressed their desire to do something to help others and enjoy building
relationships with the students and having them open up more or feel more comfortable around
them. Eight of the tutors stated they enjoyed being a part of the process of improving their
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

72
literacy skills and watching students improve, particularly when students become aware of how
much they have improved and what they can accomplish. Five tutors stated they enjoyed being
able to work with kids, and inspire them to do well in school and in their lives. “It’s grounding
acknowledging the privilege I have in raising up the next generation of learners.” “I enjoy seeing
a student improve and motivate them to try harder.” Tutors also expressed the joy of helping
others, “It has always been a part of me, and more than anything, I enjoy the satisfaction I get
from knowing that my tutees are learning and happy. An enthusiastic tutee can make tutoring just
as fun for me and I try to make it for them.” “ I also like forming a bond with the student and
being there as a mentor when they need help and there’s no one else there to listen.”
Respect and Concern of the Organizational Structure. The director, graduate advisors,
and tutors discussed their role as support providers and the amount of support provided to them.
As graduate advisors, both concurred that their role is to help tutors, to be a bridge and provide
them with the resources and information to support their lessons and the instruction they provide
students. GA1 stated, “When another tutor shares a lesson plan that I know a particular site
would benefit from, I send it to the coordinator and tutor and encourage them to use.” Two site
coordinators expressed how they loved how the program prepared them to help students who are
struggling. They appreciated the ability to talk to the graduate advisors about problems,
concerns, or struggles with students and the support provided through lesson plans and follow up
conversations.
Despite the support, site coordinators expressed concerns about the program structure.
Site coordinators expressed concern with the assignment of mentors to particular sites. “I wish
they would be more careful of how they place the tutors. I like the program and think it works,
but it seems I always get the lack luster tutors. I wish they would try to balance where they send
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

73
tutors.” Six of the tutors expressed a desire for more time to work with students in order to better
support them in their literacy development. Tutor1b expressed “more hours in the day would
help her (strengthen my role) because that would best benefit the tutor and student.” Six of the 15
tutors stated they would appreciate to be able to work with the children more often. “Maybe if I
could have more time with less students because I have a student I see once a week. If they are
absent I do not see them. We have limited time to work to see students more and address their
needs”
Tutors commented on the support provided by the director and graduate advisors. Four of
the tutors expressed their desire for more involvement between the advisors and tutors. They
stated tutors are not connected with the office and interactions between them are very limited. A
majority of the tutors, 12, stated the need for additional support and training throughout the year.
“I would like them to continue their support.” There are no trainings over the summer, three
tutors stated a mid-year training session after their initial training session would be helpful in
“brushing up, especially since summer vacations do add a bit of rust for us tutors.” Six tutors
stated they would appreciate feedback from the graduate advisors and site coordinators on lesson
plans and the direction taken with students. Further training sessions would help to strengthen
tutoring abilities.
Rhodes (2008) found consistency, frequency, and focus in a tutoring program is
important factors for at-risk youth in alternative education programs. Although the program
provides a solid initial basis for tutors to start their sessions, these findings suggest Readers
Advance would benefit from keeping constant communication among stakeholders and by
providing additional training and support throughout the year in order to maintain the fidelity and
focus of the program’s intent to address the literacy needs of at-risk youth.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

74
Research Question Three

What is the role and level of literacy professional development and training of tutors in a
mentor-tutor program?
In order to answer research question three regarding the role and level of literacy
professional development and training Readers Advance’s tutors receive, this section is
presented as an outline of the professional development plan, professional development content,
and applications of professional development in tutoring sessions.
Outline of Professional Development Plan

New tutors are provided with a two-day new tutor training by graduate advisors, which
takes place two consecutive Saturdays prior to meeting with students. The first two hours of the
first day is conducted with the whole group and the remainder of the each day focuses on tutor’s
areas of certification, literacy or mathematics. Graduate advisors provide the first part of the
training presented through a Power Point and includes a variety of activities, such as responding
to questions, discussion with other tutors, and collaboration on defining new terms and sharing
out to the entire group. The graduate advisor assigned to each of the areas gives content specific
presentations. For the purpose of this study, only the literacy training of tutors was observed and
will be described.
Outline of Professional Development Content

New Tutors. During the first two hours of their sessions, tutors are presented with an
array of information ranging from the program’s organization to problem solving scenarios and
an introduction to the program, including its origin, structure and design. A detailed explanation
of what it means to be a good mentor provides tutors with a sense of their responsibilities and
practices while conducting tutoring sessions with students. The first part of the first day’s
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

75
training session covers logistics about job responsibilities, and paperwork. Table 9 outlines the
focus for the first day of new tutor training.
Table 9 Day One of New Tutor Training
• What Does it Mean To be A Good Tutor?
• Practices of Good Mentors
• Job Responsibilities
• Paperwork

The first two hours of the second day presents tutors with the “Five P’s” (prepare, pause,
prompt, praise, and probe) to guide tutoring sessions. Tutors are provided with specifics
regarding positive phrasing, such as being honest, constructive, respectful and specific in student
feedback. They are asked to be honest and provide specific feedback, reinforce good behavior,
provide construction comments, pose everything with positive phrasing, be respectful and polite,
and never threaten students. New tutors are provided with guidelines for a successful first day
with students, focusing on flexibility and developing a relationship with the student. Goal setting,
its different types and purpose are introduced to tutors. Tutors are introduced to different types of
goals: behavior, self-efficacy, literacy or math content through a combination of lecture and role
playing.
On-line support and resources are introduced and tutors are given the opportunity to
explore them and discuss their applicability in their tutoring sessions. SkyDrive is the online site
used to share files, find paperwork, and templates. On-line educational resources such as
Enchanted Learning were introduced to tutors to find resources and instructional materials to
support their lessons. Multiple intelligence and learning styles are introduced to tutors in order to
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

76
provide them with a framework while addressing students’ needs. The intelligences presented
through lecture to tutors were linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, visual,
musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal.
In consideration for their protection and their interactions with students, tutors are
trained on establishing physical, personal, and relationship boundaries. They are urged to set and
model appropriate boundaries from the beginning. Considering their interactions with students,
the final component is problem-solving scenarios where tutors can implement what they learned
during the morning sessions. The presenter discussed setting physical, personal, and relationship
boundaries. Table 10 outlines the focus the second day of new tutor training.
Table 10 Day Two of New Tutor Training
• The Five P’s
• The First Day
• On-line Support
• Learning Styles
• Working with Children
• Problem Solving

Literacy Training. The certification of tutors by Readers Advance takes place upon their
completion of the two-day training in a specific are (literacy or math). In a period of five hours,
during the second part of the first day, the graduate director presented, through lecture and role-
play, the focus is on literacy statistics, the reading process, the cueing systems, and reading
experiences.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

77
After discussing their literacy memories and what literacy means to them, new literacy
tutors are trained on the characteristics of different levels of readers. Two types of readers are
introduced, proficient and struggling. A proficient reader is characterized as someone who
actively monitors comprehension, possesses strategies to use when comprehension breaks down
or unfamiliar words are encountered, utilizes the three cueing systems simultaneously, and
reflect, summarize, and seeks more information after reading. The literacy graduate advisor
presented a struggling reader as one who does not view reading as a meaning making process,
has no strategies or uses them inappropriately, reads without preparing or knowing why, and
relies on one system by providing examples through a read aloud.
During the reading process, tutors are introduced to the three cueing systems described in
Table 4 (grapho-phonic, sematic, and syntactic) and how they work together to foster
comprehension. Tutors are introduced to literacy development and reading experiences were read
aloud, shared reading, guided reading, independent reading, and writing are defined. Read-
Alouds introduce students to a variety of genres, improve listening and recall skills, and enable
the tutor to think aloud and model reading strategies. In shared reading the tutor involves the
student in reading together by pointing to or signaling below each word in the text as the student
reads. Guided Reading provides support for students as they learn to use the various reading
strategies. The purpose of the reading experience, as presented to the tutors, is to provide an
enjoyable reading experience in order to promote the love of reading. Table 11 outlines the focus
of the first day literacy training for new tutors.
Table 11 Day One of Literacy Training
• Literacy Statistics
• The Reading Process
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

