University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A comparative case study: Tutoring in reading in two settings

(USC Thesis Other)

A comparative case study: Tutoring in reading in two settings

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY:
TUTORING IN READING IN TWO SETTINGS
by
Margaret A. Leon
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2003
Copyright 2003 Margaret A. Leon
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3133303
Copyright 2003 by
Leon, Margaret A.
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3133303
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Los Angeles, California 90089-0031
This dissertation written by
Margaret Adams Leon
under the discretion of h e r Dissertation Committee,
and approved by all members of the Committee, has
been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the
Rossier School of Education in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
Date
Dean
Dissertation nmitti
Chairperson
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the help, encouragement, and support of the
members of my Dissertation Committee, especially Dr. Hentschke, the Chairman,
for his patience, and gentle nudging that eventually led to the development of this
dissertation. Dr. Gothold has been my advisor throughout my enrollment in the
Urban Cohort 4 of the Education Leadership Program. His support and
encouragement always kept me moving forward. Dr. Cohn and Dr. Melendez have
been my favorite professors because of their understanding, and willingness to
listen.
My Assistant Superintendent, Dr. Cox, has been constant in her support
whenever I became discouraged. She is my role model and daily encouragement.
I also acknowledge the never-ending support of my family, especially of my
daughter, Kirstana, who accompanied me many times when I studied and wrote,
and made library trips for research. I appreciate the wonderful support of my
husband, Santiago, who has put me through several credential programs, my
master’s degree and now my doctorate. He never said it couldn’t be done. My two
sons, Chris and Jim, and the grandchildren have never faltered in their belief that I
would finish this long road. My wonderful cousin Don and his wife Penny are
responsible for much of the revision and editing of this document. I thank them all
so much.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Finally, I thank my fellow Urban Cohort 4 members who gave me help
whenever I asked: Sue, Maria, Lien, and Lorena. I want to also acknowledge my
fellow parallel dissertation members who always answered when I asked, and
encouraged me whenever I needed it, especially Ida and Rhoushelle.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................... in
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................... vii
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................. viii
1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK.......................................................................... 1
Introduction.................................................................................. 1
Background for the Study.............................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem .............................................................. 5
Purpose of the Study...................................................................... 8
Theoretical Framework................................................................ 9
Research Questions...................................................................... II
Importance of the Study................................................................ 12
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions................................ 13
Definition of Terms........................................................................ 14
Organization of the Study.............................................................. 19
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................................................ 20
Introduction.................................................................................. 20
Alternative Governance M odels................................................... 21
Status of Pupil Performance.......................................................... 34
Reading and Urban Students........................................................ 38
Best Practices in Reading Intervention........................................ 43
Conclusions.................................................................................... 49
3. METHODOLOGY.......................................................................... 51
Research Approach...................................................................... 51
Schools Included in the Study........................................................ 52
Instrumentation............................................................................ 56
Population to be Studied.......................................................... 56
Research D esign...................................................................... 59
Structured Interview Questions.............................................. 64
Data Analysis.............................................................................. 67
Summary...................................................................................... 68
4. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DA TA.......................... 70
Introduction.................................................................................. 70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
Description of the Sample: School A ............................................ 71
Addressing the Research Questions.............................................. 76
Description of the Sample: School B ............................................ 89
Addressing the Research Questions.............................................. 91
Summary of Findings.................................................................... 115
5. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION................................................... 119
Introduction.................................................................................. 119
Summary of Findings.................................................................... 119
Literature Connections.................................................................. 127
Conclusions.................................................................................. 129
Discussion.................................................................................... 130
Research D esign.................................................................. 130
Summary of Governance Influence.................................... 130
Interpretive Remarks.......................................................... 131
Implications.................................................................................. 132
Recommendations for Future Research........................................ 132
REFERENCES.......................................................................................... 134
APPENDICES............................................................................................ 144
A. Summary of Observations................................................... 145
B. List of Interviews................................................................. 149
C. List of Questions for Program Director or Principal 152
D. List of Questions for Tutor ................................................. 156
E. Sample Interview Transcript................................................ 158
F. Sample Observation Transcript............................................ 170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Research Design................................................................................. 59
2. Matrix of Structured Interview Questions for Program Director and 65
Principal—Research Questions Matrix..............................................
3. Matrix of Structured Interview Questions for the Tutor—Research 66
Questions Matrix...............................................................................
4. Summary of Observations and Categories Observed in School A . . . 79
5. Summary of Observations and Categories Observed in School B ... 96
6. Pre/post Testing Results by Teachers in School A ............................. 107
7. Summary of Tutoring Practices Observed in School A and School B 110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to compare an essential educational practice
in two sectors, one public school and in one charter school. This comparative case
study is one in which the nature of the structure of reading tutoring was examined.
Tutoring is hypothesized as one essential strategy that meets the needs of those
students who are at risk of failure.
The research considers the commonalities and differences in tutoring
practices using a model drawn from successful tutoring practices in current
research. The findings include the uniqueness of some tutoring programs, and the
disappointing features of other programs. Tentative conclusions are drawn
concerning the link between the governance structure of the school and the nature
of the tutoring program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Urban students are failing in schools at disproportionate rates, some groups
of students more than others. A large percentage of those students are from special
populations such as students in poverty, those in culturally diverse communities,
and those who are identified as special education students. Poverty is often a
contributing factor in that it negatively affects academic performance and increases
student learning needs. It is important to examine what school reading structures
mitigate the negative effects of poverty, and what governance models are
conducive to high student achievement.
School choice, as a social movement and as a tool to create more efficient
learning communities, needs to be examined for its possible role in raising student
achievement. Choice has many forms, one of which is the charter school. For the
most part, charter schools are founded with public funds, but are privately
governed. Some charter schools are governed by Educational Management
Organizations that are for-profit in nature. This seemingly contradictory
combination is working well in many geographical areas of the United States
(Chubb, 2002).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
Why does school choice bear examination in light o f our nation’ s razor-like
focus on raising student achievement? It is because school choice has been linked
to parent, student and teacher satisfaction (Chubb, 2002).
Funding and governance help distinguish the various models of alternatives
to public education. Both public and public charter is funded from public monies.
Both are considered non-profit. In the State of California, charter schools have not
become prolific. However, there have been some that have had phenomenal
success in raising achievement in high poverty areas.
Because choice is linked to satisfaction by parents, students and teachers, it
behooves us to examine schooling practices in the urban school in two sectors, that
of the public school and that of the charter school. What differences will we see?
What differences in those practices are attributable to “choice”? Researchers
suspect that parents are more likely to support interventions for their children if
they have been able to choose their children’s school (Powers & Cookson, 1999).
When there is a neighborhood school concept in place and choice is not
possible, how are educational practices found to be different from those schools in
which choice is possible for the parent? This will be examined through this study
of the same essential practice in two settings, a public and a charter school.
1. If there is the same essential school practice of tutoring in the same
setting, but the providers of tutoring are different, and there is a choice of
providers, what difference would choice make for the parent?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
2. Would it have an effect on the student outcomes using the practice of
tutoring?
3. If parents choose their child’s school, will student outcomes based on the
same essential practice in two different sectors be different?
4. How different will they be? In what way?
Tutoring is one type of intervention that is essential for the academic
success of some children. How does the setting play a part in the achievement of
students through the intervention of tutoring?
There are few citations that refer to the nature of tutoring in more than one
sector of schooling, although the nature of primary literacy instruction is well
researched (Duffy & Hoffman, 2002; Johnson, 2002; Taylor, Pearson, Clark,
Walpole, 2002; Taylor, Pressley et al., 2002;). The debate in the academic
community has been ongoing as to what is the best method of teaching reading in
the past fifty years (Adams, 1991; Chall, 1996).
Moreover, the opportunity to leam is more important than the teaching
method (Morris, 1999). By virtue of their different learning needs, some students
need extra time, or a different type of instruction in order to leam successfully to
read. There is research to support the use of many types of interventions used to
scaffold stmggling primary students’ learning to read.
There are many considerations in searching for the most efficient way to
raise student achievement. The first way is to pay attention to the constantly
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
changing political agenda and high stakes of accountability, and attempt to meet
those expectations, such as paying attention to the nuances of changes in test
content, or adopting one method of teaching, then abandoning it without careful
consideration. The other way is the high road-examine the content standards
adopted, and focus on the needs of the students in any particular setting, then teach
to those needs. The first way will have short-term rewards in terms of raised
Academic Performance Index (API) scores, and test scores raised overall.
However, looking closely, one might find that the gap has continues to be great
between subgroups such as students in poverty (economically disadvantaged), and
those who are not in poverty, or between English Learners and those who are
English Only (Ed-Data, 2002). The second way, it is predicted, will not have as
dramatic short-term gains in terms of API score, or overall raised test scores, but
will instead show a lessening of the gap between subgroups, and with further
adjustment will show gains for all subgroups.
In order to meet the needs of all students, it is necessary for many delivery
models teachers to use many delivery models. We know that many teachers are not
trained to meet the demands of students not performing at grade level (Morris,
1999). Re-examining teaching practices and instructional delivery is at the heart of
creating a pedagogical expertise in teachers so they will be able to command the
most useful and best instructional practices necessary to reach and teach the
linguistically and culturally diverse students (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
Pinnell (2000)notes that “young readers who have difficulty are mostly of
average intelligence and they may have problems resulting from multiple and
differing causes” (p. 12). Thus, the center of the learning equation is looking at
students’ needs and strengths, then adjusting the instruction to assist them to further
accelerate their learning.
MacGillivray and Rueda (2001) concluded in their study that instruction
must fit the needs of students, and furthermore teachers need to know their students
beyond the walls of the classroom. We know that pace and grouping are necessary
for students to progress. In the case of diverse populations such as most of school-
age children, it is vital to pay attention to student backgrounds and see them as
strengths (Pinnell, 2000). It is questionable whether reading instruction does
actually fit the needs of all students, unless there is differentiation evident in the
delivery system.
Statement o f the Problem
The problem is that the nature of intervention, and the quantity of
intervention that struggling readers need, is not easily identified. The need is
neither static nor consistent. Feldman (2001) identifies three types of intervention:
(a) intensive, such as Reading Recovery;(b) strategic, such as teaching specific
skills for a particular amount of time; and (c) benchmark intervention, for students
who need a quick explanation or mini-lesson on a specific skill, a one-shot
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
intervention. Archer (1998) recently reviewed over 500 tutoring programs and
found that there was explicit attention given to the following elements:
1 . Clear purpose-matching student need
2. Time for instruction
3. Structured routine/lesson plan used
4. Professional training of tutors
5. Appropriate use of materials
6. Ongoing assessment of student progress
7. Clear linkage to the general education classroom
8. Active supervision (Feldman, 2000, p. 72)
The research identified factors present in those tutoring programs that are
deemed successful: (a) highly trained tutors by a reading specialist; (b) focused
strategies linked to identified needs; (c) a structured tutoring session that provides
review, new reading selection opportunity, and writing application, with immediate
feedback by a trained tutor; (d) teacher training on the specific strategy; (e) time
and frequency of the sessions; and (f) the affective link that develops between the
tutor and tutee that provides motivation for the learner (Invemizzi, 2001 ;Slavin,
1989; Wasik and Slavin, 1993). If these factors are not present, the tutoring
program will not be as successful.
In Fitzgerald’s study on an America Reads Challenge tutoring program, a
university faculty designed and implemented approximately 33 hours of paid
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
required training for tutors based on logistical and practical issues, an introduction
to principles of emergent literacy, an initial overview of the four parts of the lesson,
discussion of each of the four parts, and examples of how each part was to be done
(Fitzgerald, 2001). In Wasik’s examination of tutoring programs (1998), however,
she concluded that volunteer tutors were effective only because of the training and
supervision of a reading specialist.
From the highest quality teacher tutoring model, Reading Recovery, to a
highly trained volunteer tutor model such as the America Reads Challenge there are
common elements. The hypothesis is that certain common elements are necessary
for students to benefit from the tutoring program using pre/post reading inventories
to measure individual student growth in reading.
Of those elements previously identified in the literature, five major
elements stand out: (a) the structure of the tutoring session;(b) the assessment both
of the tutoring session and of the students’ progress;(c) the training given to tutors,
both initial and ongoing;(d) the content focused to students’ needs; and (e) the
nature of the interaction between the tutor and the tutee.
Optimally, one would see that (a) the structure of the tutoring session is
balanced;(b) the content of the session is focused on the individual’s assessed
needs;(c) the sessions are frequent and consistent in amount of time spent in
tutoring; and (e) that the amount of time as it appears from the research is 30-45
minutes, at least 2 times weekly, for a minimum of 3-6 months.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
In an ideal tutoring session, there is good rapport developing between the
tutor and tutee, motivating the tutee to leam more, and reinforcing the tutor through
the tutee’s measure of success. There is a great variation in the training of tutors,
ranging from 20 hours to 200 hours including coaching by a reading specialist.
This needs to be further examined for its effect on student achievement.
Purpose o f the Study
The purpose of the proposed research study is to examine and describe the
tutoring setting and its structure as it appears in two sectors: (a) one public school
and (b) one charter school. One hypothesis to be determined in this proposed
research is that the elements found in the tutoring session will be different in
different sectors. The constraints made on the public school system, versus the
money needed to fund quality programs may be factors. Parental choice in schools,
and in interventions, may play a role in the differences between sectors. Paid
professional tutors versus volunteer tutors may make a difference in the student
achievement gains as well.
Although most tutoring programs have short-term goals, there may be a
specific structure in tutoring that serves to accelerate students’ reading progress.
This structure may be inherent in the programs, something that has been found to
promote learning at a quicker pace. This study will examine the tutoring
relationship, and the extent of training given the tutor, such as the number of
sessions, and the content of the training.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
Theoretical Framework
The conceptual lens used in this study will be that of constructivist versus
deficit learning theory. The assumption is that programs based on a constructivist
framework will show greater student growth than those based on a deficit model of
learning. Since the advent of psychological testing in the 1930s, and Johnson’ s
War on Poverty leading to compensatory education in the 1960s, public education
has focused on making up for some innate or unfortunate environmental factors to
explain why some students do not read. By making available government funds to
local educational agencies such as school districts, remedial programs under the
guise of the Elementary and Secondary Act were created. This is the deficit or
compensatory model of education. Most reading programs paid for out of Title 1,
the largest funding source for children at risk for failure, were compensatory in
nature. The federally commissioned Prospects study of the 1980’s revealed that
the use of instructional aides and pull-out programs paid for out of Title One were
not effective (.Prospects, 1995). Early intervention was then conceived.
Although there are many students who are characterized as at risk of failure
in school due to life circumstances, about half of students thus labeled, do make it
through school and into the job market successfully. This is seen as “resilience,” a
theory of at-risk students who succeed in spite of all odds, researched extensively
by Werner and Smith (1992).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
An example of the kind of resiliency that Werner and Smith discuss is the
Central Park East story. When Deborah Meier talks about Central Park East in
New York, she is talking about students who are resilient, and she is talking about
her belief in the innate survival of children (Meier, 1997).
Another example of resiliency is described by Pedro Noguera of the Haitian
schools in his study and the children who leam to read and write in rooms with dirt
floors, no windows, no doors, with one old and worn chalkboard, and a few books.
These children leam to read because they want to, no one tells them they cannot
because they are poor. These children leam because they are resilient (Noguera,
1999).
Running parallel to the idea of resiliency is the cognitive psychological
theory of constructivism. The constructivist sees education and curriculum goals as
the result of children learning by resolving cognitive conflicts through experiences,
reflection, and metacognition. Critical thinking, making meaning of what they are
learning, and transferring that knowledge to another level is how children leam
(Anders, Hoffman & Duffy, 2000). Although there has been a shift in the
terminology used in the literature from “failing” to “at-risk,” from “remediation” to
“intervention” (Gaffney & Anderson, 2000), the cognitive paradigm conflict still
exists, both in the philosophical underpinnings of reading research and in the public
school classroom.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
Research Questions
For the purpose of the following questions in the study, School A is the
neighborhood public school; and School B is the Charter School.
1. How is tutoring undertaken in School A? What is the nature of the
practice?
a. What is the structure of the tutoring session?
b. What are the common elements in reading tutoring sessions for
primary students?
c. What training is given to the tutors before the sessions start, and
what ongoing consultation during the sessions?
d. How are tutors recruited and tutors paired with tutees?
e. What is the nature of the relationship that develops between
tutor and tutee?
2. What are the indicators that show that students have made gains in
reading over a year’s time?
3. How much growth is there in this program overall?
4. How is tutoring undertaken in School B? What is the nature of the
practice?
a. What is the structure of the tutoring session?
b. What are the common elements in reading tutoring sessions for
primary students?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
c. What training is given to the tutors before the sessions start, and
what ongoing consultation during the sessions?
d. How are tutors recruited and tutors paired with tutees?
e. What is the nature of the relationship that develops between
tutor and tutee?
5. What are the indicators that show that students have made gains in
reading over a year’s time?
6. How much growth is there in the program overall?
7. How does tutoring as practiced in School A differ from tutoring in
School B?
a. Does the primary reading tutoring session look differently in
different sectors?
b. How is the structure different?
8. Do the principal forces that are shaping tutoring in School A shape
tutoring in School B? What are they? Why?
9. Based on the findings of the two case studies, what research questions
are suggested?
Importance o f the Study
The importance of doing this comparative case study, is that one will find
out whether the governance model of the school has an advantageous effect on
student learning. After describing what is evident in these two school settings, it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
will be useful to know what types of interventions are used, and which are
considered successful (based on pre/post evaluation) or helpful (affective or
motivating effects). Teachers and tutoring coordinators would like to know what
strategies work best for which students. Which structures work best? Which
children benefit from tutoring?
Policymakers such as principals or district office personnel and researchers
concerned with the governance of schools would like to know which governance
model is more conducive to the use of which types of successful interventions.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
Each school is unique. The major limitation of the study will be its size and
scope in allowing the researcher to make any significant generalizations to the
larger population. In analyzing the data, the conceptual approach will be one of
comparing instructional practice components, and examining the possibility that the
approaches in a tutoring session will be based on assumptions of a constructivist
nature.
Problems possibly anticipated in this process might be a timeline
postponement due to school schedule changes or inability to observe for specific
unexpected reasons, and therefore data analysis might be postponed as well.
Another difficulty may be observation of the tutoring session itself. The observer-
researcher may interrupt the flow of the session so that the data collected will be
invalid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
There is bias on the part of the researcher due to the researcher’s
experiences in public education. There is institutional bias built into the
experiences in public education for the researcher because of the bias that exists in
opposition to all sectors of education that are not public. For this reason, the
researcher will move back and forth between the two schools in order to minimize
that bias. There will be a concerted effort by the researcher to be observant, and
check out any resultant generalizations or judgments with the persons being
observed through interviews and comparisons with the transcriptions of the
observation audio-tapings.
Delimitations for this study will be a concentration of the data collection on
the primary persons studied: the teachers and tutoring coordinators who make the
decisions on what will be used for content during tutoring, and the teachers and
students who participate in the tutoring. Focus will not be on the effects of the
tutoring on the regular classroom, nor on any setting other than the tutoring session.
Principals will be interviewed to ascertain if the decisions made by the tutoring
coordinators or the teachers are related to the vision or guiding principles of the
school in terms of governance.
Definition o f Terms
Specific definition of terms as applied to this study will assist the author in
describing specific situations and personnel in schools appropriate to the
environment and time of this study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
America Reads ox America Reads Plus
These are programs originally funded by the federal government during the
Clinton administration. Their structure is to pay a nominal amount to tutors who
will go into the public schools to mentor, encourage, and read with students who
are deemed as struggling. Two such programs were encountered during this study,
based at two local universities.
At-risk students
They are those students who are capable of failing in school if nothing is
done to mitigate the outcome (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1995, p. 28). At-risk
readers are those who are also described as struggling readers (see “struggling
readers” on p. 16) or poor readers.
Bilingual Teacher or Bilingual California Language
Acquisition Designation Teacher (BCLAD) or
California Language Acquisition Designation Teacher(CLAD)
A bilingual teacher is credentialed (or certified) to teach in an alternative or
primary language setting or classroom. He/she may teach in both languages, the
primary language and English. In this study there were only Spanish language
teachers in those settings. A CLAD teacher is one who has taken all the special
language classes to teach students from other language backgrounds, but who does
not have competency in the primary language of the students. In this study, the
primary language would be Spanish.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Certificated Teacher or Certified Teacher or Fully Credentialed Teacher
These terms refer to a teacher who has completed his/her program of studies
and passed the certification needed to teach in the state of employment.
English Learner
This is a term describing a student who has proficiency in a second
language and is limited in his/her proficiency in English as measured by a language
assessment test. The term English Learner is unique to California; in other states,
this term is Limited English Proficient student. In California, all English Learners
are assessed by the California English Language Development Test. There are five
categories of proficiency: Beginning, Early Intermediate, Intermediate, Early
Advanced, and Advanced. Each is distinguished by certain proficiencies in
speaking, listening, reading and writing.
Intervention
This is a term applied to a program or process of helping or giving intense
instruction, most likely in a smaller class size, or in an extended day setting. This
term is based on a constructivist model of learning.
Pre-Intern or Intern Teacher
The Pre-Intern teacher is in a special program to help him/her complete the
necessary examinations to become an Intern teacher in a university credentialing
program. An Intern teacher is one that has been accepted into a credentialing
program at a university.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Reading Achievement
In this study, reading achievement may refer to the general reading
achievement as expressed in norm reference test terminology, or in the
Standardized Testing and Reporting of schools measured by the Academic
Performance Index, or in the pre/post-testing of students in a particular program.
Pre means to test the student before entering the program; post means to test the
student at the end of the program. The outcome results of reading achievement are
obtained by looking at the difference between the pretest and the posttest results.
Remediation
This is a term used to describe the process of helping students who have
already failed in the current system, and whose needs are met by giving intense
instruction most likely in a smaller class size, or in an extended day setting. This
term is based on a deficit model of learning.