78
• The Cueing System
• Reading Experiences

The second-day of literacy training built upon the first day, but focuses on
comprehension, modeling, lesson plan components, resources, lesson planning, and assessments.
The training on building comprehension introduces tutors to the purpose of reading, to make
meaning and how comprehension begins before reading by making predictions, building
background, drawing personal connections, and defining a purpose for reading. During the act of
reading, tutors are taught to ask questions, clarify and review, confirm predictions, and relate the
book to other texts and the world. During the presentation the literacy graduate advisor stated,
“the focus is to create lifelong readers”.
Tutors are provided a lesson format that includes objectives, materials needed, and
engagement to stimulate student interest. In order to understand their students’, tutors are
provided with the definition and characteristics of types of readers. Emergent readers are defined
as students who are learning to read but lack skills to recognize small words, letters sounds and
names. Early readers are students who can read consonant blends, know different spelling
patterns for vowel sounds, have higher comprehension and are developing the use of correct
writing conventions. The experienced reader knows morphology, the use of roots and affixes to
figure out the meaning of new words, comprehends complex text, and reads with fluidity and
natural pace, and can make edits and revisions to writing.
Tutors are also trained on gradual release of responsibility, I Do- We Do – You Do, to
guide the structure of each tutoring session. The I Do component, tutors are taught, consists of
10-15 minutes where something is introduced and modeled. "We Do" takes between 15-20 and
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

79
allows for students to help in completing problems with assistance and feedback. You Do, which
is intended to last 10-15 minutes, allows students to complete a task stemming from the lesson’s
original goal on their own, where the tutor’s role is to guide and provide support, but not provide
answers. Every lesson is to end with a closing activity, taking five to ten minutes to celebrate
learning. Tutors are given the opportunity to develop and share lessons they create using the
model.
The last component of literacy training tutors receive is literacy assessment. Tutors are
informed students will each have two types of assessments, either the Reading Interest Survey
(pre) or Reading Interest Free Write (post) and one of the three skills test appropriate to student’s
ability: Concepts about Print (CAP), Beginning Skills Phonics Test (BPST), or Running Record
(RR) of grade level passages. The Reading Interest Survey (Appendix D) administered at the
beginning of the semester is recorded and consists of 20 questions regarding student’s interests in
a variety of areas. The Reading Interest Free Write (Appendix E) is recorded and asks the student
to answer, “How do you feel when you are reading a book? The Concepts of Print (CAP) Test
(Appendix F) is recorded, administered to emergent readers who have no letter/sound
recognition. The Beginning Phonics Skills Test (BPST) (Appendix G) is a recorded assessment
administered to beginning readers who are not yet reading, but have some knowledge of sound
and spelling patters. It consists of identifying the sounds and names of the letters of the alphabet
and words ranging from consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words to those requiring knowledge
of long and short vowels. The Running Record (Appendix H) is administered to independent
readers who can read passages of text independently. Each assessment is recorded and
administered according to student’s reading level; they range from pre-primer to level six. Each
assessment includes a one minute timed passage where student’s words per minute (WPM) and
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

80
accuracy are recorded. Concept questions and predictions are asked at the end of the reading.
Upon completion of the two-day literacy training, tutors are certified by the Readers Advance
program to conduct literacy tutoring sessions. Table 12 outlines the focus of the second day of
literacy training.
Table 12 Day Two of Literacy Training

• Comprehension Strategies
• Lesson Design and Components
• Gradual Release of Responsibility
• Assessments

Summary

This section highlighted the findings resulting from the data collected through meetings,
visits, attendance of professional development, interviews, and observation of tutoring sessions.
Data collection was presented around themes, which framed and answered the research questions
guiding this study. Key findings are captured in Figure 2. Chapter 5 provides a brief summary
and full discussion of the findings, implications and recommendations for future studies on
literacy instruction of at-risk youth in alternative education settings.

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

81

Figure 2 Key Findings

Knowledge:

Reading
Improves
Literacy

Reading
is
Literacy

Dispositions:

Positive

Reinforcement

Commitment
to

Community

Oraganizational

Structure

Skills:

The
Three
Cueing

System

Comprehension

Strategies

Engagement

Strategies

Readers
Advance

Tutor

PD 2 Content
• The
Five
P’s

• The
First
Day

• On-‐line
Support

• Learning
Styles

• Working
with
Children

• Problem
Solving

Scenarios

• Comprehension

• Modeling

• Anatomy
of
a
Lesson

• Lesson
Planning

• Assessments

PD 1 Content
• Intro
to
Program

• Being
a
Good
Tutor

• Responsibilities

• Content
Training

• After
School
Program

• Meet
Coordinators

• Literacy
Memories

• Literacy
Statistics

• The
Cueing
System

• Reading
Experiences

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

82

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

This study examined the nature of an alternative education program in preparing its
literacy tutors to address the literacy needs of at-risk youth in three urban elementary schools.
This chapter will provide (1) a summary of the study; (2) discussion of findings; (3) implications
of study; (4) recommendations; and (5) future studies.
Summary

This research was guided by three research questions, which were answered through the
collection of data from initial meetings, attendance at professional development sessions,
interviews, and observations of tutoring sessions. Data collected from the different resources
yielded information about the nature of Readers Advance, a literacy-based tutoring program for
at-risk youth. Findings regarding Readers Advance were aligned with the literature, which
supports essential characteristics for effective alternative education programs 1.) Based on
trusting and caring relationships, 2.) Based on effective assessment of individual student’s needs,
3.) Student-centered, 4.) Focused on purposeful academic and behavior student outcomes, 5.)
Flexible and accessible. However, the program lacked delivery of instruction by highly skilled
and knowledgeable staff, and guided by data to constantly monitor and assess student’s needs,
which the literature suggested, were essential components for effective alternative education
programs (Gutherson, Dabies, Daszkiewicz, 2011, & Kim and Taylor, 2008, Wikerson, Gagnon,
Melekoglu, and Cakiroglu, 2010). The current program structure has a linear approach with
minimal support offered to tutors in their literacy instruction and understanding. Although the
program is based a on a strong socio-cultural approach it fails to provide tutors with the
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

83
knowledge of what that means in the development of literacy. Tutors are unaware of how to
incorporate students’ multiple literacies to build, develop and support their academic literacies.
Data supported tutors’ understanding about the difference between being a mentor and
being a tutor. Findings reveal tutors understand tutoring to be aligned with academic support and
mentoring to be socio-emotional support. Although Readers Advance only identifies tutors in
addressing the literacy needs of at-risk youth in urban schools, initial training introduces “What
it means to be a tutor.” Tutors understand, as supported by data presented in chapter four, their
role is that of a mentor/tutor. Because they develop personal bonds with students, tutors are
vested in the academic and socio-emotional success of their students. These findings support
research regarding students who have active mentors involved in their lives and are more likely
to overcome self-esteem and academic problems (Lee, 2001). Positive adult bonds provide at-
risk youth with a range of positive academic and behavior factors and develop positive
relationships with positive role models (Network for Dropout Prevention Center, 2007). Mentors
allow students to address their sense of disconnect by developing personal bonds (Jackson,
2005).
Tutors had a general understanding regarding effective literacy instruction, but did not
provide specific strategies to support literacy development. Participants concurred on the
importance of literacy in student’s academic development. Tutors were limited to the use of the
three-cueing system, primarily focusing on semantic clues and phonemic assistance, to support
students during reading instruction. Data from interviews and observation found tutors had
limited knowledge about the purpose for using each of the literacy strategies introduced during
their initial training. Data also found tutors had limited knowledge regarding selection of
instructional reading materials for students. Focus on the five literacy development components
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

84
(phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), and effective literacy
instruction for at-risk youth and nondominant youth are essential for academic achievement and
language development (August & Shanahan, 2010). Language acquisition must be a structured
socio-cultural experience, which builds on students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds and
literacies to make meaning of what is being taught (Willis, 2000). The tutors’ studies failed to
provide students with balanced literacy instruction and incorporate their cultural literacy to
support their academic literacy development. They failed to make an explicit connection between
academic and social literacies provides (Morje et al., 2004). Consideration of student’s literacies
presents literacy through a socio-cultural approach/construct bridges and acknowledge student’s
knowledge to academic literacies. Readers tutors monitor their comprehension through a
simultaneous use of a variety of strategies to create meaning from text (NRP, 2000). It is only
when students have mastered phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency and vocabulary that they
can effortlessly decode text and understand the message authors are trying to convey and make
connections between the text and the world.
During tutoring sessions, tutors provided students with a variety of comprehension
strategies to scaffold and support students in making meaning of text. Tutors used a variety of
tailored activities to engage and motivate students during tutoring sessions. They provided
rewards for focus, such as games at the end of tutoring sessions and stickers to place on student’s
literacy folders. Tutors used a limited amount of comprehension strategies situated on the lower
level of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Data collected demonstrated tutors offer positive reinforcement
throughout their lessons. However, the need to constantly provide positive reinforcement led to
giving students false positives while reading.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

85
Tutors expressed a desire to serve the community, serve children, and make a positive
impact on youth. Program perceptions were positive with suggestions for improvement, which
included time, professional development, and placement of tutors. Although the self-reported
knowledge, skills, and dispositions were positive, data collected identified limited knowledge
and application of literacy knowledge and skills.
Discussion

Considering the findings and the wealth of knowledge presented during the training days,
the responsibility of mentor/tutors, and the results from the data collected, Readers Advance
must consider the effectiveness of the program through (1) the support and structure of
professional development, (2) the role of mentor-tutors, and (3) tutor’s sense of personal
investment in the community and students.
An effective professional plan supports participants through presentation of theory,
demonstration of skills, practice in a secure environment, a pre-conference observation and post-
conference model, creation of the appropriate conditions for evaluation and monitoring of
conferences, and a focus on goals at the site level and for individual students (Hunzicker, 2011 &
Kuijpers, Houtveen, & Wubbels, 2010). The current professional model provides tutors with the
theory, strategies, and expectation in a period of less than sixteen hours. Although there are
structures in place to support tutors with the implementation, there is nothing in place to monitor
application strategies and skills. Other than the initial shadowing of a session prior to meeting
students, new tutors must rely on their interpretation of the information presented during two
consecutive Saturdays. Once a tutor is certified, there are no follow-up trainings or seminars to
coach them through their practice. In order to support tutors, directors and site coordinators must
understand the interconnection between coaching, lesson study, and reflection as teacher
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

86
educators. Each component provides the support system necessary to ensure coherence in
defining, presenting, and understanding expected skills and strategies. Although the initial
presentation of literacy provides tutors with a foundation of what literacy instruction is, it fails to
provide tutors with consistent available and accessible support to grow as literacy experts. Figure
5.1 demonstrates the process of support through a combination of coaching, lesson study, and
reflection. Coaching requires joint planning, observation, and feedback (Donegan, Ostrosky, &
Fowler, 2000). Lesson study consists of selecting an area of focus, plan, teach, discuss, revise,
and reteach (Fernandez & Chokshi, 2002). Reflection requires presence in the practice,
description of experience, analysis of experience, and experimentation (Rogers, 2002).

Figure 3 Professional Development Support

A structured professional development plan can help tutors in their role as tutor and
mentor. Tutors’ role as mentor/tutors became evident in the data collection and analysis.
Although the concept of mentoring is introduced during the new tutor training, it is not addressed
or discussed by the program. Tutors, however, embrace their role as academic and socio-
emotional guides for their students. At-risk students who are provided with a mentor-tutor are
Select
Focus
&

Plan
Jointly
with

Presence

Teach,
Observe

Discuss,
Provide

Feedback,
using

Description
of

Experience

Jointly
Revise

and
plan,
using

Analysis
of

Experience

Re-‐Teach,

Observe,

Applying

Experimentation

from
Findings

Debrief
and

Provide

Feedback

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

87
more likely to out perform other at-risk students (Robinson & Niemer, 2010). The professional
development plan must have structure in place to support not only tutor’s knowledge and
implementation of literacy, but also their mentoring ability.
Readers Advance can capitalize on tutors’ sense of personal investment and the
community. Through interviews, meetings, and observations, tutors’ sense of personal
investment in students and the community emerged. Although the tutors are young, 18-23 year
olds, undergraduate students, they have a sense of responsibility for the effect their interactions
will have on the community and children. It became evident tutors overall had a sense of service
and dedication to their community. Many of the tutors preciously served as mentors, advisors, or
volunteers in their communities. Their dedication to the community and students is evident in
their interactions and personal connection with the students as well as their desire to spend more
time and provide additional support to their students.
Ultimately, by addressing the structure of preparing and teaching tutors rather than
training them in literacy, Readers Advance will be able to provide a holistic approach to their
program. Training refers to the acquisition of new strategies, where teaching requires an
understanding and appropriation of new strategies. A structured professional development plan
will provide tutors with the support and scaffolds needed to support effective literacy instruction.
Tutors are implementing their understanding and interpretation of literacy without the scaffolds
and supports to provide them with feedback. The current professional model presents a wealth of
information at an introductory level with the expectation of expert implementation. The program
recruits and hires dedicated young role models who are implementing what they have been
taught to the best of their abilities, but are not providing the support to ensure their success and
development. The level of respect and dedication of tutors is comparable to what would be
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

88
expected of an effective teacher. Although their data may reveal positive trends in student
outcomes, an on-going professional development plan may yield greater short-term and long-
term academic and socio-emotional outcomes for students and the community. Although tutors
are implementing a variety of strategies, they do not seem to understand the reason or purpose
for using them when they do and therefore are not providing students with the most effective
literacy instruction because they do not know how to use specific strategies.
Implications

The purpose of a structured, reflective, and supportive professional development plan is
to ensure students are receiving the best literacy instruction. Research on effective professional
models found structured professional development plans which offer constant support and
development will allow participants to develop and grow with guidance and support (Slavin,
Lake, Chambers, Cheung & Slavin, 2009, Lewis, James, Hancock, & Hill-Jackson, 2008). This
professional development structure enhances and improves students’ literacy experiences and
development by providing participants with the structure to ensure new skills and strategies are
effectively implemented (Hunzicker, 2011 & Kuijpers, Houtveen, & Wubbels, 2010). If tutors
are provided an arena to grow and learn from mistakes and misconceptions as well as build on
their knowledge base, students will more likely receive effective literacy instruction and support.
Tutors’ sense of responsibility and service towards the community and students provides
students with positive role models, which support both their academic and social development.

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

89
Recommendations

Considering the implication of this study for students, recommendations offered here are
specific to tutoring programs and tutors. Successful student outcomes are a result of the
program’s structure and the efficacy of the individuals in contact with students.
Tutoring programs should establish an ongoing professional development plan to ensure
that desired knowledge and skills are effectively implemented and supported. Programs would
benefit from focus on making the knowledge and strategies of literacy explicit to tutors. Within
the definition of literacy, tutoring programs, particularly those as Readers Advance, which have a
vested and committed tutoring cohort, should identify students’ literacies and how they can be
used to support academic literacy. Within reflective and ongoing professional development, the
program can focus on ensuring tutors understand the purpose of assessments and use them as
tools to provide students with specific support. From the observations, it was noted that
additional support in reading, lesson delivery, writing, and learning concerns are needed.
Reading. In order to support students’ phonemic development, it is suggested for tutors
to use the adopted language arts program used to support sound recognition in the classroom
(e.g. sound spelling cards). Tutors should note and avoid their use of false positives, which
provide students with an erroneous sense of accuracy, while students are reading, asserting when
students have mispronounced or guessed a word. To support comprehension while reading,
tutors could ensure students reference the text and support answers with textual evidence. Tutors
are not waiting long enough for students to answer questions, too many “teacher tolds”, where
students wait for the teacher to provide the answer, were noted during the observation, students
are learning to wait until an answers is awarded to them when they find an activity or question to
be too difficult to respond to. Students are not being allowed or taught to struggle and problem
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

90
solve when concepts are difficult. While reading, tutors should ensure students, especially
emerging and beginning readers, are tracking as they are reading text at their instructional or
frustration level. Although the cueing systems are introduced during new trainer professional
development, tutors level of knowledge in phonics is limited. Additional training and support in
defining and understanding phonics such as long, short vowel sounds, digraphs, consonant-
vowel-consonant words, diphthongs, consonant blends, and the importance of sight words is
needed (Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung & Slavin, 2009, Lewis, James, Hancock, & Hill-
Jackson, 2008).
Lesson Delivery. At the beginning and end of every lesson, lesson objectives and
purpose should be explicitly stated. Tutors need to understand and assess student’s reading levels
to ensure materials selected are at student’s instructional, not frustration level. Instructional level
is where a student can read with teacher support and frustration level is where student lacks
confidence and makes many errors.
Writing. Tutors should be explicitly taught the use of strategies such as linguistic
patterns, thinking maps, organization of ideas and oral rehearsal to practice writing, which
support language and vocabulary development. The program should provide tutors with training
in writing conventions such as how to capture and support students through the writing process
from forming and expressing complete ideas to formulating structured paragraphs and research
projects, to support what is being learned in the classroom to build and support what students are
learning.
Student Concerns. Tutors should be in-serviced about student’s developmental concerns
such as information processing and developmental concerns. The program should provide tutors
with the ability and resources to communicate concerns to stakeholders. Capacitation (training
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