Sector
In this study sector refers to an area of economics and governance structure
as applied to education, e.g., private for-profit versus public or public versus
charter nonprofit, etc.
Social Constructivism
The term applied to the work and theoretical framework of Lev Vygotsky ()
as has been interpreted by Cole, and many others. His work includes the proposal
that “higher cognitive functions such as logic, scientific reasoning, argument and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
even memory are truly collective functions” (O’Connor, 1997). In other words,
one needs the social connection with others in order to move to higher meaning.
His construct on assisted learning is a foundation of tutoring, that of scaffolding the
instruction so that the learner may learn concepts at a more complex level.
Struggling Reader
This is a term used by Woo and Morrow (2001) to identify students who
grapple with word-recognition and word-meaning without being able to self-
correct, or leap to sentence meaning by themselves (p. 4). This understanding of the
term “struggling reader” is also found in the works of Clay, 1993; and Juel, 1988.
Supplementary Programs
The original terminology in educational use of supplementary versus
supplanting is based on the use of funds. If a program is supplementary, it is in
addition to the regular general funded curriculum in a school district. It is loosely
used to describe all maimer of programs that are neither based on nor paid out of
the general curriculum fund. This would include special grants such as the English
Learner Acquisition Program, and the America Reads Plus program, that is
partially federally funded.
Tutoring
In this study tutoring applies loosely to any small group or one-to-one
learning intervention for at-risk students. It is the attention to the needs of the
individual student that makes the setting tutoring. For the purpose of this study, a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
volunteer tutor is one who is generally untrained and who assists the regular
classroom teacher inside the classroom. A trained tutor is one who has had many
hours of training (as many as three initially, plus weekly on-going training). An
example of a trained tutor is an America Reads tutor.
Organization o f the Study
The organization of this study begins with this chapter, the background and
statement of the problem, research questions, as well as the limitations and
definition of terminology encountered. Chapter 2 will review the related literature
of governance in education, and the state of tutoring, including what part it plays in
the phenomenon we call “reading.” This is the literature framework for the study.
Chapter 3 will detail the research design, the methodology, procedures, and
instrumentation. Chapter 4 will analyze the data collected during the study, and
address the research questions in the light of the data summaries. A summary of
findings, analysis of data in light of the literature as presented in chapter 2,
conclusions, and recommendations for future research will be found in chapter 5.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The literature on the history of governance in schools and the research on
and use of reading methods and strategies for at-risk students are summarized and
analyzed in this review. The first section considers alternatives to public education
governance models; the second reviews the last 25 years of research and theory on
at-risk students and how to best improve their academic learning in school.
In the past 40 years the status of achievement of the nation’s public schools
has been much debated. Simultaneously there has been a downward spiral of
public opinion showing an erosion of respect and trust for those in the teaching
profession in public schools.
The seminal government study, A Nation at Risk, produced the first in a
myriad of studies showing the ills of America’s public school children in the mid-
20th century (NCEE, 1984). The writers of A Nation at Risk stated that the nation’s
school children were failing, something not publicly admitted until that time
(NCEE, 1984). The five recommendations for immediate change were:(a) to
increase in substantive content state and local high school graduation
requirements;(b) to make the standards for academic performance more
rigorous;(c) to increase the learning time, i.e. the length of the school day and
year;(d) and to increase fiscal support at the local, state and federal levels (NCEE,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 1
p. 70-78). This rather succinct set of recommendations cracked the otherwise
unbroken but cluttered landscape of America’s universities, public school
personnel, and public media.
Since the publication of A Nation at Risk, the nation’s universities have
attempted to mitigate the resulting negative public reaction through experiments in
educational governance, and a great deal of academic rhetoric at every level of
academia. Out of this academic research and experimentation have come public
and private partnerships such as Educational Management Organizations, charter
schools, and for-profit as well as non-profit alternatives to traditional public and
private schools (Cookson, 1994). In an earlier time, the alternative to the
traditional public and private schools would have been a University School or
laboratory school for student teachers to better learn the art and science of teaching.
Alternative Governance Models
Approximately 11% of America’s school children today attend private
schools. These may be parochial or independent, for-profit or non-profit schools.
Another 2% are home-schooled (Phillips, 2001). The entire smorgasbord of
alternatives to the neighborhood public school is part of the school choice
movement, the social movement of reform. Within this landscape can be found
inter- and intra-district choice (including magnet schools) and intersectional choice
(Cookson, 1994). The first two--inter and intra~are commonplace, yet still
statistically small; the third, intersectional is quite rare, except in school systems
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 2
that offer it, such as in Cambridge, and in Minnesota. Other alternate options to the
public school system include the magnet school, the alternative school, the charter
or independent school, and school vouchers.
Site-based Management.
Site-based or school-based governance (SBM) is a way of restructuring,
part of the second wave of reform after A Nation at Risk. Just as the first wave
included setting higher standards for all public school children, restructuring was a
response to the concern that teachers were disengaged from the governing structure
of the school. The general consensus of the academic community was that there
needed to be change. Many options have been already cited. School-based
governance or management is another, trying to get schools to change from within
by empowering teachers (Cookson, 1994).
The principal feature of school-based governance is a horizontal governance
structure in which all stakeholders— parents, teachers, administration and other
staff— have an equal voice in the decision-making of the school. This includes equal
voices in the selection process of hiring personnel, the selection of curriculum, and
the managing the expenditure of school funds.
The Site-Based Management (SBM) council members are selected or
elected from their peers. Many SBM schools in public school districts include a
teacher union representative on the SBM council. This interpretation of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
concept allows district union posturing on specific issues to get in the way of the
primary goal of the council, that of improving instruction and student learning
(Wohlstetter, Van Kirk, Robertson, and Mohrman, 1997).
So far, there is not a preponderance of evidence that school-based
management is achieving its goal of improving the public educational system. In a
study done in 1996-1997 by Wohlstetter, Van Kirk, Robertson, and Mohrman, the
authors found that by studying several models of SBM schools they could identify
what factors in these schools led to substantive change. They identified the factors
as teaching for understanding using encouragement of higher thinking skills, use of
technology in the classroom as a tool for learning, differentiating the instruction of
all students through different instructional groupings and techniques, and
integrating services through team-teaching and partnerships with the community (p.
viii). They constructed a theoretical model that they tested throughout the study
and that brought them consistent findings. The model constructed was that of the
set of organizational conditions including learning and integrating processes
leading to change using innovative practices (p. x).
The reason for the failure of Site-Based Management is that it is a
governance structure, not a mandate for change. If the SBM team does not use its
new found governance structure to look for new ways to deliver instruction to
students, it will fail as a systemic reform (Wohlstetter et al.,1995).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
Odden describes Site-based Management as an organizational strategy that
helps empower staffs to make decisions based on their own students’ unique needs
(Odden, 1995, p. 152). He sees this model of governance as a part of restructuring
the public school system in the search for alternatives to the present bureaucratic
structure (Odden, p. 213). As an alternative model, Site-Based Management is
useful in consort with a focus on successful models of curriculum improvement.
Wohlstetter has brought out the problems of, and the way to use, this model of
governance successfully. This alternative model of governance has not become
widespread in use, nor has it increased student achievement. For this reason, it has
been abandoned in some areas. The future will tell if it succeeds, or if it has a
systemic influence on how schools are run.
Charter Schools.
A charter school is characterized as a school that comes into existence
through the granting of a charter by a state or local agency (Cookson and Berger,
2002, p. 3). In California, the charter school concept was originally proposed by
California educators and legislators frustrated by the rigid laws and restrictions
from within the public school bureaucracy (Sautter, 1995).
Charter Schools came into existence because of a response by educators to
the rigid bureaucracy that characterized the public school system. In the 1980’s
educators looked for answers to the failure of schools in many places. One answer
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
was the charter school, a model of the restructuring and deregulation of the nation’s
schools (Cookson and Berger, 2002, p. 2).
The Charter School movement has grown sporadically over time. It spread
to four states within a few years, and by 2001, there were 36 states with charter
laws, and approximately 2,100 charter schools in existence. Sixty of the schools
have had their charter revoked in this same period of time (Manno, 2001).
Charter Schools are autonomous public schools that are sponsored by a
local school board or a state agency, depending on the law of the specific state
(Cookson, 1994). They are accountable to attaining certain levels of student
achievement, as are the traditional public schools. They are also accountable for
following some laws and regulations according to the charter laws of the particular
state in which they exist (Bordo, 2002). One set of regulations from which charter
schools are not exempt is health regulations and immunization requirements
(Bordo, 2002).
Following the argument that Weisbrod poses in describing the market
perspective, there is an assumption that the charter school is providing the same
good as the traditional public school (Weisbrod, 1975). If a consumer, in this case
a parent of a child of school age, is dissatisfied with the government’s product of
schooling, he may choose a private market option, or a public charter (Weisbrod,
1975). This operation between market goods and consumers is the theoretical
model behind choice in education.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
The governance structure is a construct with which to describe these
alternate forms of education. Charter schools are exempt from most regulations, by
statute, or by mutual agreement and application. This includes state education
codes, and district regulations concerning curriculum, instruction, budget and
personnel (Yamashiro & Carlos, 1995). There is a local school council that works
with the principal and other stakeholders to manage the school. Depending on the
design of the charter, this may entail contracting with the local school district for a
portion of services, such as accounting, or hiring services (Yamahiro & Carlos,
1995).
The purpose of charter schools is to allow innovation in order to revitalize
public education. Through performance standards that the charter school chooses,
they must show student gains. “If they are fiscally mismanaged, or fail to attract
students, or do not show gains in achievement, their charters may be revoked”
(Yamashiro & Carlos, 1995). In general, charter schools admit all students within
given space limits. This entitles them to apply for some federal and state
categorical funding for students who qualify.
Educational Management Organizations.
Crossing the sector lines are several governance models different from the
traditional non-profit private or public school. One such is the Educational
Management Organization model, such as Edison, Comer, Coalition o f Essential
Schools (Dykema, 2002; Cookson, 1994).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
The Educational Management Organizations are for-profit businesses that
have appeared on the educational scene since the early 1990’s to be an efficient
alternative to take over the administrative and organizational management of
schools. Edison Schools, Inc. is the largest of them, and runs approximately 130
schools with more than 75,000 students (Edison Schools, 2002). Edison is
responsible for operations and educational design, and in return receives a
comparable amount of money allotted to the public schools in the area. There is
much controversy over the use of EMO’s such as Edison. They are criticized for
making promises of higher test scores, and greater fiscal efficiency than the public
school system, yet when scrutinized are in some cases only as improved as the
other schools in the district (Levin, 2002).
Their curriculum, increased use of technology, longer school day,
instructional strategies, and team teaching are not unusual (Chubb, 2001). Their
organization is research-oriented. It takes the best of research design and
implements that design into its schools. Edison has incorporated a comprehensive
school reform, Success For All, into their design (Chubb, 2002).
About 250 of the country’s charter schools are managed by Edison. They
tout more professional development, 3 weeks per year according to Levin (2002),
which is much more than the 3 days per year that are provided to most public
school teachers. They use merit incentives for teachers and administrators alike for
making effective decisions (Levin, 2001).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Henry Levin in his recent report examines why education management
organizations like Edison and Advantage Schools are able to work now in an area
that has traditionally been off-bounds to for profit enterprises (Levin, 2001). He
sees that for-profit enterprises are not interested in the private school niche. This is
because the most expensive private schools do not cover their costs with tuition.
They need fund-raising activities in order to supplement their tuition costs in order
to provide such things as smaller class sizes, co-curricular and extra curricular
activities (Levin, 2001). He also sees that quality control comes into competition
with the need to differentiate between client needs, something the public school is
constantly struggling with. Personnel is what is most available to cut costs. In
order to do so, one must use more part-time employees, and less experienced
teachers whose salaries are lower (Levin, 2001).
The history of educational management organizations is part of the second
wave of reform in which at all levels of government and academia there was a
sense of urgency that the system needed to be overhauled (Elmore, 1990). Several
comprehensive reform models designed by higher educational institutions have
been incorporated into the EMO’s design, such as Success For All into Edison
Schools, Inc., and Direct Instruction found in the Comer School Development
Program (Chubb, 2002).
There is not a clear distinction made between privatization and public-
private partnerships (Rosenau, 2000, p. 7). In the case of the EMOs, it is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
ideologically more correct to characterize them as partnerships with the public
school system, than to infer a takeover, a nuance of the word privatization.
Does being efficient compromise the quality o f education fo r all students?
Will it help or harm children? These are questions being posed by many critics and
observers of the movement of educational management organizations (Levin, 2001;
Plank, Arsen & Sykes, 2000).
The funding for educational management organizations is public. It is as
close to privatization as has been seen in the past 40 years. They rely on the same
school funding as in the local public school in their particular area. But whether
they are in Philadelphia, Chicago or West Covina, they have a consistent
curriculum that Levin calls “brand identity.” They retain only personnel who are
considered “highly productive” (Levin, 2001).
The EMOs are governed by a corporate board of trustees because most are
incorporated. They run the corporation for-profit, so they are concerned with
efficiency. According to Plank, et al. (2000), “They earn their money by reducing
labor costs, using economies of scale, and providing fewer services.” They do not
limit enrollment directly except for space issues, but rather use public relations and
marketing techniques to attract the least expensive students (Plank et al., 2000).
This option has shown achievement gains in most geographic areas.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Comprehensive Reform Models.
In the past 20 years, in addition to the Educational Management
Organizations, the comprehensive reform model such as Success For All,
America’ s Challenge, and Accelerated Schools have mushroomed in the United
States. The main difference between EMOs and comprehensive reform models are
the governance of the school that manages it. Most of the comprehensive reform
models were originally sponsored by a University study, or a government grant.
Most are non profit, although expensive to employ. With the pressure of the public
and the government to drastically improve the academic achievement of all
students, these reform models have increased in popularity. In all but a few
situations, the governance is still the traditional public school.
The Accelerated Schools concept was originally originated and sponsored
by Henry Levin while at Stanford University. The Accelerated Schools model is
based on a combination of three principles:(a) unity of purpose;(b)empowerment
coupled with responsibility; and (c) building on strengths. Instead of placing
students into remedial classes, the Accelerated Schools model accelerates learning
by providing all students with challenging activities traditionally reserved for gifted
and talented students (Accelerated, 2002). This is characterized as constructivist in
nature.
Accelerated learning is accomplished by bringing staff, parents and
community members to create a vision for the school determine how to achieve the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
reality of the vision, and to provide students with powerful learning experiences.
There is not a set curriculum inherent, but rather the entire community is
encouraged through a collaborative and informed decision-making process to
identify priority challenge areas that the entire community works on (Accelerated,
2002).
School Choice and Vouchers.
In 1955 Milton Friedman described a system of schooling in which the role
of government had overstepped its authority, and then he set up the rationale for
giving the responsibility for schooling back to the individual parent (Friedman,
1955). He went on to describe the type of education that should be in the public
school, and that over which the parent would have an option. He saw that
maintenance of the stable and democratic society was important. So he proposed
that schooling be a specific type for a minimum amount of time.
School choice actually is defined as a system in which the parents have
control over and are actively engaged in choosing schools (Cookson,1994,p. 14).
Cookson believed that the origins of choice were in the spirit of such men as John
Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Thomas Paine (Cookson,pp. 20-21). Cookson
described it as a libertarian philosophy. This puts another spin on the influences of
change.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, school choice has
both positive and negative elements. Those that believe in vouchers think that it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
will stimulate more parent involvement in the schools (NCES, 1995). Those in
disagreement believe that it will not improve less desirable schools because needed
resources will be put into private or alternative schools, and thus will create a
segregated system of haves and have-nots.
In the National Household Education Survey o f1993, parents of school-age
children in both public and private schools, were asked if their children attended an
assigned school or a school of their own choice. The findings were that one-fifth of
children in the study attended a school other than their assigned school. In
addition, Black students were more likely than White students to attend a school
selected by their families. The primary reason given for choosing a school other
than the assigned school was academic (NCES, 1995). The results of this study are
opposite from the conventional wisdom of the public-that only a few parents
“choose” their schools, and that White parents are more likely to attend a choice
school than Black.
The changes we are seeing in K-12 schooling are significant, in comparison
to 40 years ago. Previous to the past 20 years, there were few public-private policy
partnerships (Rosenau, 2000, p. 2). There was a clear separation between public
and private. Private schools were seen as “less committed”(p.3).
Those in public education are skeptical that change will ever take place.
However, since new state and federal accountability systems have been
implemented in the public school systems, there has been an awareness in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
administration of school districts that one must look “outside the box” for ideas for
change to meet the needs of a diverse student population. There is reason for
skeptics to take stock of the successes of these other models of school. They are
future roads toward systemic change.
Increasingly, there are dual sector models such as the EMOs and charter
schools. Even school choice, as in intra- and inter-district choice is more
commonplace. Offerings such as Edison Schools, Accelerated Schools, and charter
schools, automatically attract parents and their students toward something that may
show promise. No longer can we assume that the public school system, as it was, is
the one best system.
In the past few years there has been a focus of political influence on the
educational system at the federal and state level for incentives to public school
entities to look for partnerships in the private sector to have a positive effect on the
bureaucratic system of public schools. However, as Sarason (2002) has indicated,
schools are unique and complicated places, with a unique and lasting culture of
their own. For those places where change is hard, radical reform may be needed.
The radical reform efforts, and the professional reform efforts (Hentschke,
1997) will eventually change the landscape of schooling in much the same way as
it is moving now-not in linear movement, but more like Margaret Wheatley’s
chaos theory (Wheatley & Kellner-Rodgers,1996) in which like the living
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
organisms that we are will change and grow and make our own links to a better
system.
The Status o f Pupil Performance
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2001), among
public school students, reading performance for 4th and 8th graders were higher in
1999 than in 1971 (Johnson,2000). Performance levels of White students also rose.
There was not collected data per Hispanic group in 1971, but between 1975 and
1999 there was an increase among all three age groups, 4th , 8th , and 12th . However,
there is a significant gap between Black/Hispanic minority students and White
students. Hispanic students and Black students are closer to each other in
performance in reading than they are to the White group. This gap persists to 1999
(NAEP State Profile, 2001).
The California Report Card according to Children Now (Richards,2001)
reports that in the state there are 38% White population, yet 62% minority, Latino
being at 43%. In Los Angeles County, these figures are: 20% White, 60% Latino,
20% other minority. This is critical to our understanding when examining the
needs of the student population in school. Poverty is often a contributing factor in
the areas of academic performance, student learning needs, parent involvement and
parent advocacy.
In general, our student population is growing moderately each year. Most
students attend public schools; about 10% attend private schools (Alt & Peter,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
2002). Our English Learner population is the second highest subgroup according to
the California STAR testing program. For California, this percentage of children is
25%, yet for L. A. County this is 35%. In L. A. County particular, 55% of our
student population is either fluent in English and a second language or limited in
English but has a primary language other than English (California Student Trends,
2000).
Significantly, the UC-CSU eligible high school graduates are 37% of our
student population. Our dropout rate is 3% for the 1 year rate, and 12% for the 4
year rate. Our State testing program STAR (Richards,2001) indicates that 47% of
ft*
our 4 graders are achieving at or above the national average in reading; L. A.
County statistics are at 38%. Forty-nine percent of California’s 8th graders are
achieving at or above the national average; in L. A. County this is at 40%. The SAT
scores (1999) show that 49% of seniors in both public and private schools are
tested, yet the scores are slightly below the national average on the verbal section,
above the national average on the math section (Ed-Source, 2001).
Katie Haycock in her report on the New Frontiers for a New Century (2001)
shows that the disparity by which we objectify and classify students of color and
students of other language backgrounds, students of poverty is really a powerful
myth (p.5). It keeps expectations by teachers and administrators low, and makes
instances of success seem anomalies.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
The gaps in achievement between low-income/minority students and other
youth have widened since the 1980s(Haycock, Craig & Huang, 2001). This is true
nationally, but is more critical in California. In the 1990s math skills of 4th and 8th
graders had increased almost one full year, and that included gains made by Latino
and African-American students. Eighth graders were making steady gains, but the
gap between these groups remains (Haycock et al., 2001).
Of the school-age population, approximately 10% attend private schools.
This sector is made up of religious, and independent profit, or non-profit schools.
Also, according to NCES statistics of 1999 (Phillips, 2001), there are differences in
the racial and ethnic diversity of public and private schools (Digest of Education
Statistics, 2000). For public school students, there were 63% White, 17% Black,
15% Hispanic, 4% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% American Indian/Alaska Native.
In the private schools, there were 77% White, 9% Black, 9% Hispanic, 4%
Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0% American Indian/Alaska Native (although of the
private sector there is approximately 1% American Indian/Alaska Native in the
Catholic school population) (NAEP, 2001).
Students identified as in poverty, according to free/reduced lunch or similar
eligibility are much more likely to be in public schools. Forty-two percent of
students in 98.8% of schools are eligible for free/reduced lunch in public schools
(Digest of Education Statistics,2001). In private schools, according to available
data, 10.4% of students in 49.5% of schools are eligible. If parental education level
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
is used to indicate socio economic status, the gap between all students is slightly
less than the gap between the white and Hispanic/Black populations.
Students limited in English are also not likely to attend private schools.
According to 1999 statistics from NCES, 7% of students in 13 % of private schools
were identified LEP, compared to 10% of 54% of public schools who were
classified as LEP.
Private school students performed higher than public school students on the
NAEP 2000 tests (Digest of Education Statistics,2001). Grade 4 scale scores of
private school students are 19 scale points higher than public school students.
Grade 8 students in private schools are 17 scale points higher in science, and 13
scale points higher in math. Grade 12 students in private schools are 16 points
higher in science, and 15 points higher in math.
So what is important about the above statistics? They tell us that the
demographics in private schools tend to be less diverse than in public schools, and
that students in private schools have better achievement than those in public
schools. There is no direct correlation between particular demographic statistics
and student achievement. However there are inferences that need to be further
examined.
Chubb and Moe (1990) concluded from their data that although the variable
of poverty was very influential on student achievement, school organization was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
twice as strong as socio-economic status (Chubb & Moe, 1990, p. 129). Thus one
may conclude that schooling matters.
Reading and Urban Students
Learning to read is the most important reason for schooling in the United
States and throughout the world. Since the time of the publication of A Nation at
Risk (NCEE, 1984) and Becoming a Nation o f Readers (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott &
Wilkinson, 1985) there have been critical concerns coming from educators in the
public school system and higher education in the United States that the “right”
reading instruction be used and that teacher training provide new teachers with the
instructional tools to help students achieve (Chall, 1996).
The nature of primary literacy instruction is well-researched. This topic has
been debated thoroughly in the past 50 years (Adams, 1991; Chall, 1996). In spite
of the skills versus whole language debate, in a study by Wharton-McDonald,
Pressley and Hampton(1998), teachers surveyed reported that they used both a
print-rich environment and a systematic skills instruction in order to successfully
teach their students to read (p. 103). The significance of the study is that what
teachers actually do in the classroom is much more important to examine than is
the philosophical debate over which reading method is the “right” one.
The CIERA (Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement)
looked at many case studies to find examples of the best instruction for students
struggling in the area of reading. One of their conclusions was that instruction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
needs to be differentiated, another that teachers need to know students beyond the
school walls (MacGillivray & Rueda, 2001).
In the introduction to Becoming a Nation o f Readers it is stated that
“schooling is an investment that forms human capital... knowledge, skill, and
problem-solving ability that have enduring value” (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott &
Wilkinson, 1985).
The problems in reading in public schools today center around issues of the
effects of poverty, second language proficiency, lack of teacher preparation, and
inconsistency in reading instruction.
Teacher Preparation and Reading.
Linda Darling-Hammond looked at statistics on teacher preparation. The
results of her studies showed that the least prepared teachers were teaching in the
most challenging of schools. In the Report o f the National Commission on
Teaching and America's Future (1997),Darling-Hammond (1997) indicated that we
need standards for teaching, high quality preparation and professional development,
aggressive recruitment, rewards for teacher knowledge and skill.
A great concern by educators is the number of non credentialed teachers
teaching children in poverty in the lowest performing schools (Richards, 2001).
Twenty-five percent of children aged 0-17 living in poverty in California; in L. A.
County the data shows 31%. Eighty-six of the state’s teachers are fully
credentialed; however, in L. A. County this number is 75%. The percentage of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
students in Title I schools is 54%; the percentage of students having an IEP (or
placed in special education) is 11%; and the percentage of students receiving free
or reduced lunch is 47% (Richards, 2001). The logical conclusion to take from
these statistics is that the least prepared teachers are teaching the lowest achieving
students. The inference is that if there were well-prepared teachers teaching the
same students, those students would have higher achievement.
At-Risk Students and Intervention.
At risk means “in jeopardy, or in danger o f’ according to the dictionary. In
Australia, before the rise of national testing programs, at-risk students were not
identified to the same extent as they were afterwards. Wilkinson, Freebody, and
Elkins (2000) saw the danger of identifying students at risk too early due to a lack
of knowledge of the contents of the test (p. 7). This is a pivotal point in the study of
urban students, and/or at-risk students—that we are defining a whole group of
students, consigning them to an underclass by labeling them “at risk of failure.”
The definitions of at-risk encompass several fields of study and are
generally categorized as those characteristics and circumstances that predispose
students to experience risk outcomes (Johnson, 1997). In the context of education,
the risk characteristics cited are relating to life circumstances such as substance
abuse in families, illegal activity, school truancy, suspension, expulsion and failure,
poor parenting, familial transience, living in poverty, poor home-school relations,
and uneducated parents (Johnson, 1997).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
In the early 1980’s there were numerous research studies undertaken to
identify the right location or placement or grouping to help the “at risk” child.
Slavin and Madden (1989) carried out a survey of the research to identify the
programs, or practices that increased the achievement of students in grades 1-6.
Their conclusions were that there needs to be a consistent hierarchical set of skills
taught in the program, and that “continuous progress” programs were the most
successful (Slavin & Madden, 1989). Crawford studied the instructional activities
in those classrooms labeled Chapter One in Oklahoma Public Schools and found
that the greatest determiner of success in achievement was the quality of
instruction, not the activities themselves (Crawford, 1989, p. 283).
Morris (1999) also stated that classroom intervention by a trained teacher
was optimal. However, he saw that teachers were not trained in their teacher
preparation programs to teach their lowest and most challenged students. They do
not have the range of skills needed to work effectively with the students who most
need their expertise (p.ix). He advocated that teachers begin by tutoring one of
their lowest students with the close supervision by a trainer (p. x). Next, he
suggested the use of a program such as Reading Recovery with professionally
trained teachers to provide intense intervention for some of the lowest students.
Thirdly, he suggested that there be an effective use of community volunteers to
provide practice for the group that was less needy than the Reading Recovery
students. He felt the value of using all these strategies in the impacted lower-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
performing classroom would be a positive movement toward this goal of the ability
to read by all students (p. x).
The CIERA report #2-010 recently has validated that teacher beliefs and
expectations are very powerful in working with at-risk students. Through
interviews with teachers, it was the finding that Headstart teachers who had the
belief system that parents were invested in their children’s education were more
likely to perceive at-risk students as making progress than those elementary school
teachers who believed that because students were at-risk their parents did not care.
The researchers concluded that teachers’ perceptions were powerful determinants
in the amount of assistance at-risk students received (Edwards, & Danridge, 2002).
On the whole, research indicates that reading intervention program gains are not
sustained in the regular classroom without pairing with strategic intervention,
continuation of reading intervention outside the school day but at a more intensive
level.
Taylor, Hanson, Justice-Swanson, and Watts (1997) noted in their rationale
for design of the intervention program at Webster Magnet School that the reason
students need additional tutoring is that possibly they do not progress in reading at
the same rate as their peers, thus often need short-term one-to-one tutoring(p. 197).
Wasik and Slavin(1993) stated that tutoring is peripheral in the teaching of
reading although the tutoring structure itself is very common and has been for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
centuries. The major drawback to one-to-one tutoring is the cost. However, Wasik
and Slavin see tutoring as an alternative to preventing failure(p. 179).
Best Practices in Reading Intervention
There is literature on the effectiveness of particular reading
intervention/tutoring programs in specific settings. For example, in studies on
Reading Recovery, there are studies on the effectiveness of the program, both in
terms of individual student progress, and in terms of a specific program. Pinnell
(1995) looked at instructional models that aided high-risk 1st graders. One such
model certainly shows that significant gains can be measured up to 2 years. It is
the Reading Recovery method that intervenes for the primary struggling reader.
The Reading Recovery lesson provides components consistent with the
recommended research (Pinnell, 2000).
Allington and Johnston(1989) looked at the overall program characteristics
of at-risk programs and found that the Reading Recovery program is different from
other at-risk programs because it tailored the instruction to the experience of the
very moment of each child’s active learning (p.344). They found that pull-out
practices versus pull-in practices could be equally effective, and that it was the
quality of teaching, and the degree of connection of the curriculum with the needs
of the at-risk student that remained the clearest indication (Allington &Johnston, p.
349).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
According to the research on reading intervention programs, there are ten
principles:(a) Phonological awareness,(b) Visual perception of letters,(c) Word
recognition,(d) Phonics/decoding skills,(e) Phonics/structural analysis,(f)
Fluency/automaticity,(g) Comprehension,(h) Balanced, structured approach,(i)
Early. intervention,^) Individual tutoring (Pinnell, 2000). Reading Recovery
contains all ten principles. “Tutoring allows the teacher to work from the child’s
strengths and to introduce material in a way that is more effective” (p. 53).
Success For All tutoring programs also show success with low-achieving
students. The elements of these programs are based on extensive teacher training
over a period of time. Reading Recovery teachers are coached weekly by their
peers “behind the glass”, and are expected to be reflective of their own teaching
practice each time they work with a student. The opportunity to improve their
practice is consistent with their success.
Kathryn Bell, in her dissertation (2001) examined the use of community
tutors to provide one-to-one tutoring with students experiencing reading
difficulties. Her findings were that students who were tutored by experienced
teachers made significant gains in oral reading fluency, whereas the tutoring by
less-experienced and the least trained tutor did not produce significant gains in
word identification, word attack, nor passage comprehension (p.77).
Allington & McGill-Franzen’s book, No Quick Fix (1995), examines the
variety of ways we try to “fix” students who are not performing. One of the ways
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
that does not appear to work according to many studies is retention in grade.
Unless the classroom teacher uses something different with the retainee, there will
be no change, and worse, the retainee will eventually become at-risk of dropping
out of school.
Dyer and Binkney (1995) examined the cost-effectiveness of various
programs designed to aid struggling readers. They looked at special education
programs, Reading Recovery, grade retention, Chapter One pull-out programs, and
the costs per student. They estimated a great reduction in costs by simply
providing early intervention or Reading Recovery (Dyer & Binkney, 1995). Lyons
and Beaver (1995) in the same volume did an analysis of the impact of Reading
Recovery on the school system. They looked at the performance and cost of aiding
students labeled as learning disabled in the Upper Arlington School District in
Virginia. Their findings were that the number of students who were labeled
learning disabled was greatly reduced, and the number of retained students was
significantly reduced (p. 125). This was attributed to the use of the Reading
Recovery program in the Upper Arlington schools (p. 126).
The training of teachers in the Reading Recovery Program is both extensive
and intensive. Pinnell notes that Reading Recovery teachers in addition to having
an initial intensive year of training, has ongoing coaching opportunities, and is
provided with training in recognizing particular literacy learning difficulties and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
selection of methods that have the potential to help students learn to read (Pinnell,
2 0 0 0 , pp. 5 5 ,62).
Pinnell describes the tutoring session as allowing the trained teacher to
work from the assessed strengths of the child, and introduce new material based on
those strengths (Pinnell, 2000, p. 53).
Cook(2001),in her dissertation on tutoring by minimally trained tutors noted
that from her quantitative results, the tutoring training was unfocused. The results
were that students removed from the classroom for tutoring had lower post-test
scores than the students who remained in the classroom with a certified teacher (pp.
5 ,5 5 ).
Clay (1993) describes the structure of the tutoring session as “a detailed
observation of the child as a reader and writer, with particular attention to what the
child can do. The programme will work out of these strengths and not waste time
teaching anything already known” (p. 7).
Fitzgerald (2001) noted in her study on an America Reads Challenge
tutoring program; that it was the fact that the session involved a balanced structure
that affected student accelerated progress in reading (p. 44). The structure of the
session involved a format modeled after aspects of Reading Recovery lessons, and a
format designed to include aspects identified by researchers in the field (p. 34).
The format included rereading of familiar text, word study, writing for sounds and
reading a new book (p. 34).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
Darling-Hammond, Meno and Aldaco (2002) in her extensive research on
teacher preparation concluded that teachers are not trained in action research or in
data collection and analysis on their own classroom. “Professional development is
episodic in character. . . and the results [of any student outcomes] are considered a
private matter”(p.35). This precludes the use of ongoing assessment of an
individual student’s needs to build effective strategies.
Wasik and Slavin (1993) describe the components of effective instruction in
a one-to-one setting as the QATT model: Quality of instruction, Appropriate level
of instruction, Incentive (timeliness and reinforcement plus immediate corrective
feedback in the act of learning, and Time (Wasik & Slavin, 1993).
Research on tutoring indicates that the amount of time is important (Wasik
and Slavin, 1993; Pinnell,2000). This is described as lasting from 1 hour daily to l A
hour to 45 minutes three times per week. It is the consistency for a relatively short
period of time that is optimal. Morris (1999) stated, “... one-to-one tutoring, even
only 2 or 3 times a week could make a significant difference in poor children’s
literacy development” (p. 2).
Coats & Taylor-Clark (2001) found in her research study on a seventh grade
underachiever’s summer reading program that the stimuli provided in the selection
of reading materials coupled with the one-to-one setting motivated students to
appreciate reading, recognize the importance for reading, and express their own
views about the reading to the tutor (p. 72).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
Guthrie saw a strong link between engaged readers and motivation (Guthrie
& Wigfield, 2000). The significance of this goal orientation theory to tutoring is
that it is possibly the reason that the one-to-one intimacy of the tutoring session
fosters an immediate feedback to having mastered a particular task.
Bandura defined self-efficacy as another aspect of reading motivation. Self-
efficacy is a belief in one’s capability to organize and execute courses of action
required in a particular situation (Woolfolk, 2001). One suspects that self-efficacy
is also a key to children’s reading success.
Morris (1999) posited that “the struggling beginning reader requires help
when trouble arises . . . and reassurance when things are going well” (p. 4). In
Fitzgerald’s study (2001), the tutors were surveyed for their perceptions of the
benefits of the tutoring program. One benefit for the tutors was watching the
student progress in his learning (p. 42). Another identified benefit was that the
relationship that developed between the tutor and tutee was positive. A comment
cited from one tutor was that even the student’s teacher said that the child had
progressed and that was satisfying to the tutor (p.42).
When older struggling readers tutor younger children, it has been found to
positively effect the reading ability of the older child, sometimes more than the
younger one (Taylor et al.,1997, p. 198). In the study carried out by Taylor,
Hanson, Justice-Swanson, and Watts, they found that both the 7-8 year-olds gained
on an average of seven percentile ranks from one year to the next based on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
standardized tests, and the tutors themselves increased in reading skills based on a
reading inventory an average of one year’s growth in less than a year. Compared to
the control group both tutor and tutee made more than 1 year’s gains in reading.
This shows the growth in self-efficacy as well, although this was not explicit in the
study (Taylor et al., 1997).
Conclusions
The literature on remediation (old paradigm) and on early intervention (new
paradigm), support each other in that each identifies the need for a shift in the
research on under-achieving students in schools.
It has been noted in many studies and analyses what type of reading
instruction works and what does not (Snow, Bums, Griffin, 1998). However, each
child is unique, and therefore, each prescription for improvement in reading will be
at the least slightly different. One of the regulations that has come from state and
federal guidelines for at-risk of failure students is that extended day and year are
mandatory for them in order to accelerate their progress toward “grade level” status
in reading. Thus, it is important to look at the best of the programs available to
glean what will be the most effective use of this “gift” of time.
Is it the purpose o f schooling to divide students into neat classes, or is it to
teach core values, compatible with ethnic values to give all students o f all minority
and majority groups equal access? If we look at the successful programs in the
country we see that there are commonalities: (a) respect for all students, teachers
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
and parents is nurtured; (b) input is sought from all stakeholders; (c) ethnic values
and needs are taken into consideration,(d)the needs of each individual learner is
sought and met with strategies to ensure continued and accelerated learning; (e)
persistence is evident on the part of both staff and community members to make
sure all learners have equal access; (f) and partnerships with higher education and
with businesses are fostered (Taylor, Pressley, & Pearson, 2000).
Wasik and Slavin (1993), in their examination of five tutoring programs
concluded that tutoring was a successful model for reasons not completely
explainable. They also stated that there need be not only further examination into
the cognitive and motivational factors that go into tutoring, but how at-risk children
learn to read one-on-one (p. 198).
Reading is essential to everything we do as productive adults in our society.
It is important that we pursue intervening for students at-risk of failure, and that we
differentiate for all students in the classroom. Tutoring is part of the differentiation
goal. Some students need more time for effective interventions such as tutoring, not
more of the same type of classroom instruction that is the same for all students.
Tutoring is a peripheral to classroom instruction but is needed in order for all of us
to reach the attainable goal that all students learn to read.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Approach
Case study research is characterized by understanding the “why and how”
questions, and is generally a study in contemporary time (Yin, 1994). Therefore,
the use of several research tools in its design is appropriate. “The strength of the
case study is the ability to deal with a variety of evidence—documents, artifacts,
interviews, and observations—beyond what might be available” in conventional
studies (p. 8). Furthermore, Yin sees the case study as a method one might choose
because “the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident”
(p. 13). A comparative case study method, such as the one being used in this study
is a variation on the case study method (p. 22).
In the case study, and in the comparative case study, the unit of analysis is
the most critical identification for the researcher (Yin,1994,p.23). In this
comparative case study the unit of analysis is the tutoring session in one setting as
compared to the tutoring session in another setting. When data analysis occurs, the
researcher must identify patterns, and compare the patterns in the two settings
(Campbell, 1975;Yin, p.25). This ultimately will help deal with the interpretation
of findings in this study. Using the critical components described above will aid
the researcher in using the preliminary theory to discuss and understand what is
observed (Yin,p.27).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
In this comparative case study the researcher used interviews, documents,
and observations to identify and codify the common elements of tutoring in the
school sites that are located in two governance sectors, one public and one charter.
The site selection was purposeful in that the researcher looked for two sites with
the same percentages of demographic characteristics, and those in the same general
geographical area. The researcher looked for urban characteristics, such as high
poverty and density of population, high numbers of minority and limited English
Proficient students, or English Learners. The researcher then looked for two sites
in the same geographical area that were distinguished by their governance
structures. The selection of interviewees was also purposeful in that tutors and
tutees were identified in the program by those with the most time in working
together in weekly sessions, and that the researcher identified specific persons with
the knowledge of the tutoring programs, such as the site principal, and the tutoring
coordinators.
The researcher constructed an overview of the characteristics of each setting
in order to determine the comparability of the two sites. This was done through
looking for information on the state and district websites, and from documents
provided by the schools themselves.
Schools Included in the Study
In this comparative case study, two settings were examined, a reading
tutoring program in a public elementary school, and a program in a charter school.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
It was important to look at the similarities and differences in the two settings of the
tutoring programs.
School A is a K-5, four-track, year-round public school located in the south
central urban area of the largest cities in the United States, located one block from
the University campus. It is part of a large urban district and has a student
population of 1,675, according to October 2002 CBEDS. Its student demographics
show .2% Alaskan, .2%Asian, .1% Pacific Islander, 32% Black, 67.1% Hispanic
and .4% White (Ed-Data, 2002).
School A originally opened in 1899 the first time. It was named “The
University School” but changed its name several times from “Street School” to
“Street School” (different numbered streets) to naming it for a beloved principal in
1980--what I am designating as School A. There is one principal, two assistant
principals, one Title I coordinator, one bilingual coordinator and one literacy coach.
In the language census of 2001, there were 732 English Learners at School
A; all but two have a first language of Spanish. Approximately 20% were
redesignated as Fluent English Proficient in 2000. The Free and Reduced lunch
rate is 100%. Student attendance trends show School A as becoming more stable
(84%) reducing transience by 8% to 33% and increasing attendance rates steadily
each year to the current 95%.
There are 88 teachers on staff, 7 of whom were mentor teachers in 2001.
Staff stability shows 46 of the 88 teachers are tenured. Thirty-nine of the teachers
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
have been at this school over 5 years - the majority of those 11 years or more.
Thirty-six of the teachers have worked at the school 2 years or less.
School A is one of the local University’s partnership schools. This
partnership means that the school receives neighborhood outreach grants,
participates in joint educational partnerships with many of the nonprofit and for-
profit organizations in the area. There are opportunities for after-school sports,
dental disease prevention, as well as educational enrichment during and after the
school day. The University’s Readers Plus program sends tutors to work with
specifically targeted students in grades one through five in reading and math, five
days per week during the school day, plus after-school several days per week.
Teachers at School A also participate in workshops at the University and have
library privileges on its campus.
School A is a Title I School wide school. This means that funds received
from the federal government for underachieving and poor children may be used
throughout the school according to the school’s plan. The Achievement
Performance Index for this school for the 2001 school year was 566. This year’s
growth target was exceeded. The 2002 API was 631. It met all its subgroup targets
for 2002 as well. There are many interventions going on at the school year-round.
The second site chosen was School B. School B is a charter school that is
characterized as being in an urban environment, the poverty level at 92%. It draws
from the public schools in the area, as well as competes with some private schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
School B was chartered in 1994. In 1998 School Bs name changed to reflect the
model of improvement used at the school. The current enrollment is 360 students
in Grades K-8. It is located in the south central city area in a large urban district,
only a mile from the University Campus. This school also has a connection to the
University—it is part of the University’s joint educational project.
This school is also a Schoolwide Title I school. Student demographics from
the October 2002 CBEDS show 1.1% Alaskan, .5% Asian, .3% Philipino, 35.5%
Black, 61.2% Hispanic, and 1.1% White. The Free and Reduced lunch rate is
100%. There are more than 100 English Learners (2001 language survey) whose
first language is Spanish—40% of the student population. Thirteen percent were
redesignated in 2001 to Fluent English Proficient. As of the 2001-2002 school year
the stability rate is 96%, the transience rate is 7% and the attendance rate is 97.8%.
The stability rate and the attendance rate have steadily increased over the past 5
years. There is a waiting list of 2,000 students whose parents want them to attend
the school. Next year the school will increase to approximately 900 students as the
9-12 high school is added. Construction is already underway. For the present time,
the school is located in portable buildings with chain link fences encompassing
them. There is a locked gate for entry that will admit visitors upon pressing a
buzzer several times.
In 2001, there were 13 teachers, both regular education and specialists, such
as P.E. and visual/performing arts, and special education (Ed-data, 2001). The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
majority of teachers at this school are fully credentialed, two are interns, and two
are pre-interns.
Instrumentation
Population to be Studied
The population to be studied was the phenomenon of tutoring as it occurs as
part of the need to intervene on the behalf of children considered as failing, or as
needing extra and more focused help in school in order to remain with their class.
The survey questions used for the semi-structured interviews are included in the
appendix. There are several areas of focus for the questions in order to find out
what the nature of the tutoring was, and how it compares in the two settings. The
initial coding categories used for the observation protocol are also found in the
appendix. The areas of focus for the questions were as indicated in the appendix.
Below are listed the survey questions for the tutors and for the
principal/coordinator.