91
and teaching) for literacy and mentoring has to be ongoing to ensure tutors are providing the
services expected by the program and support students’ literacy development. The program
would benefit from an examination of the student assessments to ensure they are aligned with
expected student outcomes.
For tutors, assignment of coaches, experienced tutors, assistant and site coordinators,
graduate advisors, directors, teachers, or faculty in education or sociology, can provide the
support needed to understand the program’s literacy and mentoring expectations. Continuing
education in theory and pedagogy though professional development with the support of coaches
will provide tutors with the resources to meet the expectations and demands of being
mentor/tutors.
These recommendations focus primarily on the program because the program’s structure
provides the foundation to establish specific goals and supports in place to ensure tutors are
provided with the knowledge and resources necessary to accomplish the program’s mission,
which is a service learning program that offers students the unique opportunity to combine
academic coursework with experiences in the community surrounding the campus.
Limitations

Limitations to the study include the researcher’s biases, limited resources,
availability of and ability to collect the necessary data, and participants’ biases and perceptions.
The study is focusing on one alternative education program in Southern California working with
at-risk and may not be generalizable to other education settings and mentor/tutor relationships.
Study limitations exist as the study is only being conducted on one program; therefore findings
will be used as a formative evaluation of the program’s effectiveness in selecting and preparing
tutors. Other limitations of the study are the researcher’s ability to identify factors contributing to
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

92
tutors’ literacy efficacy, and mentor-tutor’s ability to honestly report their efficacy in delivering
and supporting literacy instruction. However, findings may be used for the improvement of this
specific literacy program.
Delimitations

The study focused on the efficacy and ability of tutors to deliver literacy
instruction to at-risk youth in one alternative setting through a series of interviews and
observations. The study focused on interviewing and observing mentor-tutors and focused on
their literacy efficacy, their knowledge of designing, delivering and effectively providing
students with literacy instruction.
Future Studies

Future evaluations of the program can include a quantitative study that looks at student
data to determine the effectives of instruction in addressing student’s literacy needs. The
literature review provided supports a need for the additional studies of alternative education
programs for developing literacy. Future studies for tutoring programs should research the
structure of effective tutoring programs and how student efficacy is quantified or measured.
Research should also focus on effective literacy tutoring programs for at-risk youth of
nondominant communities in order to address the increasing academic gap. The difference in the
definition of literacy in the education system and through a socio-cultural lens is recommended
to provide programs a holistic view of literacy and its effect on students’ literacy development.
Research on how tutors and the program support students multiple (socio-cultural) literacies to
support academic development would provide another perspective on the role of alternative
education programs servicing students of nondominant communities and literacies. Considering
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

93
the demands of tutors, future studies for tutors must consider the emotional and moral
implication of tutors who serve as mentors for at-risk youth. The efficacy of tutors in providing
literacy instruction to at-risk youth would yield valuable information for tutors and tutoring
programs.
This study set out to understand the nature of Readers Advance, an alternative education
program, in preparing its literacy tutors. Data was collected through initial meetings, attendance
of professional development day, informal visits, interviews, and tutoring observations. Findings
presented a misalignment between the professional development and support provided to tutors
and the program’s expectations. This resulted in tutor’s limited knowledge and skills in literacy
development and support for at-risk youth. Recommendations for the program consist of a
reflective, coaching, on-going professional development model to support and guide tutors in
providing students effective literacy instruction.

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

94
References

Ahrens, K.R., DuBois, D.L., Richardson, L., Fan, F., and Lozano, P. (2008). Youth in foster care
with adult mentors during adolescence have improved adult outcomes. Pediatrics. DOI:
10.1542/peds.2007-0508.
Alexander, K., Entwisle, D., & Kabbani, N. (2001). The dropout process in life course
perspective: early risk factors at home and school. Teachers College Record, 103 (5).
Allen, W.R., Bonous-Hammarth, M., & Teranishi, R. (2002). Stony the road we trod…the black
struggle for higher education in california.
Alligton, R. (2002). The six t’s of effective elementary literacy instruction. Retrieved from
http://www.readingrockets.org/article.php?ID=413
Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy
Research, 34(2), 189-208.American School Counseling Association, (2006-2008).
Ames, A. (2003). To truly educate. Principal Leadership, 3(7), 35.
Anderman, E. M. & Anderman, L. H. "Teacher Efficacy. (2012), Psychology of Classroom
Learning: An Encyclopedia. Ed. Vol. 2. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2009. 915-
920.
Anthony, E.K., Alter, C.F., & Jenson, J.M. (2009). Development of a risk and resilience-based
out-of-school time program for children and youth. Social Work, 54(1), 46.
Assaf, L. & Dooley, C. (2006). Everything they are giving us created tension: creating and
managing tension in a graduate-level multicultural course focused on literacy methods.
Multicultural Education, 14(2), 42-49.
Athanases, S. Z. (1998). Diverse learners, diverse texts: exploring identity and difference
through literacy encounters. Literary Research, 30, 273.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

95
Au, K. H (1998) Social Constructivism and the School Literacy Learning of Students
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary
development for english language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
20(1), 50-57. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00120.x
August, D., Carlo, M., Proctor, C. P., & Snow, C. (2006). The intriguing role of spanish
language vocabulary in predicting english reading vocabulary. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(1), 159-169.
August, D., Shanahan, T., & Escamilla, K. (2009). English language learners: developing
literacy in second-language learners – report of the national literacy panel on language -
minority children and youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 40.
Baele, E. W. (2001). Analysis of state standards for paraprofessionals. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 28(4).
Baer, J., Baldi, S., Ayotte, K, Green, P.J., and McGrath, D. (2007). The reading literacy of U.S.
fourth-grade students in an international context. Results from the 2001 and 2006
progress in international reading literacy study (PIRLS).
Baker, D.B. & Maguire, C.P. (2002). Child saving and the emergence of vocational psychology.
Journal of Vocational Behavior.
BC Teachers for a New Era (2007). Teaching practices/ pupil learning/social justice classroom.
Observation protocol directions. http://tne.bc.edu/documents/BCTNE_QCS_ObsInst.pdf
Berliner, B. (2010). Grappling with the gaps. Stuart Foundation and the Ready to Succeed
Leadership Team.
Berry, B., Daughtrey, A. and Wieder, A. (2010). Teacher Effectiveness: The Conditions that
Matter Most and a Look to the Future. Center for Teaching Quality, March, 2010.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

96
Berry, B., Hoke, M., Hirsch, E. (2004). The Search for Highly Qualified Teachers. Phi Delta
Kappan, 85(9).
Bertrand, D., Blomer, L., Csepe, V., Faisca, L., Lyytinen, H., Reis, A., Saine, N., Toth, D.,
Vaissen, A., and Ziegler, J. (2010). Orthographic depth and its impact on universal
predictors of reading: a cross-language investigation. Psychological Science, 21(4) 551-
559.
Bingham, G.E., Hall-Kenyon, K. M., and Culatta, B. (2010). Systematic and engaging early
literacy: examining the effects of paraeducators implemented early literacy instruction.
Communication Disorders Quarterly. DOI: 10.1177/1525740109340796.
Capaldi, D. M. (2009). Youth after-school programs: Time to involve the parents and
community? Criminology & Public Policy, 8(2), 413. doi:10.1111/j.1745-
9133.2009.00558.x
Cardenas-Hagan, E., Carlson, C. D., & Pollard-Durodola, S. D. (2007). The cross-linguistic
transfer of early literacy skills: The role of initial L1 and L2 skills and language of
instruction. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(3), 249-259.
doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2007/026)
Carlisle, J. F., & Berebitsky, D. (2011). Literacy coaching as a component of professional
development. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(7), 773-800.
DOI:10.1007/s11145-009-9224-4
Carter, E., O'Rourke, L., Sisco, L. G., & Pelsue, D. (2009). Knowledge, responsibilities, and
training needs of paraprofessionals in elementary and secondary schools. Remedial and
Special Education, 30(6), 344-359.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

97
Chard, D.J. and Pikulski, J.J. (2005). Fluency: bridge between decoding and reading
comprehension. International Reading Association, 510-519.
Collins, J. (1995). Literacy and literacies. Annual review of anthropology, 24(1), 75-93. DOI:
10.1146/annurev.anthro.24.1.75
Connor, C. M., Kaya, S., Luck, M., Toste, J.R, et al. (2010). Content area literacy:
individualizing student instruction in second-grade. The Reading Teacher, Newark:
March 2010, 63(6).
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F.J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S, et al. (2011). Testing the impact of child
characteristics and instruction interactions on third graders’ reading comprehension by
differentiating literacy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 189.
Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., and Underwood, P.S. (2007). A second chance in second grade:
the independent and cumulative impact of first-and second-grade reading instruction and
students’ letter-word reading skill growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(3).
Coyne, M.D., Simmons, D., Lame’enui, E.J. & Stoollmiller, M. (20040 Teaching vocabulary
during shared storybook readings: and examinations of differential effects.
Exceptionality, 12, 145-162.
Cunningham, A.E. and Stanovich, K.E., (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to
reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934-945.
Darling-Hammond, L. and Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for
education: The right way to meet the “highly qualified teacher” challenge. Educational
Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33).
Darrow, C. L. (2009). Language and literacy effects of curriculum interventions for preschools
serving economically disadvantaged children: a meta analysis. SREE Conference
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

98
Davenport, D. and Jones, J. M. (2005). The politics of literacy, Policy Review, April/May; 130.
DeAnda, D. (2001). A qualitative evaluation of a mentor program for at-risk youth: the
participants’ perspective. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 18(2).
Doecke, B. & Kostogriz, A. (2003). Teacher education and critical inquiry: the use of activity
theory in exploring alternative understanding of language and literacy. NZARE/AARE
2003.
Donegan, M.M., Ostrosky, M.M., & Fowler, S.A. (2000). Peer coaching: Teachers supporting
teachers. Young Exceptional Children, 3, 9-16.
Drakeford, W. & Staples, J.M. (2006). Minority confinement in the juvenile justice system:
Legal, social, and racial factors. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(1), 52.
DuBois, D.L., Holloway, B.E., Valentine, J.C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring
programs for youth: a meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community
Psychology. 30(2).
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs
that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3), 294-309. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9300-6
Duursma, E., Romero-Contreras, S., Szuber, A., Proctor, P., & Snow, C. (2007). The role of
home literacy and language environment on bilinguals’ english and spanish development.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 171-190.
Eakin, M.N., Fletcher, J.M., Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Moats, L.C., Schatschneider, C.
(2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling
achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(1).
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

99
Edmonds, M.S., Vaughn, J.W., Reutebuch, Cable, A., Tackett, K. K., & Schnakenberg, W.
(2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension
outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1).
Ellery, V. (2009). Creating strategic readers: techniques for developing competency in phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. International Reading
Association, Inc.
everyday funds of knowledge and Discourse.
Farstrup, A. E. (2002). What research has to say about reading instruction. International Reading
Association, Inc.
Fernandez, C. & Chokshi, S. (2002). A practical guide to translating lesson study for a U. S.
setting. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(2), 128-34.
Fogel, H. & Ehri, L. C. (2006). Teaching African American English to Standard American
English Speaking Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 464-480.
Foley, R. M., & Pang, L. (2006). Alternative education programs: Program and student
characteristics. The High School Journal, 89(3), 10-2
Folsom, J.S., Otaiba, S.A., Schatschneider, C., Wanzek, J. (2011). Predicting first-grade reading
performance from kindergarten response to tier 1 instruction. Exceptional Children,
77(4).
Foorman, B. R., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M. N., Fletcher, J. M., Moats, L. C., & Francis, D. J.
(2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling
achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(1), 1-
29. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.11.003
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

100
Forbes, R., Harrison, J.R., & Brown, C.J. (2008). Afterschool learning in rural areas. Center for
American Progress.
Freeman, D.E., & Freeman, Y. (2001). Between worlds: access to second language acquistion.
Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuing International Publishing Group. New
York, NY.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emerging versus forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley,
CA: Sociology Press.
Grant, R., & Wong, S. (2003). Barriers to literacy for language-minority learners: An argument
for change in the literacy education profession. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
46(5), 386-394.
Gutherson, P., Dabies, H. & Daszkiewicz, T. (2011). Achieving successful outcomes through
alternative education provisions: an international literature review.
Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., Coddington, C. S., Lutz Klauda, S., Wigfield, A., & Barbosa, P.
(2009). Impacts of comprehensive reading instruction on diverse outcomes of low- and
high-achieving readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(3), 195.
doi:10.1177/0022219408331039
Gutierrez, K.D., Morales, P. Z., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: culture,
difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities. Review of Research
in Education, 33(1), 212-245.
Hammond, L.D. (2004). Many children left behind. Beacon Press. Boston, MA.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

101
Harris, D. N., & Herrington, C. D. (2006). Accountability, standards, and the growing
achievement gap: Lessons from the past half-century. American Journal of Education,
112(2), 209-238. doi:10.1086/498995
Hill, N. E., & Torres, K. (2010). Negotiating the american dream: The paradox of aspirations and
achievement among latino students and engagement between their families and schools.
The Journal of Social Issues, 66(1), 95.
Hooper, S. R., Roberts, J., Sideris, J., Burchinal, M., & Zeisel, S. (2010). Longitudinal predictors
of reading and math trajectories through middle school for african american versus
caucasian students across two samples. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1018-1029.
DOI:10.1037/a0018877
Houchins, D. E., Jolivette, K., Shippen, M. E., & Lambert, R. (2010). Advancing high-quality
literacy research in juvenile justice: Methodological and practical considerations.
Behavioral Disorders, 36(1), 61-69.
Hunzicker, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: A checklist. Professional
Development in Education, 37(2), 177-179.
Ivernizzi, M., Rosemary, C., Juel, C. & Richardson, H.C. (1997). At-risk readers and community
volunteers: a 3-year perspective. Scientific Studies of reading, 1(3), 277-300.
Jackson, A. (2005). Turning points: educating adolescents in the twenty-first century. A Report
from the Carnegie Corporation. New York.
Jacobi, T. (2008). Writing for change: engaging juveniles through alternative literacy education.
Journal of Correctional Education, 56(2)71.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

102
Jenner, E. & Jenner, L. W. (2007). Results from a first year evaluation of academic impact of an
after school program for at-risk students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 12(2), 213-237.
Johnson, A.F., & Perkins, G.W. (2009). What we know about at-risk students: Important
considerations for principal and counselor leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 93, 123-132.
Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M. E., Ocker-Dean, E., & Smith, D. L. (2009).
Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 392-402.
Jun, S. W., Ramirez, G. & Cumming, A. (2010). Tutoring adolescents in literacy: a meta-
analysis. McGill Journal of Education, 45(2).
Kim, J., & Taylor, K. A. (2008). Rethinking alternative education to break the cycle of
educational inequality and inequity. The Journal of Educational Research, 101(4), 207-
219. DOI:10.3200/JOER.101.4.207-219
Kindlon, D. J., & Thompson, M. (2000). Raising cain: protecting the emotional life of boys.
Random House, Toronto, Canada.
Kleeck, A. and Schuele, C.M. (2010). Historical perspectives on literacy in early childhood.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(11).
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. English
Language Teaching series. London: Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd.
Kuijpers, J. M., Houtveen, A. A. M., & Wubbels, T. (2010). An integrated professional
development model for effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1687-
1694. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.021
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