It was necessary to examine documents describing the program, its
structure, and goals in order to identify the common elements of the tutoring
session. To understand how this description was found, in reality, it was important
to observe tutoring sessions as well as to interview the tutors. In the interviews the
tutors described what training was useful to their work. The researcher took field
notes as well as audio-taped the sessions. The names of the tutors and tutees were
coded to preserve anonymity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
Interviews and observations, as well as the written and stated purpose of the
program revealed in site documents, were used to examine the basic assumptions
underlying the tutoring programs. A list of questions, semi open-ended in nature,
was used at each interview. Interviews were used to understand the perceptions,
and the relationship between the tutor and tutee. The contents of the interviews
were based on questions regarding (a) the structure of the tutoring session, (b) the
relationship between the tutor and the tutee, (c) the nature of the training the tutors
describe as useful to their work, and (d) any follow-up questions needed to clarify
the observations and or the documents.
Tutors who were identified by the sample constructed at each site were
observed and interviewed. There were at least two session observations of the
same tutor/tutee on different days in order to triangulate the data. The observations
were as unobtrusive as possible without concealment. Appropriate coding
categories were used to organize the data gained in the observations to match the
research questions. Use of the three types of data collected: (a)document,(b)
interview, and (c) observation, served to validate the research findings.
The data collection was qualitative in nature. Therefore, the collections
were based on grounded theory. Grounded theory is described as “theory that
emerges from the researcher’s observations.. .in the real world, rather than in the
laboratory. . . . ” (Patton, 2002). There were two data collection points. The first
data collection included a series of initial interviews with key personnel such as the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
principals, and the coordinators in charge of the tutoring programs. Also included
were initial informal observations to understand and experience the environment
and procedural differences at both sites. The question being examined here was: Is
there a difference in the way tutoring was structured at School A from the way it
was structured in School B?
There were several trial observations in order to complete the protocols that
were used, and to determine which format was better for the researcher. There was
a trial use of interview questions with other researchers in order to solidify the
purpose of each question and its match with the research questions. The researcher
acquainted herself with the environment, the staff and the schools themselves
before the study began. Informal visitations were made so that the participants
were comfortable with the presence of the researcher.
Protocols were used to help the researcher take notes during the
observations. The protocol used was a form that was used for field notes with a
line down the middle separating data of what was said or observed from researcher
commentary. Audiotapes used in the interviews and observations were transcribed
on an ongoing basis so as to accurately represent what was said during the data
collection. The subjects who were interviewed and observed then reviewed the
findings for accuracy.
The second data collection included a follow-up series of observations of
the general environment, and of specific tutoring or intervention programs at both
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
sites. Interviews with tutors or teacher tutors were then done, and observational
data was verified through the interview process. There was an effort to be as open
as possible to permit interpretation of the data as it unfolded. The second data
collection served to validate, and deepen or clarify the researcher’s understanding
of the data collected the first time. There was a follow-up set of interviews with the
principals and coordinators at the end of the tutoring observations in order to
further validate my understanding of the data.
Research Design
The research design is illustrated below and indicates the literature and
conceptual underpinnings of the study(Table 1).
Table 1
Research Design
Question Type o f Data to be Process of Analysis Literature Time of
collected Collection
How is tutoring
undertaken in
School A?
In School B?
What is the nature
of the practice in
School A? In
School B?
Document analysis
Interviews
Same as above
Transcription of
audio-tapes
Protocols, coding,
inference analysis
Same as above
Pinnell, 2000
Wasik and Slavin,
1993
Same as above
Phase One:
December 2002,
January
2003
Same as above
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
Table 1 (continued)
Question Type o f Data to be
collected
Process of
Analysis
Literature Time of
Collection
What is the
structure of Document Same Pinnell, 2000, Phase Two:
the tutoring analysis Archer, 1998 January-March
session in Interviews Feldman, 2001 2003
School A? Observations Slavin, 1998
In School B?
What are the Document Same Same Same
common analysis
elements Interviews
found in the Observations
reading
tutoring
session?
What is the Interviews Transcription, Vygotsky, 1978 Phase Two:
nature of the Observations Protocol analysis Tharp and January-March
relationship Inferential Gallimore, 2003
that develops analysis MacGillivray and
between Rueda, 2001
tutor and
tutee
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6 1
Table 1 (continued)
Question Type o f Data to be Process of Literature Time of
collected Analysis Collection
What training is
given to the tutors
before the
sessions start, and
ongoing
consultation
What are the
indicators that
show that students
have made gains
in reading over a
year’s time?
Document analysis
Interviews
Observations
Same
Document Analysis
Interviews
Same
Pinnell, 2000
Morris, 1999
Invemizzi, 2001
Pinnell, 2000
Morris, 1999
Invemizzi, 2001
Phase One:
November,
December
Phase Two:
January,
February
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
Table 1 (continued)
Question Type of Data to be
collected
Process of
Analysis
Literature Time of
Collection
How much growth Document Analysis Transcription Pinnell, 2000 Phase Two:
is there in the pro- Interviews Inferential Morris, 1999 January,
gram(s) overall? Analysis Invemizzi, 2001 February
What indicators
were used?
How does tutoring Document Analysis Transcription Powers and Phase Three:
as practiced in Interviews Protocols, Cookson, 1999 Februaiy, March
School A differ Observations Coding Vygotsky, 1978
from tutoring in Analysis
School B? Inferential
Analysis
Do the principal Document analysis Transcription Same Phase Three:
forces that shape Interviews Protocols February,
tutoring in School Observations Inferential March
A, shape tutoring analysis
in School B
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
In Phase One, the researcher identified the two sites by looking on the state,
district and other websites to identify the student demographics of each possible
site, to make contact with the site administrator, and to ensure that the desired
instructional practices exist at that site. The two sites are located in approximately
same geographical area.
Phase Two consisted of identifying and field-testing the instruments used in
the study, a survey questionnaire, and a semi-structured interview with a few open-
ended questions. The structure of the observations was determined at that time,
based on previous instruments used in similar studies on tutoring sessions.
Problems in wording in the instruments were corrected by the researcher after
trying out the questions on a test group.
Phase Three consisted of the study itself. As described above, there were
two sets of observations. One set was for the researcher to use the observation
instrument while observing a predetermined number of tutoring dyads in one
school site. Then the same procedure was followed at the other school site. By
moving through the protocols and research questions at both sites in a parallel
manner, differences in the data were apparent. The researcher used a comparative
strategy in order to make a preliminary analysis.
The second set of observations was then conducted, following the
preliminary look at the first set of data collected. Any adjustments in the protocols
or questions were made and then used at the other site, so that the way the data was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
collected would be as similar as possible. Following the second set of
observations, the data was then analyzed, and follow-up interviews with the tutors
took place. Any questions still unanswered in the tutor interviews were followed
up by questions to the program coordinator, or to the principal.
Structured Interview Questions
In order to make sure that all the research questions had been included in
the research design and in the surveys for interviews, the chart below was used.
The X’s indicate that there is a survey question that relates to the Research
Question indicated down the left side of the table (Table 2).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
Structured Interview Questions for program director and principal—
Table 2
Structured Interview Questions for program director and principal—
Muter G e n e r a l Qxstkr6 flaring R% Trtcrag R daS cn- Aessm rt
S e d a n Ses aai Si ps
Qistai 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 123 4
H3 x
la x x x x
lb x x x x
k: x x
Id x x
le x x x
R Q B x x x x
R Q 5 x x
m x
4a x x x
4b x x x x x
4c x x
4d x x
4e x x x
R Q 5 x x x x x
R Q 6 x x x
x IriE ia i^ b E fe d fc n a B V flB to a il c p s tia B
7b x x x
R Q S x x x
R Q >
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
Table 3
Matrix o f Structured Interview Questions for the Tutor—Research Questions Matrix
Research
Questions Survey Questions
Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
RQla X
lb X
1c
, /
X X
Id X
le x x x
RQ2
RQ3
RQ4aX
4b X
4c X X
4d X
4e x x x
RQ5
RQ6
RQ7a
7b
RQ8
RQ9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
Research Questions 5 through 9 were comparison questions that could only
be inferred from the comparison of answers to the questions about school A to the
answers to the questions about school B (Table 3).
Data Analysis
Analysis of the data took place throughout the study. As the on-site
observations and initial informal interview took place, the data was being recorded
through field-notes, and later was written up analytically. After the initial
interviews of the principals and tutoring coordinators took place, the questions, the
number of observations and interviews needed to be adjusted in order to round out
the data collection. Whatever was asked at one school site was asked at the other
school site. There was an attempt to probe equally, as well. This required the
researcher to listen carefully to the taped questions asked and answers given
between interviews, in order to probe equally. This was delimiting to the scope of
the study, and made it easier to analyze in the end. Charts and tentative coding
categories in protocols were used in the beginning of the study; subsequently the
researcher had to expand those categories based on the data collected in the
observations and field-notes. The original categories for coding were very helpful,
because they indicated areas to listen for and observe. At the time of the initial
analysis it was possible to write a lot on some questions, but there was little data on
others. Instead of going back to gather more data, the decision was made to close
off those questions, and develop the others more deeply. In this way, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
limitations of the data collected were evident, and a different agenda to be used in
further study could be proposed.
Summary
This is a comparative case study of a common school strategy—tutoring in
reading-at two sites with different governance structures. The first school,
designated School A, is a public school; the second, designated School B, is a
charter school. They have approximately the same demographics, although School
B is significantly smaller in size. The design of the study was to move through the
data collection in a parallel manner. In other words, first the informal visitations
were scheduled, as well as the initial interviews with the principals and tutoring
coordinators. This was accomplished first at one school, then at the other. In this
way there was the attempt to use the same data collection procedures in the same
way at both sites. In the next phase of the study there was also parallel data
collection. The data was collected from the tutoring observations during the same
approximate time, although there were some observations that could be done at one
site, yet not at the other site, due to scheduling differences, minimum days, pupil-
free days, and holidays. After the collection was finished at one site, two weeks
more were needed to finish at the other site. Data analysis proceeded throughout
the study. The initial coding categories were expanded to include what actually
occurred in the observations. Some questions could not be analyzed just from
observation; interview data was needed to understand the data collected in context
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
and in more depth. In the resulting analysis, the original frames were helpful in
understanding the data collected. The study took approximately three months to
complete.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introduction
In this chapter, the data collected during the study on tutoring reading is
presented in a descriptive manner. A description of how the data was collected and
what the researcher’s thoughts and impressions were also presented here. In
addition, the findings are discussed according to the research questions. The initial
organizational charts are used to illustrate some of the observational and interview
findings.
Seventeen interviews were conducted with the following people: 2
principals, 2 coordinators of site intervention programs, 2 site coordinators of
America Reads programs, 1 University coordinator of the America Reads program,
and 5 teacher tutors from both schools, and 2 America Reads tutors. The questions
asked in the structured interview are listed in Appendix C. The list of interviews
are listed in Appendix B. The interviews were audio-taped, field notes were taken
and transcriptions completed.
There were 3 informal observations, and 7 formal observations at each
school. For these observations, a coding category sheet was used for ease in
organizing field notes. The observations were audio-taped as well. A sample
interview transcript is included in Appendix D; a sample observation transcript is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
included in Appendix E. The information provided during the interviews and the
observations have been incorporated into the research questions.
Description o f School A
School A is a large public elementary school. It is a year-round, K-5
elementary school with 4 tracks of teachers (or groups of teachers on a particular
yearly schedule). At any given time there are approximately 47 teachers at the
school. One of the tracks of teachers is “roving.” This means that these teachers
move to a different classroom each time they come back on track.
The school is located about six blocks from the local university in a densely
populated urban area with single-family dwellings in some disrepair. There is very
little parking available. Upon arrival at the school site the first time, it was
necessary to drive around the surrounding streets many times to find a parking
space. As evidenced from the researcher’s many visits to the school, large groups
of visitors are at the school on a daily basis for the purpose of tutoring, giving
special programs, and attending meetings.
There a large commercial area just a few blocks from this location. The
school campus is very old, but care is taken to keep it clean. Students are very
orderly when walking to and from the schoolyard. Trash is picked up, though there
are tall chain link fences surrounding the grounds. When an adult enters, many
people notice—teachers, the assistant principal who regularly monitors the area,
the volunteer parents, and other adults on the campus—and offer to help. Duty
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
Supervisors are polite; all are friendly. They also check to see if the adult is
wearing a guest badge, or a staff badge. The office staff members are very
attentive; after the first visit the researcher was greeted and made to feel welcome
on the campus.
During the initial interview with the principal, she recounted that there had
been a change in the culture at the school since she had first started there 9 years
ago. There was pressure from the district office to enter into an agreement to
become a Comprehensive Reform School, specifically using the Accelerated model.
After going through the initial process, she realized that the time was not right for
this school-the staff was polarized, for and against the project. They did not
complete the process. She said that the aftermath of that initial trial into the
Comprehensive Reform process left a lot of bitterness, which had persisted until a
few years ago. Now she sees that the faculty is unified and focused on the students
and their needs.
After the initial interviews of the principal and the bilingual coordinator, the
bilingual coordinator and the researcher chose which intercession intervention
classes would be observed based on the researcher’s desire to see a variety of
intercession and tutoring classes. From these three classes observed, two of the
teachers were also interviewed. The intervention and tutoring program in School A
was varied purposely and according to funding (whether district, state or federal).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
It was set according to specific guidelines set by the funding source, or those set by
the bilingual coordinator.
In contrast to the traditional ways supplementary programs are set up was
the structure of the local University America Reads Plus program, and the other
Educational Project also in partnership with the local University. In these local
partnership programs, there was a session structure suggested by the university
tutoring coordinator to be used only if the classroom teacher did not give the tutor a
specific curriculum to use.
According to the principal and the bilingual coordinator the classroom
teacher is responsible for the success of his/her students. However, there is a sense
on the part of the teachers that during the intercession some students will catch up,
and that will most likely be accomplished by another teacher in his/her off-track
time. According to the principal and the bilingual coordinator, the regular
classroom teacher is not expected to stay before or after school nor work in the
intercession to help their own students in need of it. Rather, help for these students
would be given at some time later if it became necessary to give them more time to
learn grade-level material.
The intercession teachers were asked if any of their intercession students
were previous or current year students. One teacher answered that the intercession
class was not the same grade level that he taught during the regular on-track session
(Teacher Interview #17), but that since he was qualified to teach English Learners
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
(ELD levels 1,2,3), he had been asked to teach this class. The other intercession
teacher answered that a few were her own students (from her second grade class),
but that the intercession class had 2n d , 3rd , and 4th graders in it. She also stated that
it was easier to tutor her own students because she knew their strengths and how to
motivate them (Teacher Interview #16).
In contrast to the intercession program using interventions, the local
university partnership tutoring was very different. It consisted of an America
Reads Plus program as well as a joint Educational Project tutoring program. There
was a site coordinator to oversee both programs and meet with the tutors. It was
decided by the site coordinator that the researcher would observe two students with
their tutors, dyads that had been together for more than four months. These
sessions were observed in the tutoring room informally several times in order to
acclimate the researcher to the setting and to observe the routine in the program.
The America Reads tutoring room is a small workroom holding several
tables, chairs, a worktable and shelves. The tutors and tutees, when there are more
than four tutor-tutee dyads present, spill out into the hallway where there is a table,
or onto the playground where there are benches, or into the adjoining library when
availability permits. On the shelves are professional books, binders from various
teacher trainings, a variety of new and old children’s books, and tattered teacher-
made game boards as well as new teacher-supply games. The tutors all wore the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
University identification badges—but these badges were left on a hook in the
tutoring room when not in use.
The local university joint Educational Project center is within six blocks of
this school. It is an old house on the campus near the perimeter of the school.
Whenever the researcher entered, there was someone to greet her, and ask what she
needed. Housed there are several programs that serve the community, two of
which are at School A. There is an America Reads Plus program, whose main
function is to tutor some students in reading, some in math. There is also a joint
Educational Project program in which students volunteer on the campuses of local
schools to work in a variety of ways. The joint Educational Program is a service
organization, not specifically a structured tutoring program. Both are programs for
university students on scholarships and or work-study programs.
The university coordinator of the America Reads program explained how
the program is set up, what the training consists of, and what materials are used.
One can see the tutors walking back and forth from the university to the local
schools to tutor, or to complete student teaching, or to volunteer for a particular
program (Interview #1).
On the researcher’s visits to School A she saw university students going
back and forth between the university and the school in groups, either on foot or by
car.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
Addressing the Research Questions
How is tutoring undertaken in School A? What is the nature o f the practice?
What is the structure o f the tutoring session?
According to the bilingual coordinator when asked how tutoring is
undertaken she replied, “it is [related ] to the assessment. If the student needs more
reading, then the emphasis should be there. The writing has to take place too. The
oral language development has to take place too” (Interview #7).
The researcher’s first three observations were of intercession sessions, each
of 45 minutes’ duration. All three teachers had applied to be intercession teachers.
Two had regular credentials, one had a pre-intern certificate. In observation Al,
there were 15 students, all English Learners at the Beginning and Early
Intermediate levels of proficiency in grades two and three. The students went
through a series of activities during the time the researcher was present: (a) an
Open Court review of vowels and sight words; (b) a lesson on compound words;
and (c) a vocabulary review in which the students guessed the word from the
teacher’s definition, (d) then used it in a complete sentence, and (e) finally took a
dictation on all the compound words they had learned. The lesson was fast-paced,
the teacher moving quickly about the room monitoring the work of the students
(observation Al).
In observation A2, the group was made up of 12 students who were English
Only, Initial Fluent English Proficient, or Reclassified Fluent English Proficient in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
Grades 2,3, and 4. The classroom was smaller than the others and the students
were at different levels of reading fluency. The teacher handed out a subject-verb
skill paper for students to complete, and later she corrected it with them. She also
had them practice subject-verb agreement orally, then in writing. The students
were next asked to read to each other to practice their fluency. The teacher then
used the “popcorn reading” approach, in which first one student, then another, is
called upon to read a few sentences each. This keeps the pace moving quickly, yet
allows all students to read aloud in a short period of time.
In observation A3 the teacher had a group of 17 5th graders, all English
Learners, at Levels 3 and 4 (Intermediate, and Early Advanced). In the 5th grade
class a lot of writing was evident in the students’ writing folders, such as
compositions on “The U.S. should not continue with space exploration,” and “Why
are we going to war?” The teacher in the 5th grade class said that “these students
need to improve their reading and writing skills, and to interact together orally”
(observation A3). In this class there were graphic organizers visible on the wall
and on the students’ desks. The entire writing process from brainstorming to final
draft was contained in the folder for each composition written. There was evidence
that the students helped each other revise and edit, as well as teacher comments and
marks indicating the teacher’s time used in revising and editing the papers.
Materials used during the observation were Into English, level 7, and spelling from
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
Open Court (observation A3). When interviewed and asked if he modifies the
lesson, the teacher replied:
Of course. Modification everywhere is the key. I cannot teach
this without modifying it. It is very complex for them. I have
modified the activities so that they can have comprehensible
input. Before I do the actual lesson, I bring realia and language
experience into the writing process, activate prior knowledge, and
if necessary speak in Spanish just to explain for those who are
very limited in English (Interview #17).
In all three intercession classes, the teachers had pre-tested the students
using the Fry Oral Test, the McLeod Comprehension test, the San Diego Quick
Comprehension Test, fluency measures within the intervention strand of the Open
Court program, and a writing sample taken both pre- and post- the intercession
period. In observations A2 and A3, the teachers were administering fluency tests
for individual students during the session observed in addition to many other
activities.
In the America Reads tutoring observations, there was a structure to the
sessions. In the informal observations of the tutoring room there was a routine
observed in all cases of tutoring dyads. In the first portion, there was a skill
worked on, usually provided by the classroom teacher, then the tutor and tutee
chose a book to read together, the tutor asked intermittent comprehension
questions, and then the tutor and tutee played a skill game or wrote a reflection
(Observations A5 and A6). Ideally there was at least one read-aloud per session,
and when they could fit it in, a writing of some sort (Interview #1).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
The observation protocol proved useful in observing the tutoring sessions.
The following is a summary of the observations completed in School A (Table 4)
Table 4
Summary of Observations and Categories Observed in School A
Lesson elements Obs.l 2 3 4 5 6 7
Evidence of lesson X X X X X X
structure
Evidence of pre/post X X X X X
testing
Time/frequency o f 60hrs. 60hrs. 60 hrs 1/wk. 2/wk 1/wk. 2/wk
lesson
Content matched to X X X
student needs
Lesson contents:
Phonemic
Awareness
Phonological
Awareness
Visual perception
o f letters
Word recognition X X
Phonics/decoding X X X X
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
Table 4 (continued)
Lesson elements
Fluency/
automaticity
Comprehension
Content matched to
student instructional
or mastery level
Oral language
development
Writing/dictation
Motivation
Evidence o f
monitoring or
consultation
Who decides
content?
Who decides who is
served?
O bs.l 2
X X
X
X
X
X X
Posi- tive Posi
tive
Coor- Coor
dinator dina-
tor
Coor- Coor
dinator dina-
tor
3 4
X X
X
X
X
X
Positive Positive
Coor- Regular
dinator Teacher/
Tutor
Coor- Regular
dinator Teacher
5 6
X X
X X
X
Posi- Neutral
tive
X X
Regu- Tutor
lar
Teach
er/
Tutor
Regu- Regular
lar Teacher
Teach
-er
7
X
X
X
X
Positive
X
Regular
Teacher
/Tutor
Regular
Teacher
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
What are the common elements in reading tutoring sessions fo r primary
students?
The common elements included using the same reading goals: of decoding,
fluency, comprehension; and in the case of the intercession classes, the reading was
matched to the needs of the student. Decoding training, guided practice, phonemic
awareness or phonological awareness activities were in little evidence in any of the
observations.
The grade levels of the intervention intercession classes were Grades 2,3,4,
and 5. The students identified for these sessions were at risk of failure, one step
before recommendation for retention in grade. There was evidence that the
teachers had a lesson plan, but this did not seem to have a common order of
activities. In all three cases, however, the activities seemed geared to the specific
needs of the students, much more so than in the case of the university tutor
observations at this school. When interviewed, the intercession teachers confirmed
their knowledge of the needs and weaknesses of the students and were able to
articulate what level of activities they used for which of their students.
The grade levels represented in the university tutoring program ranged from
first to fifth. In the tutoring classes provided by the university tutors, there was
evidence of a specific order to the activities used in the lesson-specifically,
working on a skill lesson provided by the teacher for 15-20 minutes, then reading
aloud (either the tutee to the tutor or, the tutor to the tutee) for another 15-20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8 2
minutes, and then playing an educational game in which the student had to read a
word, and/or make a sentence in order to move forward on a teacher-made game
board.
In the tutoring sessions in the intercession classes, another common element
was the use of the same materials agreed upon with the bilingual coordinator and of
the standards the teachers were working on. When asked how the materials were
selected, the coordinator and the teachers responded “the teachers.” However, they
all responded that the materials from which they had to select were obsolete
materials such as the Riverside reading program, plus the intervention materials in
the Open Court books, and a supplementary writing program called Write Time. In
effect, they all used the same materials—those available from the bilingual
coordinator’s room.
The two tutors and the site tutoring coordinator from the University tutoring
program chose materials that were discarded, including donated books in poor
condition and those made by or brought to the school by other tutors.
In all cases there was pre/post testing as stated by the three coordinators, the
principal, the teachers, and the tutors when interviewed. In the case of the
intercession classes, the teachers were doing post-assessment on fluency while the
researcher was in the room since it was the end of the intercession.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
As noted in the above chart, many of the elements identified in the literature
were part of the tutoring sessions observed. [Further analysis will be made of this
observational interpretation in chapter 5.]
What training is given to the tutors before the sessions start, and what
ongoing consultation is available during the sessions?
According to the tutoring coordinator of the America Reads Plus program at
the University, the University tutors were given 12 hours of training. There are
ongoing sessions weekly with the site coordinator in which problems are discussed
and strategies shared. Three times yearly there are additional training sessions,
sometimes on a particular strategy or on the administration of an assessment.
There was evidence of ongoing monitoring and consultation in two of the three
observations.
In the interview with one of the tutors, she described the training as being
mainly procedural with some help on the use of specific strategies and problem
solving potential difficulties with tutees. She said that the site coordinator helps by
being on site each tutoring day, and being available by phone or e-mail (Interview
#13). There are evidently weekly meetings at which new projects are shared with
the tutors at the campus, and new assessments introduced. According to the
University tutoring coordinator, “Having them in groups grounds the program,
there is an opportunity for tutors to work together and talk” (Interview #1).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
For the intercession teachers, the bilingual coordinator stated that she
selected teachers who had, for the most part, the affective potential as well as the
effective strategies to help struggling readers succeed. She said that she tried to
match teachers’ strengths to students’ needs as much as possible. The training
consisted of a meeting at the beginning of the intercession, and another meeting
weekly to go over procedures. Any ongoing monitoring was short and not
substantive. She said of the monitoring: “I go as much as I can. Like even though I
am not an administrator, they know that I’m the person in charge. I try to establish
a rapport with the teachers, and I have accomplished that. . . I go to take inventory
in what they need, and determine how to help them” (Interview #7). The bilingual
coordinator said that only when she saw that a teacher had a problem did she step
in and help the teacher with a particular strategy or management system. She said
that it happened rarely since so many teachers were off-track and available to work
during intercession (Interview #4).
How are tutors recruited and tutors paired with tutees?
The Coordinator of the university program recruits tutors by placing an ad
in the University newspaper, putting a banner outside the joint Educational Project
house, and attends a job fair. The site coordinator of the university tutoring
program does the matching of tutor to tutee. A letter is sent to all teachers
requesting their recommendations for students from their classes to participate.
The match is made mainly on tutor schedules. The site coordinator reported that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
only if he knows that a specific dyad has been working together does he schedule
them together. Otherwise, there is a potential change in dyads every 8 weeks. The
tutees targeted are students identified in the second quartile on standardized tests,
or “just below average, who need individual attention and skill development”
(Interview #1).
When these tutors were asked what they knew about their tutees ahead of
time one replied, “Not much. We get more information when we actually go pick
up the student the first day and we talk to the teacher and that’s when the teacher
tells us what the child needs to focus on and we need to work with the child on
some things. . . so it’s like reviewing maybe” (Interview #13).
The other tutor interviewed, when asked what information they had been
given about their tutee said, “Just the grade. They need tutoring in reading or math,
and the rest is really up to you.. . . I’m always going in [to the teachers]. They’ll
give me materials sometimes for me to work on” (Interview #12).
In the intercession program, the bilingual coordinator reported that she put
intercession groups together based on identified need, such as students who are
below the 36th percentile in reading, who are at an EL4 or less. The English
Learners identified are pre-reclassification, or have been in the program too long
and are at a lower EL level (Interview #4).
The bilingual coordinator selects the teachers on the basis of their credential
status first, and then gives priority to teachers who have recommended their own
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
students for tutoring. She said, however, that it does not happen very often. The
coordinator balances the classes so that they consist of 20 students each, even if
that means forming multi-graded classes (Interview #7). Off-track teachers and in-
house substitute teachers are recruited to teach intercession classes, as well
(Interview #4).
What is the nature o f the relationship that develops between tutor and
tutee?
In six of the seven observations, there was evidence that the teacher or tutor
used an encouraging tone, encouraging words, and/or praise to motivate students to
try to participate in the activity. In the case of the America Reads sessions, the
tutors had work folders for each tutee, in which they wrote the student’s progress,
and listed what activities had been done that particular session. In all cases
observed, the tutors wrote while asking the student for his/her input on how the
session had gone, and what had been accomplished. There were paper stars given
by the tutor for good behavior/good work during the session, and reference made
that an accumulation of stars meant some kind of reward for the tutee (Observation
A7).
During the interview with the site coordinator for the University Tutoring
program, he acknowledged that part of his job was to make sure there was a good
relationship between tutors and tutees. In order to get to know the tutors and tutees
there was a “getting to know you” form that the tutor filled out with the tutee, (a)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
there was a Halloween poster contest that the tutoring dyads worked on together; (b)
there was participation in a Dr. Seuss’ birthday celebration in the regular classroom
using the tutoring dyads; (c) a “graduation from tutoring” certificate given to those
who were going to exit the program; (d) plus weekly and monthly reward
opportunities for on-task work accomplished. The principal of School A noted that,
There’s many ways to help a child improve, and one way is self
esteem. We have never been able to measure the progress from
the interventions from the tutoring program, but what we can
measure is that the kids like going, they like learning, they like
the one-on-one attention. So there is a lot of value that suddenly
something that feels good is in connection with reading and
education (Interview #15).
In the intercessions it was observed that the teachers used different ways of
encouraging students based on progress toward academic goals, such as doing
better on the fluency test, or improving their writing. In the 5th grade intercession
class, the students were given points towards their grades during the intercession
period based on their improvement on various writing tasks and on their
performance of particular standards (Observation #A3). When interviewing the
teachers of the intercession, they indicated that they kept track of student progress
anecdotally on their folders, their work samples, and sometimes on their lesson
plans.
In one interview, the teacher was asked if it helps to have one’s own
students or one’s previous students in the intercession classes. The teacher
responded emphatically: “Absolutely- because I know where they’re at and I have
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
assessed them over a long period of time, so it’s so much easier—so I know right
away what to do with them” (Interview #16).
What are the principal forces that appear to shape the tutoring session in
School A?
The leadership at the school, the principal who has been there over ten
years, the assistant principals, the coordinators, and the literacy coach, is in charge
of designing the content of the tutoring in the intercession and which intervention
programs will occur at the site. In the case of the University tutoring program, the
structure and content were designed by the tutoring coordinator with input received
from the tutees’ regular classroom teachers.
What are the indicators that show that students have made gains in reading
over a period o f time?
The indicators used to assess growth in reading in the intercession are the
San Diego Quick Assessment for grade level word recognition, the Fry Oral
Reading Test for fluency, or the Open Court Oral Fluency test, the McLeod
Assessment o f Reading Comprehension or the Open Court Comprehension
Assessment, and if appropriate the phonological awareness screening test, the
alphabet checklist, concepts about print. Core phonics survey, and Open Court
Spelling Assessment. When any of the above assessments were used at the
beginning of the intercession, they were also given at the end to assess growth. At
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
the end of the intercession, work samples and a report card were sent home to the
parent. An intervention record folder was filled out and placed in the student’s
cumulative record (Interview #4).
In the tutoring program there is a pre/post reading for fluency: Goodman's
Reading Interview with Reading Comprehension rubric. In addition there are
questionnaires for the regular classroom teacher to fill out for the site coordinator
on the progress of the student.
How much growth is there in the programs overall?
This was not possible to determine due to the differences in and lack of
consistency of use of these measures to assess student’s progress in achievement.
Description o f School B
School B is a relatively small charter school with approximately 350
students. It is a K-8 elementary school with single-track, year-round
configuration. There are 15 regular teachers and 8 support staff members. Next
year, the school will expand to a K-12 configuration, and add several hundred
students and many more staff members. Eventually, there will be as many as 800
students housed on the new site.
There is a Board of Trustees that governs the school. School B is unique in
that it receives foundation funds, as well as charter school funds (public) and
categorical funds (public). This charter school is also a Comprehensive Reform
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
Model school and uses the Accelerated model. There are co-administrators that
handle the job of principal.
As with School A, there is very little parking at School B. The area
surrounding the school is characterized by older single-family dwellings, but they
are not necessarily single families that live there. The homes, in some disrepair, are
located in the midst of the industrial area next to a major freeway that bisects the
large city. The school was originally housed in an industrial building. Now this is
being demolished and construction is underway to build the new pre-K-12 school.
Students are presently housed in a series of tightly packed portable
buildings set inside a barbed wire fenced lot across the street from the construction
site. In the center of these portables is an area available for some sports activities.
In addition, all students take music, art and yoga; they perform in drama activities
as well as visual arts activities, both during the school day as well as after school.
The regular classroom teacher has a longer contract day than other teachers in the
same large urban school district, yet she/he is responsible for students’ academic
success. The School B teachers are not responsible for instruction in art, yoga or P.
E. instruction, however. During these times, instructors take the children out to
another room or designated location on the school grounds, so that the regular
classroom teachers can meet in grade levels, or plan and prepare their lessons.
They are encouraged, but not mandated, to tutor their students who are below grade
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
level in reading and/or math. Most do so because they have made a commitment to
the school’s vision.
The initial interview took place with the intervention coordinator. She gave
the researcher a list of interventions/tutoring taking place on the school site. This
included teacher tutoring before and after school in Grade land 2, during-school
tutoring with joint educational project tutors in partnership with the local
university, and an America Reads tutoring program with another local university.
In the case of the last two tutoring programs, the content was mainly determined by
the regular classroom teacher. In the absence of activities provided by the
classroom teacher, there were suggested activities given in training by the tutoring
coordinator.
The content of the 1st grade tutoring program was organized and agreed
upon by the teachers themselves. The researcher observed the 3 1st grade tutoring
sessions on two occasions. The teachers observed were then interviewed, as well
as the local site America Reads coordinator from a nearby university. The
intervention coordinator and one of the co-administrators in chare of curriculum
were both formally interviewed.
Addressing the Research Questions
How is tutoring undertaken in School B? What is the nature o f the practice?
What is the structure o f the tutoring session?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
The interventions coordinator, when interviewed, said that there were many
types of intervention going on at the school. There was after-school tutoring in
reading of middle school students, before-school tutoring by first grade teachers,
middle school accelerated intervention in math for those students who are
motivated, Intervention for English Learners in first and second grade, another
local university America Reads and Counts program, student teaching, and joint
educational project tutors.
There were several types of tutoring observed. There was an after-school
homework session, for students in Grades 1 and 2 for approximately 6-8 students.
This last was the second observation at this site. The homework session lasted for
1.25 hours. In addition to the teacher, there was a parent volunteer or an aide
present to keep one of the students on track during this time. The setting could be
described as a 1st grade classroom. The room had a lot of evidence of literacy on
the walls such as a word wall, alphabet cards, evidence of graphic organizers used
to record student responses, and numeric evidence such as a number line, student
work in math, word problem starters. The portable classroom was new and the
desks were new. There was a white board, pocket chart, portable white boards, and
leveled books in baskets on the desks. The desks were clustered in groups of four,
and there was a space on the carpet for group activities. There was a book comer,
and three student computers in the classroom. During the observation the teacher
did not use any of the materials available. She instead tried to work with each
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
student to help each get ready to do his/her homework. One student was
proofreading written work, three students were taking turns reading to each other,
and one student was reading with a parent volunteer. The students and teacher
were respectful to one another (Observation B2).
The second type of tutoring observed was teacher-tutoring. It was the norm
to intervene and to accelerate at this school as needed. If there were students who
were not succeeding, the teachers themselves taught groups of 2 to 6 students for 6
to 8 weeks ranging from half hour twice weekly, to half hour 4 times per week.
Even within that small group, there was evidence that the teacher differentiated her
instruction. While one child was practicing sounds, letters, and words on a
computer software program, the teacher was doing phonemic awareness activities
with the teacher. Then all the students would practice automaticity by reading
word cards. Two of the teachers were creative in making games of the activities so
that this was not merely busy-work. All three 1st grade rooms had approximately
the same configuration. There was evidence of literacy and numeracy on the walls;
there was a word wall in each room used in different ways to help students with
vocabulary and spelling. There were number lines, student math work up such as
word problems constructed by students, and writing was apparent in all domains.
There were three computers in each room, a pocket chart for the construction of
words and sentences, and a table-size magnetic/white board for small-group
instruction. There were books everywhere-on shelves, in a reading comer, and in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
containers on student tables. There were clusters of student tables, and at least one
U-shaped table for small group instruction. There was evidence of student work
everywhere in these rooms—on desks, on the walls, on charts (Observations Bl,
B3, B4, B5, B6, and B7).
One of the teacher tutors, when asked if she adjusts the material in her
lessons with the tutees, replied, “Definitely. I mean what I d o . . . I don’t even have
such a set lesson plan that is not completely flexible.. . . I had just one student
show up the other day so we just worked on verb tenses” (Interview #11).
Another teacher tutor said that it is part of her overall teaching strategy, that
“I think a lot of it is the beauty of guided reading which is exposure to a sight
vocabulary, repetition of sight words, which is wonderful, coupled with
intervention of [phonemic awareness and phonics] in the morning” (Interview #8).
The third type of tutoring evident in the school was provided by both of the
local universities. One was a joint educational project and was characterized by a
tutor spending an amount of time inside the classroom working with groups or
individual students, but clearly designed by the classroom teacher. The other
university program was an America Reads program in which there was a structure
to the lesson if the regular teacher did not specify one. In contrast to the America
Reads program at School A, this was more informal, and less structured, more
regulated by the classroom teacher.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In the interview with the site coordinator of the other university America
Reads program, she discussed what the structure of the lesson included: “Their
lesson log consists of what students did what activity, how much time did they
spend with them and what was it that was accomplished and the objective. . . It is a
description of the lesson and the activity” (Interview #9).
When asked if it is up to the teacher or to the tutor, she responded, “It could
go either way. It’s sort of up to the teacher” (Interview #9). Following is a table
that indicates what elements were observed in the tutoring sessions in School B
(Table 5).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
Table5
Summary o f Observations and Categories Observed in School B
Lesson
elements
O bs.l 2 3 4 5 6 7
Evidence o f X X X X
lesson structure
Evidence o f
pre-post testing
Time/frequency 3/wk. 1/wk. 3/wk. 3/wk. 3/wk. 3/wk. 2/wk.
o f lesson .5 hr. 1.25 hr. .5 hr. .5 hr. .5 hr. .5 hr. .5 hr.
Content X X X X X X
matched to
student needs
Lesson contents:
Phonemic
Aware-ness
Phonological X X X
Awareness
Visual X X X X
perception o f
letters
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
Table 5 (continued)
Lesson Elements Obs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lesson contents:
Word recognition X X X X X
Phonics/decoding X X X
Fluency/ X X X X X
automaticity
Comprehension X X
Reading material X X X X X X
matched to
student
instructional or
mastery level
Oral language X
development
Writing/dictation X
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Table 5 (continued)
Lesson Elements
Motivation Posi Posi Posi Posi
tive tive tive tive
Evidence o f X
monitoring or
consultation
Who decides the Teacher Classroom Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher
content? Teacher
Who decides Teacher Classroom. Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher
who is served? Teacher
What are the common elements in reading fo r tutoring sessions fo r primary
students?
In four of the seven observations there was a specific structure to the lesson.
That structure included phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding of words, and
word recognition. There was no pre/post testing during any of the observations.
However, during the interviews, each teacher clearly articulated what tests were
used for pre/post testing. For the intervention the teachers chose a different test
than the one used in the regular classroom.
The tutoring sessions ranged from once per week for 1.25 hours to 3 times
per week for half hour. In all cases, the same children were involved in each
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
session for a period of 6 to 8 weeks, or until the teacher saw that one or more
children had caught up with the group. In one of the interviews, when asked how
she knew if a child no longer needed tutoring, the teacher responded that the group
she had been working with had almost surpassed the next group up in her
classroom in fluency (Interview #11).
The content was based on student needs in six of the seven sessions
observed. The content reflected regular classroom teaching, and was specific to the
needs of the students. There was evidence of phonemic awareness (3 out of 7
sessions), phonological awareness (3 sessions), visual perception of letters (4
sessions), word recognition in 5 sessions, practice in phonics and decoding in 3
observations. Fluency and automaticity were evident in 5 of the sessions;
comprehension questioning was evident in 2 of the sessions. Reading material was
matched to the student instructional or mastery level in 6 of the sessions. There
was oral language development in one session. Writing and/or dictation was found
in one session.
According to the interview with the site coordinator of the America Reads
program at School B, there is a structure suggested by the America Reads program
only if the classroom teacher does not suggest a specific activity. She stated
that the teachers at School B were really in charge of the activities the tutors
engaged in. Most of their sessions took place inside the classrooms. She
characterized their contribution as more of an assistant than a tutor. She said that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
most tutors were present for six to eight hours per week in one particular
classroom that had been assigned to them (Interview #9).
What training is given to the tutors before the sessions start, and what
ongoing consultation during the sessions?
The teachers are credentialed except in one case. That teacher is a pre-
intem who is working with the University program. There is ongoing coaching in
teams at the school site to help the teachers with the challenges they have with
particular students. There is a lot of opportunity for grade-level planning at the
site.
In the summer there is a formal training session of two weeks. This is part
of the comprehensive reform used at the school. Every Monday is a minimum day
when the students leave early, but the teachers participate in professional
development.
There is use of action research by the teachers in making decision about
materials, curriculum content, and assessments. Before the year starts, teachers
determine and make agreements about the curriculum and strategies they intend to
use. Then based on their students’ success or failure, they adjust the curriculum
and/or the strategies. For instance, in one case they agreed to use a specific group
of assessments for students’ ongoing progress in reading. The three teachers
indicated to the researcher that the group of assessments chosen had not been
helpful; rather they had been cumbersome. They agreed to use assessments for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
pre/post evaluation for the before-school tutoring sessions. They liked the tutoring
assessments better than the ones they are using to show progress in reading for the
regular day. Based on their experience, they had already agreed that next year they
will use that second set of assessments to guide their instruction and evaluate
student progress. The teachers decide what they will teach based on their
experience with this particular group of students and their needs. This is evidence
of ongoing consultation and coaching. The Intervention Coordinator commented
that “this is just because of the size—we are small and people/parents are very
much involved—that gives us an upper- hand, and we are able to focus on what the
child really needs” (Interview #5).
One of the teacher tutors spoke of the ongoing coaching that takes place:
“When I asked them if they could come to watch me-my colleagues, and I asked
them to watch me with my lowest group because I feel a lot of frustration with that
group, and I wanted them to see how I react with them and how they react with me
and if they had a suggestion of what I could do” (Interview #11).
The site coordinator for the America Reads program from another local
university said that the tutors at the site received a three-hour training each quarter
in addition to initial training o f one day that included procedures and safety issues,
as well as common reading strategies. She described this training as follows:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
And it’s just like information on just tools and ideas, ideas for you to give
lessons. Your lesson logs—how to fill those out. Itisju stalo to f
information that we get on how to deal with the kids and what books to pick
out, you know, pre-primers, etc. How to deal with certain problems.
(Interview #9)
She indicated that she meets with the tutors on a weekly basis speaks with
the intervention coordinator weekly to avert any problems that might come up, and
speaks one-to-one with the classroom teachers involved. Each tutor fills out a
lesson log and turns it in to the site coordinator on a weekly basis. On this log is
listed the objective worked on with the students, which students were worked with
and what strategies were used. This is evidently done after, not before the session.
The School B intervention coordinator, when asked how monitoring takes
place with these college tutors, responded: “More of the logs—what kind of
activities they did—what students were involved” (Interview #5). This validates
what the site coordinator of the America Reads program had said during her
interview.
How are tutors recruited and paired with tutees?
The teachers choose their own students:
I chose the students that were struggling with beginning reading
due to a lack of ability to decode. Primarily, that’s what it is. It
seems to me that children develop a sight vocabulary at their own
pace, but all children develop it at some point (Interview #8).
Another teacher tutor described this process:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
Since I already had my particular group of students I had already
assessed them in September. I gave them till about the end of
November to show me any significant progress and from there I
just decided these are my students I need to have before school to
give them extra instruction (Interview #10).
In another interview, a teacher tutor stated:
I separated them into groups, so I have my ELD students coming
together, so they each are actually working two days a week.
And my ELD students work together because I vary the activities
I do with them (Interview #11).