103
Lawrence, J. F., White, C., & Snow, C. E. (2010). The words students need. Educational
Leadership, 68(2), 23-26.
Lee, S. (2001). The relationship between morphological awareness and literacy outcomes of
elementary students: a meta-analysis study.
Lewis, C. W., James, M., Hancock, S., & Hill-Jackson, V. (2008). Framing african american
students' success and failure in urban settings: A typology for change. Urban Education,
43(2), 127-153.Literacy, (2010).
Little, P. M. D., Wimer, C., & Weiss, H. (2007). After school programs in the 21
st
century: their
potential and what it takes to achieve it. Harvard Family Research Project.
Lonigan, C. J. & Shanahan, T. (2002). Developing early literacy: report of the national early
literacy panel.
Lyle, S. (1999). An investigation of pupil perception of mixed-ability grouping to enhance
literacy in children aged 9-10. Educational Studies, 25 (3), 283.
MacGillivray, L., Ardell, A. L., and Curwen, M.S. (2010). Supporting the literacy development
of children living in homeless shelters. The Reading Teacher, 63(5), 384.
Machin, S. and McNally, S. (2008), The literacy hour. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1441-
1462.
Macizo, P., & Van Petten, C. (2007). Syllable frequency in lexical decision and naming of
english words. Reading and Writing, 20(4), 295-331. doi: 10.1007/s11145-006-9032-z
Matthews, J. S., Kizzie, K. T., Rowley, S. J., & Cortina, K. (2010). African American and boys:
understanding the literacy gap, tracing academic trajectories, and evaluating the role of
learning-related skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 757-771.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

104
Mays, (2008). The cultural divide of discourse: understanding how English-language learners’
primary discourse influences acquisition of literacy. The Reading Teacher, 6(15), 415-
418. DOI: 10.1598/RT.61.5.6.
McDonald, C. C., Morrison, F.J., and Guilliani, et al. (2011), Testing the impact of child
characteristics x instruction interactions on third graders’ reading comprehension by
differentiating literacy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 189.
McDonald, C. C., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., Glasney, W. Schatscheneider, C., Crowe, E.,
Underwood, P., and Morrison, F.J. (2009), Individualizing student instruction precisely:
effects of child x instruction interaction on first graders’ literacy development. Child
Development, 80: 77-100.doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01247.x
McDonald, C. C., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., Glasney, W. Schatscheneider, C., Crowe, E.,
Underwood, P., and Morrison, F.J. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of literacy concepts,
classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(3),
224-448. DOI: 10.1080/10888430902851364.
Mertzman, T. (2008). Individualizing scaffolding: Teachers' literacy interruptions of ethnic
minority students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Journal of
Research in Reading, 31(2), 183-202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00356.x
Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and
Writing, 22(4), 379-399. DOI:10.1007/s11145-009-9162-1
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R. & Collazo, T. Moje, E. B.,
(2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: an examination of
everyday funds of knowledge and discourse.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

105
Moore, E. W. (2007). Decreasing discipline referral for African American males in middle
school. ASSA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 4(2).
Munoz, J. S. (2005). The social construction of alternative education: re-examining the margins
of public education for at-risk chicano/a students. High School Journal, 88(2), 3-23.
Myers, John P. (2007). Dominant-Minority Relations in America: Convergence in the New
World. New York: Pearson Education.
Myles, F. (2010). The development of theories of second language acquisition. Language
Teaching, 43, 320-332.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2011). The condition of education 2011. Retrieved
July 7, 2012, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011033.
National Early Literacy Panel, (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early
Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
National Education Association. (2008). Preventing future high school dropouts. An advocacy
and actions guide for NEA state and local affiliates.
National Institute for Child Health and Development, (2000). Report of the National Reading
Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH
Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Reading Panel (U.S.). (2000). Report of the national reading panel : Teaching children
to read : An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading
and its implications for reading instruction. United States.
Network for Dropout Prevention Center. (2007). Effective strategies to help our school dropouts.
Retrieved July 7, 2012, from www.dropoutprevention.org.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

106
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 . (2002). H.R. 1, 107
th
Congress.
Obiakor and Johnson, (1997). Children and youth at risk: from understanding to intervention.
Emporia State Research, 40(1).
Orellana, M.F. & Hernández, A. (2003). Taking the walk: Children reading urban environmental
print. In P.A. Mason & J.S. Schumm (Eds.). Promising Practices for Urban Reading
Instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 25-36.
Otaiba, S. A., & Pappamihiel, N.E. (2005). Guidelines for using volunteer tutors to support
reading instruction for english language learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(6),
6-11.
Partnership in Reading, (2003). Retrieved July 7, 2012, from
http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Portwood, S. G., Ayers, P. M., Kinnison, K. E., Waris, R. G., & Wise, D. L. (2005).
YouthFriends: Outcomes from a school-based mentoring program. The Journal of
Primary Prevention, 26(2), 129-188. DOI:10.1007/s10935-005-1975-3
Pressle, M. (2001). Effective beginning reading instruction: a paper commissioned by the
national reading conference. Chicago, IL; National Reading Conference.
Pruisner, P. (2009). Moving beyond no child left behind with the merged model for reading
instruction. TechTrends, 53(2), 41-47. DOI:10.1007/s11528-009-0267-9
Pu, C. (2010). Rethinking literacy instruction to non-lep/esl-labeled language minority students.
Literacy Teaching and Learning, 15(1-2), 137-155.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

107
Quinn, M.M. & Poirier, J.M. (2006). Study of effective alternative education programs: final
grants report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Reardon, S. F., & Galindo, C. (2009). The hispanic-white achievement gap in math and reading
in the elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 853-891.
DOI:10.3102/0002831209333184
Reese, E., Suggate, S., Long, J., & Schaughency, E. (2010). Children's oral narrative and reading
skills in the first 3 years of reading instruction. Reading and Writing, 23(6), 627.
Rhodes, J. E. (2008). Improving youth mentoring interventions through research-based practice.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1-2), 35-42. DOI:10.1007/s10464-007-
9153-9
Rhodes, J. E., Bogart, G. A., Roffman, J., Edelman, P. & Galasso, L. (2002). American Journal
of Community Psychology. 30(2).
Robinson, E., & Niemer, L. (2010). A peer mentor tutor program for academic success in
nursing. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(5), 286.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking.
Teachers College Record. 104(4).
Roulstone, S., Law, J., Rush, R., Clegg, C., & Peters, T. (2011). The role of language in
children’s early educational outcomes. University of the West of England.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1),
113-125. doi: 10.1023/A:1003044231033
Schutzenberger, M., & Marcus, R. (1959). Full decodable code-word sets. , 5(1) 12-15. doi:
10.1109/TIT.1959.1057477
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

108
Shanahan, T., & Lonigan, C. J. (2010). The national early literacy panel: A summary of the
process and the report. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 279-285.
DOI:10.3102/0013189X10369172
Shaw, M.L. (2009). Teaching and empowering reading specialists to be literacy coaches: Vision,
passion, communication and collaboration. New England Reading Association Journal,
45(1), 7.
Shiver, E. K., (2006). Report of the national reading panel: teaching children to read. National
Institute of Child Health & Human Development.
Skiba, R. & Wu, T. (2005). Mentoring: in what works in preventing violence. Retrieved from
Wolrdcat Database (50492526).
Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction.
Review of Educational Research, 75 (2), 247-284.
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A. & Davis, S. (2009). Effective reading
programs for the elementary grades: a best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational
Research: DOI: 10.3102/0034654309341374.
Smith, F. C. (2008). Literacy identity development. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 16(1),
47-51.
Snowling, M.J., Hulme, C., Stothard, S.E., and Lindsay, G. (2011). Better communication
research programme: language and literacy attainment of pupils during early years and
through KS2: does teacher assessment at five provide a valid measure of children’s
current and future educational attainments? Department of Education.
Solorzano, D.G., and Yosso, T. J. (2006). Leaks in the chicana and chicano educational pipeline.
Latino Policy & Issues Brief, 13(11).
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