For the America Reads program on campus, the School B intervention
coordinator reported: “They call me—it’s through—[name of colIege]--andthey
assign several different people and tell me what their hours are and they have a
whole program that they implement themselves” (Interview #5).
What is the nature o f the relationship that develops between tutor and
tutee?
The relationship between teacher and student in all cases was very friendly
and comfortable. It was evident that the teachers involved knew their students
well, their needs and strengths, and were positive and encouraging throughout the
lessons. Since these observations took place in mid-year, there was not a sense that
the teachers were developing a relationship with the students; rather, they
obviously knew when to push, when to encourage, when to move on. In one case,
the teacher had worked with these students beforehand, though they were not her
students (Observation #2). There was still an evident rapport, because of her
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
knowledge of the capability of each student. She said of one of her students who
had been retained, but who is still at risk of academic failure:
I want him to hear their [the other students] fluency and how
they’re reading. If he hears other kids mispronouncing words, he
becomes confused and sometimes he does [mispronounce
words], so if I expose him more to the students who are reading
correctly, then he kind of picks up on how they’re doing it. Not
only that. I don’t like to just isolate him. He needs to leam how
to work with the group then (Interview #10).
Another teacher tutor said in the interview that she was planning to go on to
second grade with her students. This is a process called “looping:”
I feel I don’t have to assess them and I get to keep them and it is
really a neat experience, and I’ve done it before. You know, we
just picked right up [after the break]. There was none of that
‘getting to know each other time’ and discomfort and all that
(Interview #8).
There was only one informal observation of the America Reads program in
this school during which the tutor had a group of students outside at the picnic
tables, when they were working on spelling words and reading activities. It was
evident that the tutor knew the students, she was able to teach, motivate, and praise
the students effortlessly. This indicated to the researcher that she had worked with
these students for a period of time (Interview #9).
When interviewed, the site America Reads coordinator indicated the
process for college tutor and tutee to begin to know each other by the following:
“At the very beginning we usually do a week of us just observing. Because we sort
of stay on the side and watch, the kids come up to us to socialize” (Interview #9).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
The principal of School B indicated that they celebrated the volunteers and
tutors in several ways at the end of the school year: “There is usually a recognition
at the end of the term for folks that help out here—it is hosted at--(name of
school)—and--(other school). We do something local as well. We also have an
annual parent volunteer recognition as well” (Interview #6).
What are the principal forces that appear to shape the tutoring session in
School B?
In listening to the teachers, tutoring site coordinator, and intervention
coordinator the researcher heard comments in interviews #5, #8, #11 such as, “we
decided as a grade level [team];” “the regular teacher decides what is appropriate
for the student;” “we chose the materials in the summer; we will change some of
those for next year because we saw the need to have program to help us.”
These comments told me that the teachers are in control of making decisions based
on the needs and progress of their own students.
The basis for deciding who needs tutoring is the result of testing and
observing particular students’ lack of progress. The teachers saw students in their
classes who were not making progress as quickly as the other students, and
determined that intervention was needed. This was not mandated by a district or
site decision, but, rather, was based on the immediate needs of the students. In
other cases, students’ cases were brought to student study team, and an intervention
sought for those children (Interview #2).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
How much growth is there in the program overall?
The teachers reported the following growth in the phonological awareness
of their students (Table 6):
Table 6
Pre/post Testing Results by Teachers in School A
Teacher 1: Basic Phonics Skills Test (pre/post) This was for a period beginning in January through March three
times per week for 1/2 hour each.
Pre Post
Child 1 37/65 41/65
Child 2 33/65 36/65
Child 3 36/65 43/65
Child 4 37/65 45/65
Note: She wrote o f this assessment that most growth was in the ability to decode digraphs and long vowel
words, especially “silent e” words.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
What are the indicators that show that students have made gains in reading
over a period o f time?
In describing that process, the intervention coordinator said:
All the teachers are using the same test as the pre and post in the
classroom—and they’re doing it at different points so they would
do it three times. Now they should be doing their second one -
mid-year and they’ll do one at the end of the year. They did one
in September before they implemented any reading program and
they’re doing one now to see how things are going and then one
at the end of the year—so that when the child goes to the next
year you have more info on them (Interview #5).
The anecdotal markers of progress were the acceleration of progress by one
or more students into the next level up in reading, and making growth in fluency
such that further tutoring would not be needed. One of the teachers said, “I was
talking t o ’s mother and I said ‘Look, is reading this.’ I have. I have
seen progress. Speaking with the parents it does help and make you feel good. It
shows that all the time we are spending is useful” (Interview #10).
In response to a question about how she records student progress in reading,
one teacher responded: “I keep a little journal and I write what it is I’m working on.
And usually what it is—initially, when I started the assessment, when I started the
intervention program.... The students—it’s amazing! The students I’ve been
working with who were struggling, the ones that come into my intervention
program were in, I think, A,B or C and now they’re in F. My lowest children are in
Level F. That is first grade. That’s first grade reading!” (Interview #8).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
Table 6 (continued)
Teacher 2: B asic Phonics Skills A ssessm ent (BPST) and H igh Frequency Words (from CRLP R esults) results
reported for the period o f December. 15 through March 30:
BPST Pre BPST Post HF Pre HFPost
Child 1 : 20/65 44/65 8/20 25/100
Child 2 :18/65 33/65 14/20 43/100
Child 3: 18/65 35/65 13/20 38/100
Teacher 3. Basic Phonics Skills Assessment (BTST) and High Frequency Words
(from CRLP Results) results reported for the period o f January 7 through March 30:
BPST Pre Post HF Pre HF Post
Child 1 : 29/65 42/65 11/20 51/100
Child 2: 32/65 39/65 13/20 52/100
Child 3: 34/65 39/65 11/20 39/100
Some gains are evident in both of these tests by all three teachers with these
specific students.
In the interview with the interventions coordinator (Interview #5) she
answered the question, “Do you see success in the tutoring programs?” as follows:
It’s hard to tell right now because we have so many different
ones. We have so many different ones and we haven’t really
given them enough time... I do feel it’s successful in the way
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
that the kids feel a sense of relief in knowing that they are getting
extra help and they look forward to it (Interview #5).
The principal of School B said of the success of intervention programs in
the school: “I feel like all of our programs are making progress. Successful? We
have kind of a high standard for success and that is getting all of our kids through
college. So we won’t know until we get there, but we certainly have some
evidence of progress like in their classroom portfolios and their initial quick-writes
to their writing now we see growth. Even if [we] look at the standardized tests we
see some considerable gains consistently” (Interview #6).
How does tutoring as practiced in School A differ from tutoring in School
B? As noted below in the summary of tutoring practices observed in School A and
School B, the college tutoring program was set up in a similar way (Table 6). The
two America Reads tutoring programs in Schools A and B observed were very
different. Although the programs reportedly had the same type of training pre
service, ongoing training, and monitoring, the program in School A had the most
consistent structure in lesson design. It was reported that the School B America
Reads program was more like having “instructional assistants,” with veiy little
consistent, one-on-one interaction in the same tutoring dyads (Interview #5).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
Table 7 Summary o f Tutoring Practices Observed in School A and School B
Length o f time 60 hours - 4 1 hr. 2 times per 4 days per week 1 - 2 days per
working with the hours daily for 3 week for 12 for l A hour week - 45 min.
student(s) weeks weeks each session
Purpose Improve English Intensive reading English Language Reading or math
literacy-m ove to or math tutoring Development and
grade level reading
acceleration
Who assesses? Teacher - pre/ Tutor Regular class Regular class
post room teacher room teacher
Who refers the Regular class Regular class Regular class Regular class
student? room teacher room teacher room teacher room teacher
Who designs the Bilingual Tutors and Regular Regular
content? coordinator and classroom teacher classroom teacher classroom teacher
teacher
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
In comparing teacher tutoring in the two schools, (School A using
intercession and intercession teachers, and School B using the regular classroom
teachers), there were significant differences. In School B, the content and pre/post
assessments were completed by the regular classroom teacher for her own students;
whereas, in School A, the intercession teachers used assessments and content
provided for them by the bilingual coordinator. In addition, although the regular
classroom teachers in both schools refer their own students for tutoring, only in
School B did the regular classroom teachers also provide the tutoring themselves.
When asked, a teacher tutor at School B responded, “I think every teacher
here, if she sees if the students need it, most definitely [intervenes with her
students]. Each knows there are other teachers doing it. I am not only thinking
about now, but how they will be prepared for second grade. And I don’t want to
send them to second grade if they cannot read. I don’t want them to have a
frustration level that will keep them back” (Interview #10).
In contrast, in School A the teacher tutors reported that the materials were
chosen for them, although they could use whatever supplementary materials they
wished for their intercession classes. Also, the size of classes was very different in
School A. In both the intercession and the regular on-track primary grade session
there were 20 students in the class, even for intervention purposes. The only
exception was the after-school program in which there were ten students to a
teacher. In School B there were six students at the most for intervention, usually
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
fewer. The teachers themselves chose the students and the materials to teach the
program. One teacher tutor said of the decision:
I think the intervention program was agreed upon by all staff
members in certain grade level groupings. We’ll say—it was a
necessity. I mean, for me to hire somebody else to try and tutor a
child that I work with all day—that doesn’t really work. I mean,
I know what’s going on. I know what book we’ve read that day.
I know exactly what that child’s struggled with or struggled on
that particular day... I can meet their needs much better
(Interview # 8)
Does the primary reading tutoring session look different in different
sectors? How is the structure different?
The structure of the sessions was very different. In School A the teacher
tutoring was accomplished in a classroom of 15-20 students (much like the size of a
regular classroom of students). The intercession teachers reported that it was
difficult to meet the needs of each student in such a setting (Interviews 16 and 17).
In School B, in contrast, the teacher to student ratio in the groups was one teacher
to one student to one teacher to six students. Two of the teachers were pleased
with the progress each of their tutees had made in the time they had been tutoring
them. In fact, several students with one teacher tutor were now able to keep up
with the next higher small group in reading (Interview #11).
In the interview with the intervention coordinator of School B, she stated
that the success of the tutoring program was due to the fact that it was a small
charter school:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
I think it’s successful for a number of reasons: and one of them
would probably be related because we are a charter school—
because we are smaller. Because everybody knows each student
by name—we’re not so large that people get lost in the shuffle.
The other part it goes along with the Accelerated model—the
teachers are expected to implement powerful learning strategies
within their classrooms—there’s a lot more hands-on that I see
here and more group activities than I’ve seen in other schools. I
also think that the teachers who stay here are because they want
to and are more dedicated - they want to go an extra mile
because more is required from them. They have longer hours—
they have to participate more with different groups—they have to
participate with parents. I think it is both—charter school brings
us more ability to be smaller—smaller class-size. The other part
is because we have the funding—we’re able to provide the
stipend or pay teachers hourly. And recognize that we want to be
successful (Interview #5).
Interestingly, both the bilingual coordinator of School A and the principal
of the public School B indicated that the tutoring session, and the structure of the
school itself, had something to do with its governance structure. The bilingual
coordinator indicated that charter schools, private schools and even magnet schools
have parent participation, something that is difficult in the public school (Interview
#7). The principal said that there is nothing wrong with the public school, but the
private or charter school has the advantage of drawing on other resources
(Interview #15).
Do the principal forces that are shaping tutoring in School A shape tutoring
in School B? What are they? Why?
It seems that the principal forces shaping tutoring in School A are
dependent both on the needs determined by the leadership team, and on the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
requirements of the tutoring program, whether this is intercession or the America
Reads program. In School B the principal forces are the students themselves, and
the educators’ commitment to the high level of achievement expected of the
students.
In the interviews of the teacher tutors, the teachers in School B reported that
they were constantly changing and adapting the content of the lesson as they saw
their students needed it. For instance, if specific vocabulary was not known, the
teacher had an obligation to stop and explain and practice the new vocabulary, just
as one would do in the regular classroom.
In School A, when asked this question, one of the teacher tutors responded
that it was necessary to constantly address each student’s needs, and thus adapt the
content of the lesson (Interview #17). Another teacher tutor at the same school
responded that the lesson structure was set, and since there were so many levels in
the group, it was hard to meet students’ needs (Interview #16). Clearly the contrast
between the two teachers’ responses indicates a desire to do “what is right” for the
students, but a lack of ability to accomplish it due to size and programmatic
constraints.
In School B, the co-administrator responded that what successes he saw
were partially due to the Comprehensive Reform model, and partially due to the
site’s charter school status:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
There are certain things that you could use the [Accelerated]
model to work with [in a public school], but there are others that
are pretty much non-negotiable and part of the motivation for us
to start an independent charter school was to get away from the
budgetary and program constraints (Interview #6).
When the principal of School A was asked the same question about whether
being in a public school would have more opportunities to help students than a
private and/or charter school, she replied:
I would hope we’d have more [opportunities in a private school].
I would hope we could have as many if not more. I don’t see
what would make it advantageous in a public school. I think
there are good things in a public school but I would hope that a
private school would have the opportunity to do more. More
talented public to draw resources from. Depends on the type of
private school it is (Interview #15).
This was a surprising answer from a public school principal.
Summary o f Findings
School A and School B are both located in the same general section of the
large urban city. This area can be described as consisting of older single-family
dwellings. One school is situated in the industrial area and the other in the
commercial area. Their student demographic profile is almost exactly the same.
They are both described as very high poverty, high minority, and as having a large
English Learner population as well. However, School A is a large public school
with approximately 1800 students, whereas School B is a very small charter school
with 350 students.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
There are several intervention/tutoring settings in both schools. Trained
college tutors and teachers do the tutoring in both settings. There is a variety of
materials used in each type of setting-in School A it is chosen by the Coordinator
or Principal, or district office. In School B the materials are chosen by the teachers
or the teachers and tutors. There were similarities between the tutoring programs
used by the America Reads tutors in both schools, although each represented a
program coordinated from a different University. There were, however, lew
similarities between School A and School B in the actual tutoring performed by the
teachers.
The model of tutoring used as a foundation for the coding categories for the
researcher during the observations at the two sites was a compilation of “best
practices” in tutoring models across the literature. There were more elements of
that model observed in the tutoring in School B than in that of School A. In School
A intercession groupings were similar if not the same size as the classes in the
regular classroom for primary grades (20 students). Although this is called
intervention, it does not match the model for the teacher: student ratio of tutoring
groups, which is 1:1 to 1:6.
Content of the intercession in School A was different from that of a regular
classroom. “Different” may be characterized as accelerated, or in the literature as
dummied-down. The content of the tutoring was standards-based but not
accelerated. The content of the teacher tutoring in School B was the same as in a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
regular classroom, but by virtue of consisting of small-group extra-practice, the
students were being accelerated.
In School B, teacher-directed tutoring consisted of very beginning reading
strategies including phonemic awareness, and phonics instruction for same-grade
students. In School A, the teacher-directed intercession was only for older students
struggling with decoding and comprehension.
It appears that the answers to the questions, “Who sets the guidelines?”
“Who chooses the students?” “Who chooses the tutors?” “Who chooses the
curriculum, and the assessments?” are different in the two schools. In the public
school, School A, the answers were “the Coordinator, the leadership team, the
district.” In the charter school, School B, the answers were “the teachers.” This
indicates a possible link to governance.
In both schools, the teachers and other educators were dedicated
professionals. They indicated a passion for students and their learning success.
There was a variation in the amount of experience each teacher had. Some were
first year teachers, and in both schools, some teachers had taught for at least 8
years. Their ability to adjust the lesson to meet individual student needs was
partially attributable to their years of experience and degrees attained. The teachers
in School A were more experienced than in School B, but their opportunity to tutor
in small groups was not observed. There was much more differentiation in the
School B sessions, even in the groups of 1:6.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
In the America Reads programs in both schools, there was a lack of
expertise on the part of the tutors, although each had indicated having been a tutor
for a few years in the program, as well as having had quite a bit of training. They
did exhibit a desire to motivate students to try harder, and to spend time reading
and learning with their tutees. The tutoring time might have been better spent,
however, if the tutors had received more beginning reading training because they
had difficulty knowing how to adjust the lesson to meet their students’ needs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
The purpose of this comparative case study was to examine and describe the
tutoring setting and its structure as they appear in two sectors, one public school
and one charter school. In this chapter I will discuss the findings by revisiting the
initial research questions. Then I will look at the research findings in light of the
literature cited in Chapter Two. I will also discuss the possible influence of
governance on the findings. I will consider the implications and recommendations
for further research.
Summary ofFindings
Research Questions Revisited
1. How is tutoring undertaken in School A? What is the nature of the
practice? (Including the structure of the session, the common elements in reading
tutoring sessions, the training and ongoing consultation, recruitment of tutors,
pairing of tutors with tutees, and the nature of the relationship that develops
between tutor and tutee)
There were several different types of tutoring available in the public school,
School A. The two types observed consisted of intercession interventions grouped
by language level. There was an intercession to meet the needs of English Learners
at the Beginning and Early Intermediate levels, one for Intermediate, Early
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
Advanced and Advanced, and one for all others. These were for Grades 2 through
5. The content of these sessions depended on the individual needs of the students
in reading, writing, and oral language. There were specific assessments done both
pre- and post- to assess growth during the intercession. The size of the intercession
groups ranged from 15 to 20 students, not very different from the regular primary
classrooms. Since the intercessions were 3 weeks long, 60 hours in all, it is
difficult to judge if the needs of the students were met in such a large group.
Monitoring was done by the bilingual coordinator, whose role was to assist in
coaching and aiding the teachers in the selection of materials, setting up of the
program, contacting the parents, and preparing the assessments. These students
were at an intensive level, and were by definition selected from the group more
than a year below grade level with intense needs.
The second type of tutoring observed was an America Reads tutoring
program. There was a structure to the session, and the dyads observed had been
working together for more than four months. There had been a significant amount
of training for the tutors, and there was ongoing problem-solving meetings and
monitoring during the tutoring sessions. However, the tutors observed and
interviewed were not aspiring teachers and did not appear to have had training
commensurate with the students’ needs. It was understood that these students were
identified as needing strategic help (just below grade level) appropriate for this type
of tutoring; however, the tutees observed had more intensive needs that the tutors
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
were able to address. This was evidenced in the observations of all cases of the
dyads when the tutors allowed the students to continue to make the same decoding
errors, and although they corrected the students, they did not use strategic teaching
to help the students self-correct.
Of the two programs, the teacher-led intercessions, although large in size,
were closer to what students need, especially those identified as needing intensive
instruction.
The university tutoring program had a role in the school for motivating
students to continue to practice reading, but did not provide intervention for the
learning for skills and strategies needed for fluent reading.
2. What are the indicators that show that students have made gains in
reading over a year’ s time?
The pre- and post-testing in both types of tutoring sessions showed some
gains. Since the three groupings were so different, it is impossible to compare
reading gains except by looking at the individual student. In the case of the
America Reads program, however, there are too many factors that lessen the value
of any possible evaluation of growth due to the tutoring program itself. For
instance, the growth in reading could be due to the regular classroom instruction, or
work at home with a parent. One way to evaluate each student’s growth would be a
questionnaire in which the students rate themselves on the learning of specific
strategies that were only used in tutoring. Another way to evaluate each student’s
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
growth would be to look for an increase in attendance or an increased motivation to
read.
3. How much growth is there in this program overall?
This was not evaluated by the teachers in a systematic manner. The way the
case study was designed allowed for anecdotal statements by the tutors or the
teachers involved. The bilingual coordinator commented she was beginning to see
success in the tutoring as measured by the classroom teachers who said that what
their students learned was closing the gap (Interview #7).
When asked during her interview if she thought the tutoring/intervention
programs were working, the principal replied that teachers in the upper grades had
been asked how their struggling students were doing after intercession, and had
replied that the students were doing better than when they ended their regular term
(Interview #15).
4. How is tutoring undertaken in School B? What is the nature o f the
practice? (Including the structure o f the session, the common elements in reading
tutoring sessions, the training and ongoing consultation, recruitment o f tutors,
pairing o f tutors with tutees, and the nature o f the relationship that develops
between tutor and tutee)
In School B there were also many types of tutoring and intervention. The
two types observed were teacher-tutoring where the regular classroom teacher did
the tutoring of her own children, and a homework club for approximately 15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
students in grades 2 through 4 overseen by a primary teacher. In addition there was
an informal observation of an America Reads tutoring session with 6 students.
For the teacher-tutoring, there were pre- and post-tests given to students,
and the students were tutored 2 to 4 times per week before school for half hour.
There was no specific training given; however, there was collaboration between
teachers regarding problem-solving, and, in addition, there was an opportunity for
coaching during the regular day in triads (Interview #6).
According to interviews of the site coordinator of the tutoring program and
of the intervention coordinator at School B, there was training given to the tutors at
the university before beginning tutoring at the site, ongoing monitoring of logs, and
weekly meetings with the site coordinator to problem-solve as needed. The site
coordinator characterized the tutoring done at this school as more like assisting in
the classroom with individuals or small groups. The content was dependent on the
classroom teacher; very little content was determined by the tutor. Of the two
programs, the teacher-tutoring exhibited more fidelity to a specific structure, having
many common elements as in the model constructed for the purpose of observation.
5. What are the indicators that show that students have made gains in
reading over a year’ s time?
The study design allowed for anecdotal evidence, and for the reporting of
pre- and post-test scores only. In the teacher-tutoring, the students made some
progress in the learning of phonics structures to aid in decoding, and some students
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
improved their reading vocabulary. It is impossible to separate the potential growth
from the regular classroom instruction from that which was accomplished during
the tutoring session, since the same content and materials were used for both.
However, anecdotally, all the teachers observed expressed great pleasure in the
progress that their tutees had made with the extra help. All three stated that their
tutoring group had been the lowest group in the classroom, and now was at least as
capable as the next group higher on testing.
The homework session observed seemed to be focused on the
accomplishment of work assigned by the regular classroom teacher. There was no
indication that any growth was expected. The America Reads program was
unstructured, and the tutors used the content given to them by the regular classroom
teacher. It was impossible to discern how growth could be measured.
6. How much growth is there in the program overall?
For this school, School B, the intervention coordinator indicated that she
was not certain that there was measurable growth due to any particular tutoring
program. However, she indicated that there would be program evaluation. The co-
administrator said that his measure of growth was whether the students completed
college, and for that he had to wait for the results.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
7 . How does tutoring as practiced in School A differ from tutoring in
School B?
It is more instructive to look at the differences in teacher-tutoring versus
college tutoring programs in the two schools. Teacher-tutoring is significantly
different from the university tutoring programs in both schools. The self-reported
purpose of the university tutoring programs is to help students just below grade
level. This is accomplished in terms of extra practice; however, the level of
commitment to the program and the training of the tutors are factors in its success
or lack of success for the individual student. None of the tutors observed in the two
schools was aspiring teachers, and they exhibited a detachment with regard to the
students’ learning.
It appears that giving more time to students using research-based strategies
such as phonemic awareness, explicit phonics instruction, scaffolding by use of
sound boxes, letter/sound cards, et cetera, is more effective than just practice in
reading aloud or being read-to.
8. Do the principal forces that are shaping tutoring in School A shape
tutoring in School B? What are they? Why?
The principal forces in the two schools are the level of commitment of the
teachers to their students as exhibited by the passion in their responses to my
questions and the decision-making power by the teachers to the structure, content,
and students chosen, when I asked “who decides?”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
In both schools, the teachers’ passion was particularly evident in their
answers to the question: “What works for you when working with struggling
readers?” However, one of the teachers in the public school was frustrated with the
numbers of students with which she was asked to work, and the variation in their
needs, thus her inability to see results. I would assert that the teachers who are
passionate about their work are more likely to obtain results in a tutoring session
than teachers who do not have such a commitment.
In School B the teachers were able to decide which students to tutor, what
content and materials to use, and how to assess progress. They collaborated to
make those decisions, and were visibly empowered by it.
In the America Reads program in School A, it was disappointing to see the
lack of a match of content with student needs, and the lack of expertise to aid
students in their acquisition of skills. In School B the America Reads program was
not consistently structured.
Both schools have leaders who are persistent and focused on leading a
school in which all children can and do learn by any means possible. Both leaders
believe in and demonstrate high expectations for students, teachers and other staff.
This is evident in the growth in standardized test scores over the last few years.
The current Academic Performance Index for School A is in the mid-600’s; and for
the charter school it is in the mid-700’s. These are double the API scores from
schools in the surrounding area.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
Literature Connections
In the model constructed from the literature, the design includes a lesson
structure, evidence of pre/post-testing at least 45 minutes twice per week, content
matched to student needs, evidence of motivation, and evidence of monitoring or
consultation (Pinnell, 2000; Wasik and Slavin, 1993; Feldman, 2000, Vygotsky,
1978, Tharp and Gallimore, 1988; Morris, 1999; Invemizzi, 2001). Morris (1998)
stated that the teacher-tutoring model would support “the need for providing at-risk
first-graders with intensive tutorial help outside the classroom” (Morris, p. x). The
teacher-tutoring model reflects best the model construct used in this study. The
America Reads tutoring does not follow the model in “content matched to student
needs,” the most important of the elements.
Belief systems such as the philosophical underpinnings of the Accelerated
model promote success in moving students to mastery in reading at grade level and
beyond. As is described by Kushman and Chenoweth (1996) in restating Levin’s
construct: It is “reforming the occupational conditions of teaching, by creating a
school organization in which teachers assume greater responsibility for identifying
and solving the school’s problem and for cultivating their own teaching” (p. 86).
This was evident in the interviews and observations of the teacher-tutoring in
School B.
Later in the chapter, Kushman and Chenoweth (1996) said that the
Accelerated Schools Project “was seen as a way to help students who may get lost
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
along the way.... Teachers also saw the potential for improved practices that
would increase student engagement, esteem and achievement” (p. 92).
Levin and McCarthy (1994) indicate that the guiding principle of
addressing the needs of at-risk students for the Accelerated Schools Project is the
following: “Acceleration necessitates the radical transformation of the school to
advance the academic development of children in at-risk situations, not slow it
down.... At-riskness was a situation that occurred when there was a mismatch
between the experiences and strengths children brought with them to school and
those expected by the school” (p. 237). This attitude toward students falling behind
was exhibited by the co-administrator in Interview #6: “... I believe that all kids
can learn. I believe that all kids can learn at very high levels and in order to
facilitate that best it may require some additional time of [the teachers] and
[that]they make the professional discretion to remain [at the school]”(Interview #6).
There is evidence that School B allows more freedom than School A does
for its teachers in constructing a tutoring program that meets the needs of students.
Debra Viadero said of the structure of Accelerated Schools: “Accelerated Schools
offer more flexibility. The focus is... .on helping schools set their own priorities
and form new governance structures to help educators meet those ends” (Viadero,
1999).
Morris said that “The interpersonal bond that develops between volunteer
and child is a major factor in a tutoring program’s success” (Morris, 1999, p.2).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
The positive and motivating interaction that was observed in the teacher-tutoring
sessions in this comparative case study is evidence of this fact.
Conclusions
The following were conclusions were drawn based on the observations and
interviews in the two schools:
1. There is no evidence that the America Reads tutoring program in either
school has been instrumental in building successful readers.
2. There are too many variables in either school’s tutoring program to make
assumptions about program growth. The intercession was the only program that
pre/post-testing could show any growth in since the students were receiving no
other instruction during that time.
3. There is not enough evidence to evaluate motivation in any of the tutoring
programs.
4. A comparison of the two teacher-led tutoring programs indicates that the
teachers who tutor their own students are more persistent in their methods better
results than teachers who tutor students they don’t know.
5. The goal for all these tutoring programs is to accelerate students to grade
level.
6. When teachers work on beginning reading they are intervening early (in
grade one), whereas when teachers work only on reading fluency and
comprehension, they are remediating.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
7 . It was very obvious from the observations and interviews that teachers who
tutor have much more training than America Reads tutors.
Discussion
Research Design
The design of using interviews to triangulate the data collected from the
observations in this comparative case study was very helpful. The researcher was
able to answer many of the research questions. It was, however, impossible to
answer in a comparable way those questions concerning either program growth or
student reading progress. They could only able to be answered descriptively in the
interviews, but could not be evaluated appropriately. The model created from the
literature review was also very helpful in determining what the structure of the
sessions included and what it did not.
Summary o f Governance Influence
The influence of governance came from the answers to the two questions,
“Who decides what students to tutor?” and “Who decides the structure, the content,
and the materials?” In School A, the public school, the leadership together with
district and program requirements decide which students, what content, and how
the intercession will be structured. In School B, the charter school, the teachers
themselves make the decisions on who to tutor in their own classrooms, what
materials to use, and how to measure growth. This connects to the Comprehensive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
Reform Model—Accelerated Schools model—that is used at that site, and is also
due to the charter school structure in this school.
Interpretive Remarks
Several ideas emerged from the data. When asked, “What works for you in
working with struggling readers?” one teacher responded, “Keep trying! Just keep
trying, sound out the word, and don’t give up.” She motivates her struggling
readers, by quietly but consistently encouraging them, giving them clues, showing
them strategies (Interview #17). A teacher in School B, when asked the same
question replied, “Where it’s quiet in the room, no distractions, you know, when
they’re [the students] focused. There’s nothing that’s going to keep them from
concentrating on what’s going on” (Interview #8). So, it is motivation of a sort; it
is also the teacher having the environment controlled so that the student can focus.
Another idea that emerged from the data was that teachers who are
passionate about their students and their progress have a clear idea about what to
do, and what works for them. For example, in interview #17 the teacher responded
to my question about “what works?” with “they need to express themselves and
read aloud. When they read they should be praised for their attempts. If they have
working parents, they do not have much time, and there are language barriers;
maybe they come from a low income family. Everyone is working. When it
comes to the environment. . . my job is to facilitate the language process. I
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
scaffold, go back and forth, give feedback. Feedback... every time... It is the
key” (Interview #17).
Implications
One of the implications of this study is that it may be possible to use the
model created from the literature to observe other tutoring programs. Also, unless
there is intensive training for tutors, only teachers are able to tutor effectively, and
especially with their own students.
Another implication is that it is possible to make some connections between
the elements in the tutoring sessions and the governance model. This was
hypothesized but the link was clearer than anticipated.
Recommendations fo r Future Research
The results of this study led to many ideas for further research. One would
be to try out the model used to observe tutoring sessions in yet another school, or
another program to see if it is still appropriate.
Another would be in the area of motivation. Do students like reading better
after they have participated in a reading tutoring program? There was no
conclusive evidence in this area. Further study on motivation, including self-
efficacy and goal-orientation, would be needed in order to conclude that it is a
major factor in tutoring success. Another idea for investigation would be to look at
the vocabulary used in tutoring sessions as a possible indication of the construct of
“intervention” versus “remediation.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
Finally, the study provided a clue to a possible link between tutoring as an
effective instructional practice and the alternative governance structure of the
school. Could this be found in another setting? The over-arching finding in this
study is that the expertise of the teacher, and the teachers’ knowledge of their
students’ strengths and needs are powerful factors in accelerating the progress of
struggling readers towards mastery if intervening immediately. When designing
tutoring programs it is optimal to use teachers rather than less trained college
students to deliver the skill-teaching in order to intervene in the most efficient and
timely manner.
These findings are supported by the current literature and are essential in
considering policy in the public as well as the charter school. Our students do not
have time to wait for policy to change, nor to waste their energy on repetitive
activities in which their learning is not furthered. By targeting valuable teacher
resources in activities that relate to student’s specific needs, at-risk students will
master reading on time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
REFERENCES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
REFERENCES
Accelerated Schools (2002). Retrieved on September 28,2002 from
http://www.sp.uconn.edu/wwwasp/general description.htm
Adams, M.J. (1991). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Allington, R.L., & Johnston, P. (1989). Coordination, collaboration, and
consistency: The redesign of compensatory and special education
interventions. In R.E. Slavin, N. Karweit, & N. Madden (Eds.), Effective
programs fo r students at risk (pp. 320-354). Needham Heights., MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1995). Flunking: Throwing good money
after bad. In R. L. Allington, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), No Quick Fix (pp.
45 - 60), New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Alt, M.N. & Peter, K.(2002) Private schools: A brief portrait. In U.S. Department
of Education, NCES (2002). The Condition o f Education 2002 (NCES
2002-025). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved
June 20,2002, from NCES Access: http://nces.ed.gov
Anders, P.L., Hoffman, J. V. & Duffy, G.G. (2002). Teaching teachers to teach
reading: Paradigm shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In M.L.
Kamil, P.B. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook o f Reading Research,
Vol. Ill (pp.719 - 742). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, I.A.G. (1985). Becoming
a nation o f readers: The report o f the commission on reading. Washington,
DC: The National Institute of Education.
Belfield, C., & Levin, H.M. (2002). Does the Supreme Court ruling on vouchers in
Cleveland really matters for education reform? Teachers College Record,
Vol. 10952. Retrieved July 10,2002, from http://www.tcrecord.org
Bell, K.M. (2001). Partnerships in literacy tutoring: Using community volunteers
To provide one-to-one tutoring to struggling readers in third, fourth, and
fifth grade. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. Dissertation Abstracts International, (UMI No. 3025997).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
Bordo, G.M. (1999). Charter school law. Retrieved September 6 ,2002, from
Freeman, Freeman and Smiley, from http://www.Charterschoollaw.com
California student trends (2000). Ed-Data Partnership.
http://www.ed-data.kl2.ca.us
Camoy, M. (2001). Do school vouchers improve student performance? Retrieved
on September 6,2002, from The American Prospect, Vol. 12,
http://www.prospect.Org/print/V12/l/camov-m.html
Chall, J.S. (1996). Learning to read: The great debate. Orlando, FL: McGraw-
Hill.
Chubb, J. (2002). Parents, students and teachers give Edison Schools high marks.
Retrieved on July 31,2002, from Edison Schools PR Newsline:
http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireve/ir site.zhtml?ticker=EDSN+script=400
Chubb, J., andMoe, T.M. (1990). Politics, markets & American's schools.
Washington, D C.: The Brookings Institution.
Clay, M. (1993). Reading Recovery :Aa guidebook fo r teachers in training.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,
Coats, L.T. & Taylor-Clark, P. (2001). Finding a niche for reading: A key to
improving underachievers’ reading skills. Reading Improvement, 38:2.
Committee on the prevention of reading difficulties in young children
(1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC:
NationalAcademy Press.
Cook, J.A. (2001). Every moment counts: Pairing struggling young readers with
minimally trained tutors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State
University, Arizona. Dissertations Abstracts International, (UMI No.
3023888).
Cookson, P.W. (1994). School choice: The struggle fo r the soul o f American
education. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cookson, P.W., & Berger, K. (2002). Expect miracles: Charter schools and the
politics o f hope and despair. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
Crawford, J. (1989). Instructional activities related to achievement gain in Chapter
1 classes. In R.E. Slavin, N.L. Karweit, & N.A. Madden (Eds.), Effective
programs fo r students at risk, pp.264-290. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). What matters most: Teaching and America’ s future.
Kutztown, PA: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Darling-Hammond, L., Meno, L.R., & Aldaco, M. (2002). Professional
Development Task Force: Learning.... Teaching.... Leading.... Sacramento,
CA: California Department of Education.
Davies, B., & Hentschke, G. (2002). Changing resource and organizational
patterns: The challenge of resourcing education in the 21st century. Journal
o f Educational Changed, 135-159.
Digest of Education Statistics (2001). Retrieved on July 1,2002, from the National
Center for Education Statistics:
http://www.nces.ed. gov/pubs2001/digest/introduction.html
Dyer, P.C., & Binkney, R. (1995). Estimating cost-effectiveness and educational
outcomes: Retention, remediation, special education, and early intervention.
In R.L. Allington, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), No Quick Fix (pp. 61-77). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dykema, R. (2002). How schools fa il kids and how they could be better. Retrieved
on September 9,2002 from NEXUS:
http://www.nexusnub. com/articles/2002/mav2002/interview2 .html
Ed-Data Partnership (2000). California student trends. Retrieved on July 1,2002,
from http://www.ed-data.kl2.ca.us
Edison Schools (2002). Edison Schools concludes headquarters reengineering.
Retrieved on September 5,2002 from
http://www.edisonschools.com/home/home.cfm.
Edwards, P. A., & Danridge, J.C. (2002). Exploring urban teachers' and
administrators’ conceptions o f at-riskness. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the
Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
Elmore, R. (1990). Restructuring schools: The next generation o f educational
reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Feldman, K. (2001). Ensuring all students learn to read well, p. 111. Sonoma, CA:
Sonoma County Office.
Fitzgerald, J. (2001). America Reads: A close-up look at what two tutors learned
about teaching reading. In L.M. Morrow, & D.G. Woo (Eds.), Tutoring
programs fo r struggling readers (pp. 140-158). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Friedman, M. (1955). The role o f government in education. Retrieved on June 18,
2002, from http://schoolchoices.org
Gaffney, J.S. and Anderson, R.C. (2000). Trends in reading research in the United
States: Changing Intellectual currents Over three Decades. In
M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook o f
Reading Research, Vol. Ill,pp. 53-76, Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., & Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational Research. White Plains,
NY: Longman.
Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In
M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook o f
Reading Research, Vol. Ill, pp. 403-453, Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Haycock, K., Craig, J., Huang, S. (2001). New frontiers fo r a new century.
Retrieved on July 2,2002, from http://www.edtrust.org
Hendrie, C. (1998). New magnet school policies sidestep an old issue: Race.
Retrieved on September 12, 1999 from Education Week, 17:39,10-12,
http://www.edweek. org/ew/vol-17/39magnet.h 17
Hentschke, G.C. (1997). Beyond competing school reforms: A redefinition of
public in public schooling. Education and Urban Society, 29:4,474-489.
Invemizzi, M. (2001). Book Buddies: A community volunteer tutorial program. In
L.M. Morrow, & D.G. Woo (Eds.), Tutoring programs fo r struggling
readers (pp. 193-215). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
Johnson, G.M. (1997). Resilient at-risk students in the inner-city. Journal o f
Education, 32,35-51.
Johnson, S. (2000, June 7). Teaching next generation. Education IFee&.NAEP:
State Profile: CA (2001). http://nces.ed. gov/nationsreportcard/states/.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54
children from first through fourth grades. Journal o f Educational
Psychology, 80,437-447.
Krovetz, M.L. (1999). Fostering resiliency. Educational Leadership, 2 8 :5 ,28-31.
Kushman, J.W. and T.G. Chenoweth (1996). Building shared meaning and
commitment during the courtship phase. In C. Finnan, E.P. St. John, J.
McCarthy, S.P. Slovacek (Eds.), Accelerated schools in action, pp. 82-101.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Levin, H.M. (1990). The theory of choice applied to education. In W.H. Clune, &
J.F. Witee (Eds.), Choice and control in American education, vol. 1, (pp.
247-284). London, England: The Falmer Press.
Levin, H.M. (2001). Forum: For-profit schools. Retrieved on September 6,2002,
from Education Next Forum:
http://www.educationnext.org/unabridged/2001sp/levin.html
Levin, H.M. and J. McCarthy (1994). Full inclusion in Accelerated Schools. In C.
Finnan, E.P.St. John, J. McCarthy, S.P. Slovacek (Eds.), Accelerated
Schools in Action, pp. 235-252. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Lieberman, M. (1993). Public education: An autopsy. Cambridge, MA: First
Harvard University Press.
Lyons, C.A.,Beaver, J. (1995). Reducing retention and learning disability
placement through Reading Recovery: An educationally sound, cost-
effective choice. In R.L. Allington, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), No Quick Fix
(pp. 116-136). New York: NY: Teachers College Press.
MacGillivray, L. & Rueda, R. (2001). Listening to inner city teachers of English
language learners: Differentiating literacy instruction. Retrieved on
September 23,2002, from
http://www. ciera. org/ciera/publications/archive/2001-05/0105McRued. htm
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
Magnet Schools Study (1996). Educational innovation in multiracial contexts: The
growth o f magnet schools in American education. Retrieved on September
9,2002, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/esed/magnet2.html
Manno, B.V. (2001). The case against charter schools. Retrieved on September 6,
2002, from the American Association of School Administrators:
http://www. aasa. org
McArthur, E. (1996). Use of school choice. Retrieved on October 24,1999, from
the National Institute of Health: http://nces.ed, gov/pubs/95742r.html
Meier, D. (1997). Learning in small moments: Life in the urban classroom. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Morris, D. (1999). The Howard Street tutoring manual. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Morrow, L.M., & Woo, D.G. (2001). Tutoring programs fo r struggling readers.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
NAEP-State Profile: CA (2001). Retrieved on July 2,2002, from the National
Center for Education Statistics: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/
National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) (1984). A Nation at
Risk. Westford, MA: USA Research, Inc.
Noguera, Pedro (1999, April). Confronting the challenge of diversity in education.
Motion Magazine. (April, 1999).
O’Connor, M.C. (1997). Can we trace the “efficacy of Social Constructivism?”
Review o f Research in Education. 23, 25-71.
Odden, A.R. (1995). Educational leadership for America’ s schools. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the
entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA:
Addison -Wesley.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
Phillips, G. (2001), The release o f the national assessment o f educational progress
(NAEP) the nation's report card mathematics 2000. Retrieved on
September 20,2002, from: http://nces. usde. gov
Pinnell, G.S. (1995). Reading Recovery: A review o f research. Report no. 23.
Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Pinnell, G.S. (2000). Reading Recovery: An analysis o f a research-based reading
Intervention. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Powers, J.M., & Cookson, P.W. (1999). The politics of school choice research.
Educational Policy, 13:1,104-122.
Plant, D.N., Arsen, D., Sykes, G. (2000). Charter schools and private profits.
School Administrator. Retrieved on September 6,2002, from
http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2000.
Prospects: The congressional mandated study o f educational growth and
opportunity (1995). Retrieved on September 20,2002, from the U.S.
Department of Education: http://www.ed. gov/pubs/Prospects/
Richards, J. (2001). California Report Card 2001. Retrieved on August 20,2002,
from: http://www.childrennow.org
Rosenau, P. Y. (2000). Public Private Policy Partnerships. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Sarason, S.B. (2002). Questions you should ask about charter schools and
vouchers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sautter, R.C. (1995). Charter schools: A new breed o f public schools. Retrieved on
September 6,2002, from the North Central Regional Laboratory:
http://www. ncrel. org
Slavin, R E. (1989). Students at risk of school failure: The problem and its
dimensions. In R.E. Slavin, N.L. Karweit, & N.A. Madden, Effective
programs fo r students at risk (pp. 3-20). Needham Heights., MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
Slavin, R.E., & Madden, N.A. (1989). Effective classroom programs for students
at risk. In R.E. Slavin, N.L. Karweit, & N.A. Madden, Effective programs
fo r students at risk (pp. 23-51). Needham Hts., MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Smith, K.B.,Meier, K.J. (2001). The case against school choice. Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe. Summary of EdSource Standards Survey Findings (2001).
Retrieved on May 3,2002, from: http://www.edsource.org
Taylor, B., Pearson, D., Clark, K.,Walpole, S. (1999). Beating all odds in teaching
All children to read. Ann Arbor, MkUniversity of Michigan: Center for the
Improvement of Reading Achievement.
Taylor, B.M., Hanson, B.E., Justice-Swanson, K., & Watts, S. (1997). Helping
struggling readers: Linking small-group intervention with cross-age
tutoring. The Reading Teacher, 51: 3.
Taylor, B.M., Pressley, M., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Research supported
characteristics of teachers and schools that promote reading achievement.
In B.M. Taylor, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Teaching reading (pp. 3-72).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning,
and schooling in social context. New York: NY: Cambridge Press.
Tucker, M.S., & Codding, J.B. (1998). Standards fo r our schools: How to set
them, measure them, and reach them. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (2001). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Viadero, D. (1999). As Levin steps back, Accelerated Schools takes stock.