109
Spira, E.G., Bracken, S.S., and Fischel, J.E. (2005). Predicting improvement after first-grade
reading difficulties: the effects of oral language, emergent literacy, and behavioral skills.
Developmental Psychology, 41(1).
Stewart, M. T. (2004). Early literacy instruction in the climate of no child left behind. The
Reading Teacher, 57(8), 732-743.
Stipek, D., Newton, S., & Chudgar, A. (2010). Learning-related behaviors and literacy
achievement in elementary school-aged children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
25(3), 385-395. DOI:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.12.001
Tyler, J. & Lofstrom, M. (2010). Is the ged an effective route to postsecondary education for
school dropouts? Economics of Education Review, 29(5), 813-825).
United States Census Bureau, (2005). Who’s minding the kids? Childcare arrangements.
Housing and household economic statistics divisions, fertility, and family statistics
branch, 2005.
Unruh, D., Bullis, M., Todis, B., Waintrup, M., & Atkins, T. (2007). Programs and practices for
special education students in alternative education settings. Retrieved on July 7, 2012
from http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=3448.
Vandell, D., Reisner, E., & Pierce, K. (2007). Outcomes linked to high-quality afterschool
programs: longitudinal findings from the study of promising practices. Irvine, CA.
VanderVen, K. (2004). Adults are still needed! intergenerational and mentoring activities.
Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13(2), 94.
Wallendorf, M. (2001). Literally literacy. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 505-511. DOI:
10.1086/319625.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

110
Warikoo, N. & and Carter, P. (2009). Cultural explanations for racial and ethnic stratification in
academic achievement: a call for a new and improved theory. Review of Educational
Research, 79(1), 366-394.
Wasik, B. A. (1998). Using volunteers as reading tutors: guidelines for successful practices. The
reading teacher. 51(7), 563-570.
Weingarten, R. (2010).Supporting at-risk high school students. American Teacher, 94(5).
Wilkerson, K. L., Gagnon, J. C., Melekoglu, M. A., & Cakiroglu, O. (2010). Reading instruction
in secondary day treatment and residential schools for youth with emotional or behavioral
disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 20(10), 1-11.
Williams, C. S. (2012). Just the facts: common core state standards. Educational Horizons, 90
(4).
Williams, D. & Evans-Winters, V. (2005). The burden of teaching teachers: memoirs of race
discourse in teacher education. The Urban Review, 5(2005), 201-219.
Willis, J. (2000). The manufacturing of constructivist instructional design: Some basic principles
that can guide practice. Educational Technology, 40(1), 5-16.
with Diverse Backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research. Vol 40: 33.
Yosso, T. J. & Solórzano, D. G. (2006). Leaks in the chicana and chicano educational pipeline.
Latino Policy and Issues Brief, 13.
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

111
Appendix A
Director Interview Protocol and Questions

Director Interview Protocol
The researcher will interview the program director of an alternative after-school program
for at-risk youth to investigate current practices in literacy instruction and preparation provided
to mentor-tutors. Findings yielded from the interview will be utilized to answer research
questions in a dissertation, which is part of a doctoral program.
The interview is expected to take approximately one hour. The interview will focus on literacy
instruction, professional development, and the following topics:
• Professional development provided to mentor-tutors
• Selection and preparation of mentor-tutors
• Literacy development and support
• Perceptions of effective literacy instruction
• Curriculum or materials used to deliver literacy instruction
• Measurements and tools used to assess the literacy needs of students and monitor their
progress
• Meeting the needs of their students

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

112
Program Director Interview Questions
Thank you for agreeing to this interview. The following questions are designed to help inform
the study on the instructional practices and support of a mentor-tutor program and professional
development you provide mentor-tutors in addressing the literacy needs of the students in your
program.
1. What has been your previous experience as a director?
a. How many years of experience do you have in mentor-tutor programs?
b. What type of training have you received to be a director?
i. What type of training have you received to be a tutor?
ii. What type of training have you received in literacy development?
2. What is your role as a director?
3. How did you design program? What was your purpose?
4. Have you had experiences as a mentor or a tutor?
5. As a program director, what do you believe to be some of the most effective strategies or
practices for supporting your tutee?
a. What instructional methods support high quality literacy instruction?
b. What materials help students reach high levels of literacy?
c. What are essential components of a literacy based tutoring session?
6. How does the program prepare mentor-tutors to address the literacy needs of your
mentees?
a. What professional development is offered?
b. What preparation and information are provided to mentor-tutors?
c. How do you support your literacy instruction?
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

113
d. What would help strengthen mentor-tutor in their role?
7. What types of materials do you provide mentor-tutors to support literacy?
a. Does the program provide mentor-tutors with a literacy curriculum? If so, which
one?
b. How does the curriculum support your philosophy of effective literacy
instruction? If so how?
8. What types of assessment do you use to understand where your students are in literacy
development? If no assessments are administered:
a. How do you determine what your student’s needs are in the area of literacy to
prepare for a tutoring session?
b. Are there materials or resources available that support the needs of mentor-tutors?
9. What do you enjoy most about being a program director?
10. Is there anything else you would like to share about being a director?

This concludes my interview. Thank you for answering my questions. Is there any additional
information you would like to add?
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

114
Appendix B
Tutor Interview Protocol and Questions

Tutor Interview Protocol
The researcher will interview mentor-tutors in an alternative after-school program for at-risk
youth to investigate current practices in literacy instruction and preparation. Findings yielded
from the interview will be utilized to answer research questions in a dissertation, which is part of
a doctoral program.
The interview is expected to take approximately one hour. The interview will focus on literacy
instruction, professional development, and the following topics:
• Perceptions of effective literacy instruction
• Curriculum or materials used to deliver literacy instruction
• Measurements and tools used to assess the literacy needs of students and monitor their
progress
• Meeting the needs of their students

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

115
Tutor Interview Questions
Thank you for agreeing to this interview. For this interview the focus will be primarily on your
tutoring. The following questions are designed to help inform the study on the instructional
practices used as part of a mentor-tutor program and professional development you have
received to address the literacy needs of the students in your program.
1. What have been your previous experiences as a mentor or tutor?
a. How many years have you been volunteering at Readers Advance?
b. How many years of experience do you have as a mentor?
c. How do you define the difference between your role as a mentor and your role as
a tutor?
d. How many years of experience do you have as a tutor?
e. What type of training have you received to be a mentor?
i. What type of training have you received to be a tutor?
ii. What type of training have you received in literacy development?
2. What is your role as a mentor-tutor?
3. How did you become a mentor-tutor?
a. How do you define literacy?
b. What activities or strategies do you use support the literacy development of your
students?
c. How do you support and incorporate cultural relevance to your literacy
instruction?
d. What is the role of oral language development in literacy instruction?
i. How do you support?
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

116
4. As a literacy tutor, what do you believe to be some of the most effective strategies or
practices for supporting your tutee?
a. What instructional methods support high quality literacy instruction?
b. What materials help students reach high levels of literacy?
c. How important is literacy for your students’ academic development?
5. How does the program prepare you to address the literacy needs of your mentees?
a. What professional development is offered?
b. What preparation and information are you provided with prior to providing
students with literacy support?
c. How does the program (directors and trainers) support your literacy instruction?
d. What type of support would you like to receive from the program?
e. What would help strengthen your mentor-tutor role?
6. What types of materials do you use during your tutoring sessions?
a. Does the program provide you with a literacy curriculum? If so, which one?
b. Do you feel the required curriculum supports your philosophy of effective literacy
instruction? If so how?
c. If not, in what way does it not align?
7. What types of assessment do you use to understand where your students are in literacy
development? If no assessments are administered:
a. How do you determine what your student’s needs are in the area of literacy to
prepare for a tutoring session?
b. Are there materials or resources available that support your needs as a tutor?
8. What do you enjoy most about being a mentor-tutor?
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

117
9. Is there anything else you would like to share about being a mentor-tutor?