Retrieved on February 19,2003, from:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ew printstorv.cfm?slug=: 07accel.h 19
Vygotsky, Lev 1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Waldrip, D. (2000). Schools, districts, affiliations. Retrieved on September 9,
2002, from Magnet Schools of America: http://magnet.edu/schools.html
Walsh, M. (1999). Spate of legal rulings on vouchers, choice yields little
consensus. Education Week, 18:14.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
Wasik, B. (1998). Using volunteers as reading tutors: Guidelines for successful
practices. The Reading Teacher, 51: 7.
Wasik, B.A. & Slavin, R.E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-
one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28.
Weisbrod, B.A. (1975). Toward a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sector in a
three-sector economy. In E. Phelps (Ed.), Altruism, morality and economic
theory (pp. 171-195). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampston, J. (1998). Literacy instruction
in nine first-grade classrooms: teacher characteristics and student
achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 99:2.
Wheatley, M.J. & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1996). Self-organization: The irresistible
future of organizing. Strategy and Leadership (July/August).
Wohlstetter, P. (1995). Getting school-based management right: What works and
what doesn’t? Phi Delta Kappan, 77.
Wohlstetter, P., Van Kirk, A.N., Robertson, P.J., & Mohrman, S.A. (1997).
Organizing fo r successful school-based management. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational Psychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Yamashiro, K., & Carlos, L. (1995). More on charter schools. Retrieved on
September 20,2002, from http://www.wested.org
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDICES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
Summary of Observations
Number School Type/No. of
Students/length
of time of obser
vation
Description
A1
A2
A3
Intercession: 15
45 minutes
Intercession: 12
45 minutes
Intercession: 18
45 minutes
ELD levels 1,2 review of vowels,
sight words, teaching of compound
words, practice dictation using new
words
EO, IFEP, RFEP, grades 2,3,4
working on subject/verb agreement
paper, proofreading subject/verb
agreement, fluency reading, teacher
tests one student for fluency
Teacher tests one student on fluency
Some writing compositions on
various topics, using Into English,
level 7 for topics for oral discussion,
teacher gives motivational speech
about how students have improved
and how to take their newly-found
knowledge back to their regular
classrooms
A4
A5 A
America Reads
tutoring: 1
45 minutes
America Reads
Tutoring: 1
45 minutes
Reading aloud a poem with tutor,
identifying the rhyming words,
rewriting it on another paper, making
a picture to go with it, reads a stoiy
with the tutor by Dr. Seuss
Decoding words by breaking the word
into parts, assessing the student in
oral fluency, uses oral questionnaire
asking student about her knowledge
of reading strategies - knows only
one
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
Number School Type/No. of Description
Students/length
of time of obser
vation
A6 America Reads
tutoring: 1
45 minutes
Tutor gives one minute fluency, asks
comprehension questions, uses oral
interview about the strategies, reads a
short story, student writes sentences
A7 America Reads
tutoring: 1
45 minutes
Describing words from
comprehension Open Court
workbook, student reads aloud to
tutor, tutor asks comprehension
questions as student is reading,
student struggles to decode, tutor then
reads aloud to student, then plays an
educational game of tic-tac-toe using
word recognition and use of word in
sentences
B1 B
B2 B
Teacher tutoring:
4
V i hour
Teacher-
homework
session: 11
1 hr. 15 min.
Two students on Waterford Reading
program, teacher doing guided
reading, oral language/vocabulary
development with other two students
Students, grades 2-5; 3 students read
to themselves, 6 doing homework, 1
reading with a parent volunteer, 1
tutored by the teacher using
homework assignments
B3 B Teacher tutoring:
2
V 2 hour
Teacher is using phonemic awareness
activities, uses phonics via
Sheffelbine’s program, doing onset
and rime, using sound boxes to help
students with words, dictation writing
practice of words learned
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Number School
B5 B
B6 B
B7 B
Type/No. of
Students/length
of time of obser
vation
Teacher tutoring:
3
l A hour
Teacher tutoring:
3
V z hour
Teacher tutoring:
3
148
Description
Phonemic awareness activities,
phonics program, word recognition,
pre-reading activity, chunking sounds
to make words
Vowel partners - chunking to extend
decoding, around the world game for
word recognition and fluency practice
Practicing word families, reading the
story from yesterday
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
LIST OF INTERVIEWS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Interviews
Number Role
1 Tutor coordinator, University
2 Intervention coordinator, School B,
initial
3 Principal, School A - initial
4 Bilingual coordinator, School A- initial
5 Intervention coordinator, School B-
formal
6 Co-Administrator, School B -formal
7 Bilingual coordinator, School A -formal
8 Teacher tutor, School B
9 Site tutoring coordinator, School B
10 Teacher tutor, School B
11 Teacher tutor, School B
12 Tutor, School A
13 Tutor, School A
14 Site tutoring coordinator, School A
15 Principal, School A - formal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
Number
16
17
Role
Teacher tutor, School A
Teacher tutor, School A
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
APPENDIX C
LIST OF STRUCTURED
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
PROGRAM DIRECTOR OR PRINCIPAL
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
List of Structured Interview Questions
Program Director or Principal
General Questions
1. Tell me about the programs in your school that help students be successful
in reading?
2. Tell me about the tutoring program, (follow-up questions as appropriate)
3. How do you recruit tutors? Are there difficulties recruiting and retaining
tutors?
4. How many tutors do you have? How many times per week do they tutor?
How many tutees per tutor in all?
5. Is your tutoring program successful? Why or why not?
6. In your opinion, are your program successes due to the fact it is an A-
School? Do you think the program would be different in a regular
neighborhood public school? Why or why not?
(OR) In your opinion, are your program successes due to the fact that it is in a
public school? Do you think the program would be different in a charter school
or private school? Why or why not?
7. Are there differences between your program and others you are aware of in
the community that may be due to it being an Accelerated School?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
(OR) Are there differences between your program and others you are aware
of in the community that may be due to it being in a public school?
Training
1. Do your tutors receive any formal training before beginning tutoring?
Please elaborate?
2. Is the tutoring session monitored? How so?
3. Is there follow-up training or coaching available? Who does it and what
does it consist of?
Reading Materials
1. How are reading materials chosen for the tutoring session?
2. Do the tutors or tutees have a choice in the reading materials chosen? How
so?
Tutoring Session
1. Is there a specific structure or plan followed in the tutoring session?
2. How was the plan determined?
3. How is the tutoring session adjusted to meet the needs of individual tutees?
Relationships
1. How are tutor-tutees paired? Is there an adjustment made based on
compatibility or the lack thereof?
2. How are tutees recommended to participate in the program?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
3. Are there activities in this program that promote good relationships between
tutors and tutees? For instance....
Assessment
1. What assessments are used to assess reading skills of the tutees?
2. How is reading progress measured? How do students exit from the
program?
3. How much student growth has the program made overall?
4. How much growth have the tutees identified in the study made during their
program participation?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
APPENDIX D
LIST OF STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
FOR THE TUTOR
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
List of Structured Interview Questions
For the Tutor
1. How long have you tutored these particular students?
2. How do you choose which students you will work with?
3. Do you use pre/post testing? Who chooses what materials you use?
4. Do you record the progress you make with the students?
5. What works for you in working with struggling readers?
6. Do you work extra time to intervene with these students?
7. Do you ever adjust the material or the activity with your tutee? Please
explain.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
APPENDIX E
SAMPLE INTERVIEW
TEACHER #8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
Sample Interview Transcript
Teacher #8
M: How long have you tutored these particular students?
F: I've been tutoring these students for - 1 actually have the date when the
program started, -- is when we started and expect to end on-. It’ s supposed to be a
six week No, it says ten weeks. It’ s supposed to be ten weeks.
M: Ten weeks.
F: That's not ten weeks. There's no way that's a ten week program, but anyway, --
to — , so I'm one week shy of finishing.
M: Yeah, and it's three days only, correct?
F: Uh-huh, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
M: Right. And how did you choose which children to work with?
F: The students that were struggling with beginning reading due to a lack of ability
to decode. Primarily, that's what it is. It seems to me that children develop a sight
vocabulary at their own pace, but all children develop it at some point —
M: Right.
F: - decoding is one of those things where certain students aren't getting the letter
sounds right away. That's a big flag ’ cause it really - it really ends up separating
the ability level -
M: Oh, yeah.
F: - *** and very quickly.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
M: Quickly.
F: Yeah, it's very quick.
M: Do you pre and post testing at all?
F: We did do pre testing and I will do post testing, I haven't finished yet, so I
haven't —
M: What are you using?
F: I use the CRLT.
M: What is that?
F: It says CRLT. It's the California - it's attached to the California Language Arts
Standards.
M: Umm,
F: And so it actually — it's for decoding and word recognition. It's from California
Reading and Literature Project.
M: Oh.
F: So that's what I use as my first assessment It goes through the diagraphs, the
consonants sounds, the vowel sounds and the blending and, of course, the non
vowels, I mean everything, silent "E".
M: Now, is this the same thing that all of you, the first grade teachers, are using?
F: My next-door neighbor and myself both use it. H-and I both used it And I'm
not certain if A- used it or not.
M: Okay.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
F: Yeah.
M: So this is something you decided on your own or you collaborated to decide
what testing to use?
F: She and I actually discussed it 'cause I wanted to have some means of assessing,
you know, my children's progress.
M: Right.
F: And it was — it wasn't any further deep discussion. I think this is the first time -
- this is the first time that this school has used a lot of assessment.
M: Aww.
F: And so coupled with adding a new assessment specifically designed for
intervention and assessment that I think were we two have been involved in the
choice of assessments for the year anyway these would have been the ones we
would have used.
M: Umm.
F: They're much more succinct than the ones we’ re using right now. They're very,
very long, and we have to test every child on. So this seemed to be kind of — kind
of -- it kind of wrapped it up neatly and nicely.
M: Do you have a list somewhere about the ones you use for the regular program?
F: Do I have a list of the assessments that I've used?
M: Uh-huh. Do you have it somewhere?
F: I have copies of them. If you want I can give you copies of them?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
M: No, I can jot it down, what they are probably. We'll do that at the end.
p. *** we'i] pick it up when we’ re done.
M: All right. Do you record the progress you make with students? Like do you
make any daily remarks to yourself or?
F: I keep a little journal and I write what it is I’ m working on. And usually what it
is -- initially, when I started the assessment, when I started the intervention
program I didn't have a set program.
M: Uh-huh.
F: It’s kind of like I would ask the students if they wanted to work on their writing
or their reading or guided reading, and then I realized where the big problems were
with *** and awareness and I started doing a lot more *** working with chunks
and blending sounds and putting sounds together, that kind of thing. But I would,
yeah, I would take notes, you know, so-and-so needs, you know, needs ***
vocabulary, can decode all words but because of decoding -- he decodes all the
words but then when he gets to words that are sight words —
M: Right.
F: -- he's trying to decode them and so, you know, there's like a dependency on
that.
M: Is it — are the materials you're using different from the materials you use in
your regular program?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
F: Uh-huh. I teach guided reading in my regular program and my assistant does
*** awareness and decoding. And so I usually work primarily in leveled readers --
M: Right.
F: - and that goes across the board. The students - it's amazing. The students
I've been working with who were struggling, the ones that come into my
intervention program were in, I think, A,B or C and now they're in F. My lowest
children are in Level F. This is first grade. That's first grade reading.
M: Wow, yeah.
F: And sure they struggle and there's some guessing that still occurs rather than
really, you know -- in fact, connecting themselves to the book and realizing that’ s
there where the answer lies kind of thing that occurs.
M: Yeah, yeah.
F: They still kind of do that little, you know, looking around thing with their eyes,
but they're in Level F and they’ re reading it, and that’ s a big leap.
M: Yeah.
F: And I think a lot of it is the beauty of guided reading which is exposure to a
sight vocabulary, repetition of sight words, which is wonderful, coupled with
intervention in the morning.
M: Yeah.
F: So they have more confidence when they get to a word that they —
M: Uh-huh.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164
F: -- they can sound out. Even words that they can't, they can at lease get like a
*** — like consonant sounds or something which —
M: Uh-huh.
F: -- would maybe clue them into what sight word it is, you know, so it's been the
two together, I mean, I've seen huge progress, so -
M: That's exciting.
F: I know.
M: That's great.
F: Yeah.
M: So what works for you, I guess, the answer would be probably what works for
you with struggling readers would be those two things, right?
F: Td have to say what I think works with struggling readers is -- is, well, I think,
number one, one on one or small group attention, small group intervention attention
where it's quiet in the room, there's not distractions, you know, they're focused.
There's focused lesions occurring. There’ s nothing that's going to keep them from
concentrating on what's going on. I think that - 1 think that guided reading so they
feel like they’ re reading something of substance. So there’ s something interesting
occurring so new words are constantly coming in and it's not this, what I like to
call, zip and zap because we have those still.
M: Oh, yeah.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
F: And - and then also I have this set of 72 books that come with decodables, they
start from very basic -
M: Uh-huh.
F: -- you know, with readers all the way up to through long vowels and everything
else.
M: Is it phonics--
F: It's a Scholastic program.
M: Scholastic.
F: And I never put my children --1 started them in the small books and they were
so mindless I took them out of those small books and put them in the chapter books
because the chapter books have readers, too. And so from the beginning even my
lowest readers were never in -- not for very long anyway, the little take home books
M: Yeah.
F: ~ where I felt like there was so little -- oh, my goodness, I felt like I was --1
hey were gonna go numb just from like, you know, Zip and Zap had a hat, you
know.
M: I know.
F: So I found that using decoding but using it in the chapter books which had more
substance with my assistant guided reading with me and then the direct attention
and during intervention. ***.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
M: Yeah, definitely. ***. Do you ever need to adjust the material or the activity
with your students?
F: I always adjust it
M: So you're adjusting as you go along?
F: I am a teacher who is probably the least constrained by either schedule or any
sort of routine that I've ever seen in my life. I fly by the seat of my pants. I plan
and it never, ever goes the way that's its supposed to go and it's fine. I feel out the
kids. Some days -- like the other morning when you were here for example.
M: Uh-huh.
F: I probably would have shifted the activity and, you know, gone to something
different. Maybe put one of them on the computer and work with two of the kids
but it just, you know, it didn't happen that way. I just felt like I should stick with
what I was doing because of your presence and it -- had it been me alone, I would
have been like, all right, these clearly isn't happening this morning, you know, so,
yeah, I'm constantly changing things.
M: Do you work extra time each day? Of course you do, but do you get paid extra
hours for doing this or?
F: Yeah, I work a half hour three days a week and they pay me --
M: So they pay you extra more than the regular salary?
F: Yes, slightly.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
M: Okay, a little bit. Right. And do you have a longer work day just in general?
Do you have a longer work day at this site then you would in a public school?
F: I think it's comparable. We go 8:15 to 3:15 and it's a little bit longer. We have
175 days instead of 180 -- more than 183. There's 175 days of school and we have
- we get out at 1:30 on Mondays, and so the faculty - and so the day is shorter on
Monday, but we're here to 4:30 in a faculty meeting and by shortening Monday we
add minutes the rest of the week, so I think it's comparable. And then we get here -
- 1 get here, you know, at 7:30 to do my intervention, so --
M: But do you -- but is your contractual day --1 mean, does somebody say you
have to be here from 7:30 to ~ what is the professional day?
F: We’ re supposed to be here - we're supposed to be here from 7:45 in the
morning --
M: Uh-huh.
F: -- until 4:40 in the afternoon. We’ re supposed to be here that additional time
spent after school doing planning and what have you.
M: Okay.
F: I get here at 6:30 in the morning. So my schedule is a little bit different. I tend
to leave closer to 3:30 and 3:45 because I'm a complete morning person. I function
- 1 have to be here at 7:30 for the kids anyway. I need to be, you know, on it and
have everything organized and stuff like that.
M: Yeah.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
F: So, yeah, it's a little bit longer.
M: Okay. Is there an expectation by whoever that you will tutor your own
students or is that —
F: The caliber of people that work here I think they put that expectation upon
themselves.
M: Okay.
F: I think the intervention program was agreed upon by all staff members in
certain grade level grouping, we'll say, that it was a necessity. And, I mean, for me
to hire somebody else to try and tutor a child that I work with all day --
M: Right.
F: -- that doesn't really work. I mean, I know what's going on. I know what book
we've read that day. I know exactly what that child's struggled with or struggled
with on that particular day or just in general, you know, in the grade level, you
know, I can - 1 can meet their needs much better.
M: Okay.
F: And I don't mind being here, you know, for them. I'm taking them to second
grade next year, so --
M: Oh, are you?
F: — I can't do the whole — "What did the teacher last year do?" So —
M: So you're going to do looping?
F: Yeah.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
M: Now, are you going to just go -- is it a two year loop, or is it more, more than
two years? ***?
F: My additional - my initial idea was five.
M: Whoa.
F: Was to take them to fifth, do like Waldon. Because I really want these kids to
succeed. I - 1 don't know --
M: You don't know --
F: --if that is my - 1 will - 1 know that I would be supported if I, you know,
curricularly good handle it and educated myself and all of that stuff. And it's not a
lack of wanting to meet — to do that to challenged myself. I just really love
teaching the reading and all - the things I get to teach in first grade, and I'm not
finished because some kids are not there yet which is really why I want to go to
second grade because I want them all, you know --
M: Right.
F: -- you know, just reading up a storm and loving it. And I feel like I don't have
to assess them and I get to keep them and love each other and, you know, it's really
- it's a really neat experience, and I've done it before. I was kinder and first, which
was wonderful because I worked in the first day and I was like, "Hey, guys, how
was summer?" You know, and we just picked right up. There was none of that
getting to know each other and discomfort, nothing. So, yes. I'm excited to do it
and I did think five years, but I'm also -(End of Tape)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170
APPENDIX F
SAMPLE OBSERVATION TRANSCRIPT
#B4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
Sample Observation Transcript
#B4
T = Teacher
C = Child
T: M help you out with this part. So what are the word families, do you
remember which word family this was, M-? The word is the word,
phonetic? What sound does the SH make? What sound does the SH make.
How do we do it?
C: I....
T: No, the SH. We're talking about the SH, I always make this sound when
you guys get noisy. What I do when you guys start getting noisy, what
sound do I make? What sound do I make? Shhhhh. Put the A in front of
the SH sound? What should does the A make, a short A? Ah, shh. Good.
There's M- and K-. And these were the words yesterday that (Inaudible).
Okay, some are in the story and some you guys came up with on your own.
(Inaudible) let's read the title of the story real quick, okay. Do you
remember the title of the story from yesterday?
C: A ~
T: A Birthday -
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
172
C: Birthday -
T: Bash - remember, look for the word sound, bash --
C: Bash.
T: Bash hat. Good. And remember whenever you see the red -- the red, that
means it's one of the word sounds. Okay, so again, ASH makes what
sound? Ash, what sound does that make, M-, the ash?
C: Ash.
T: And what does this say AT makes the sound?
C: At.
T: Don’t forget the T, AT. M-, what sound does the AT make?
C: AT.
T: Good. Okay. We're gonna look at some words real quick before we start,
some that you might not be familiar with, okay. First, this one right here.
I-n-v-i-t-e-d, invited.
C: Invited. (Inaudible).
T: Let's move -- let's keep with this word for one more reading you know what
this word is. Okay, say again, invited.
C: Invited.
T: Can you say that, M-?
C: Invited.
T: Good. Okay, Now, do we know this word from the title?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
173
C: Birthday.
T: Birthday. Okay, M-, can we just focus on this word, please? Do you
remember this word from the title?
C: Birthday.
T: Good job, M-. Okay, so the rest of the words I think we can pretty much
handle without going over them. Okay. So let's start from the top. I'll say
it and then you guys will repeat it. Okay, but look at the word. Look at the
word. Really important ’ cause if I'm saying the words and you're repeating
it you should be able to see what word it is. So when you read it on your
own you can say it really loud, okay. So, mint.
C: Mint.
T: Pat was.
C Was.
T: Invited.
C Invited to --
T: To -- say it when I say it, M-, repeat it afterwards, okay. To -
C: To -
T: - a -
C: — birthday.
T: M-, let me say it and then you repeat it, okay. I know you're able to say at
least some of these words, okay. Birthday.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
174
C: Birthday (Inaudible).
T: Birthday.
C: Bash.
T; No, are we on bash yet?
C: No. Birthday.
T. Bash.
C: (Inaudible).
T: I, okay. I say it first and then you'll say it after I do. Do you get that part,
M-? Okay. I.
C: I.
T: Need.
C: Need.
T: A.
C: A.
T: New.
C: New.
T: Hat. What's this word I just said?
C: New hat.
T: Hat, okay. Now, you're gonna say. I'm not gonna say-
C: New --
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
175
T: Wait, remember, you're have to follow where (Inaudible) 'cause if I’ m here
and you're already saying knit, that means you have it in your head already.
You already memorized it. We're not memorizing. I want you to know the
words, so if I say, "What's this word?" You know what that word is without
having to read this whole thing. Okay. So let's read this together. M-?
Now, you guys are (Inaudible).
C: At (Inaudible) --
T: Invited.
C: Invited to a birthday --
T: What is the word? Birthday.
C: Bash.
T: What's this word?
C: Bash.
T: Really say the B, bash.
C: Bash.
T: Okay, because this word is all about the B, bash.
C: Bash.
T: Yes.
C: Need a -
T: New hat.
C: New hat.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
176
T: Said -
C: (Inaudible).
T: Good.
U: I'm sorry to interrupt.
T: It's okay. It's okay.
U: (Inaudible).
T: We're gonna go at 10:00 o'clock.
U: I'm giving him a twenty.
T: Do you want me to hold onto it? Or do you want -- 'cause we're gonna go
out to recess (Inaudible).
U: I think so. Why don't you give it to your teacher, she's gonna hold it.
T: Remind me that I have it, if not