This concludes my interview. Thank you for answering my questions. Is there any additional
information you would like to add?
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

118
Appendix C
Observations

Observation Protocol
This observation protocol captures literacy instruction within the context of a mentor-tutor
setting for at-risk youth. Completion of the observation protocol form requires the researcher to
compile quantitative data for the entire program, provide an overview of the context in each site,
create a script of events, and categorize data into a chronology of events which will analyzed and
coded for common themes.
Program Background:
Prior to the observation, the researcher compiles quantitative data for the program, which serves
as the cover page of each all the tutoring session observations, which take place at each program
site and sets the context and background.
Site:
At the beginning of each observation, the researcher records context of the site, general student
background, and pupil: mentor-tutor ratio, as well as, notes on the physical characteristics of the
room.
Script of Events:
During the observation, the researcher focuses on activity/format, mentor-tutor prompts, student
responses, and literacy components and materials used.
Chronology of Events:
Scripted data are categorized into a table organizing the chronology of events, which includes the
duration of time for each event, setting, participants, and materials used. Events might include,
but not limited to:
LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

119
a. Mentor-Tutor interactions
b. Initiation of session
c. Mentor-Tutor’s literacy instruction and support
d. Mentor-Tutor’s ability to address students’ literacy needs
e. Mentees receptiveness to mentor-tutors’ (Instruction and otherwise)
f. Student to student, and mentor-tutor to student interactions

Context of Tutoring Session
Mentor-Tutor:___________________________ Time & Date: __________________
Observer: ______________________________ Location: _____________________
Site Environment:

Materials Used:

LITERACY-BASED TUTORING PROGRAM

120

Observation Script
Mentor-Tutor: Time & Date: ___________
Observer: Literacy Instruction: _______________________

Running head: SHORT TITLE HERE

121

Chronology of Events
Mentor-Tutor: Observer:
Time Activity/Format Mentor-tutor
Prompts
Student
Responses
Materials/Literacy
Components
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

SHORT TITLE HERE

122

Appendix D
Reading Interest Survey
(Beginning of Semester)

Student ____________________ Age ______ Grade ______ Date ________________
Examiner _______________________________________________________________
Student’s School________________________________________________________________
1. Do you like to read?
2. How much time do you spend reading?
3. What are some of the books you have read lately?
4. Do you have a library card? How often do you use it?
5. Do you ever get books from the school library?
6. About how many books do you own?
7. What are some books you would like to own?
8. Put a check mark next to the kind of reading you like best. (topics you might like to read
about)

_____history _____travel _____plays
_____sports _____science fiction _____adventure
_____romance _____detective stories _____war stories
_____poetry _____car stories _____novels
_____biography _____supernatural stories _____astrology
_____humor _____folktales _____how-to-do-it books
_____mysteries _____art _____westerns
9. Do you like to read the newspaper?
10. If ‘yes’, place a check next to the part of the newspaper listed below
you like to read.

_____Advertisements _____Entertainment _____Columnists
SHORT TITLE HERE

123

_____Headlines _____Comic Strips _____Political Stories
_____Current Events _____Sports _____Editorials
_____Others: (please list)

11. What are your favorite television programs?
12. How much time do you spend watching television?
13. What is your favorite magazine?
14. Do you have a hobby? If so, what is it?
15. What are the two best movies you have ever seen?
16. Who are your favorite entertainers and/or movie stars?
17. When you were little, did you enjoy having someone read aloud to you?
18. List topics, subjects, etc. which you might like to read about:
19. What does the word ‘reading’ mean to you?
20. Say anything else that you would like to say about reading:

from "’But There's Nothing Good to Read’ (In the Library Media Center),” by Denise
Hildebrandt,
Media Spectrum: The Journal for Library Media Specialists in Michigan, Fall 2001, and
p. 34–37.

SHORT TITLE HERE

124

Appendix E
Reading Interest Free Write
(End of Semester)
Student ______________________ Age ______ Grade ______ Date ____________
Examiner ______________________________________________________________
Student’s School________________________________________________________________

How do you feel when you are reading a book?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

SHORT TITLE HERE

125

Appendix F
Concepts of Print (CAP) Test
Student Response Sheet
Student ______________________ Age ______ Grade ______ Date _______________
Examiner _____________________________________________________________
Student’s School________________________________________________________________
Correct: Incorrect:

1. Directional Terms
Front __________ _________
Back __________ _________

2. Function of Print
Print function __________ _________
Start at top left __________ _________

3. Left-to-Right Direction
Left to right __________ _________
Return to lower line __________ _________

4. Concepts
First __________ _________
Last __________ _________
End of story __________ _________

5. Directional Terms
Top (page) __________ _________
Bottom (page) __________ _________
Top (picture) __________ _________
Bottom (picture) __________ _________

6. Word and Letter Boundaries

1 Word __________ __________

2 Words __________ __________

1 Letter __________ __________

2 Letters __________ __________

SHORT TITLE HERE

126

Appendix G
Beginning Phonic Skills Test (BPST)
STUDENT RESPONSE SHEET
Student _________________________ Age ______ Grade ______ Date ___________
Examiner ____________________________________________________________
Student’s School________________________________________________________________

m s f l r n h v w z

b c d g p t h j y x q

sh th ch wh

i o a u e

map rip met rub mop

lip lot zap fell nut

fine rope rake tune kite

soap leak pain feed ray

coin moon round lawn foot

fur sort sir tar serve

silent ladder napkin locate cactus

SHORT TITLE HERE

127

Appendix H
Running Record (RR) Test
Instructions for Administering the Test

The tutor will follow the guidelines below.

First, TURN ON THE AUDIO-RECORDER. State your name, the child’s name, the date, the
school you are at, and the name of this test (Running Record) and the Level being administered
(e.g. Level 2). Record the ENTIRE assessment.

1) Start the student with a passage two-grade levels below his or her actual grade. If the
student seems to be breezing through, stop and go to next grade level passage. The point
is to find a test that is at her reading level- not so easy that she breezes through but not so
hard that she struggles greatly and become discouraged.

Pre-Primer = Pre-Kindergarten
Primer = Kindergarten
Level 1 = 1
st
Grade
Level 2 = 2
nd
Grade
Level 3 = 3
rd
Grade
Level 4 = 4
th
Grade
Level 5 = 5
th
Grade
Level 6 = 6
th
Grade

2) Before reading:
a. Hand the student the STUDENT PASSAGE that they will be asked to read.
b. Ask the student the CONCEPT QUESTIONS on the front of the test and write
down the responses ON THE TEST.
c. Show the student the title of the text and ask him/her to make a PREDICTION
about what the story will be about. Write this response in the designated portion
of the test.
d. DO NOT score the students, or fill in any portion of the test other than the
CONCEPT QUESTIONS and PREDICTIONS sections.

3) During reading:
a. Ask the student to read the STUDENT PASSAGE aloud.
Remember: The recorder must be on for the entire assessment.

4) After reading:
a. Take the STUDENT PASSAGE from the student.
b. Ask the student to RETELL the story to you.
c. Ask the follow-up QUESTIONS from the test. Write down student responses on
the test.
SHORT TITLE HERE

128

d. DO NOT score the students, or fill in any portion of the test other than the
QUESTIONS section.

5) Before Turning in the Test:
a. Write Your Name, the Student’s Name, the Date, and the Student’s School on
the top of the front page of the test.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Supplemental literacy instruction for students with Down syndrome: a program evaluation

PDF

School to Work Program as a contributor to adult literacy skill development

PDF

An examination of the protective factors that facilitate motivation and educational attainment among foster youth

PDF

A comparative study of language arts instruction in triply segregated high schools

PDF

Math and science academy literacy instruction: student study strategies, self-perception as readers, and reading achievement

PDF

Supporting foster youth: the social and emotional support needed to successfully transition to adulthood

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Literacy across the disciplines

PDF

Preservice teachers' understanding's of how to teach literacy

PDF

A dialogic reading intervention for parents of children with Down syndrome

PDF

Literacy practices of 1.5 generation Korean American parents with three to five year old children

PDF

Creating conditions for Teacher Flow: supporting student-centered learning through design of optimal P-12 professional development

PDF

Emerging adult peer provider specialists and successful college participation: An innovation study

PDF

Promising practices of anti-bullying: safe and supportive environments for all students

PDF

The role of critical literacy and the school-to-prison pipeline: what was learned from the life histories and literacy experiences of formerly incarcerated young Latino males

PDF

Teaching academic and behavioral skills through arts-based programming: an evaluation study

PDF

Understanding the barriers to college access for former foster youth at the Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

Staff perceptions of critical challenges faced by Long-Term English Learners (LTEL) during the transition to junior high school

PDF

A case study in promising practices in anti-hazing education training for fraternity advisors

PDF

Critical media literacy in K-5 classrooms: three teachers' commitment to equity and access

Asset Metadata

Creator López-Guerra, María Asusena (author)

Core Title The nature of a literacy-based tutoring program for at-risk youth: mentorship, professional development, and implementation

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/06/2013

Defense Date 02/25/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag alternative literacy programs,at-risk youth,Literacy,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee chair), Foulk, Susan (committee member), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member)

Creator Email lopezgue@usc.edu,ma_lopezguerra@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-252238

Unique identifier UC11288122

Identifier etd-LopezGuerr-1662.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-252238 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LopezGuerr-1662-0.pdf

Dmrecord 252238

Document Type Dissertation

Rights López-Guerra, María Asusena

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA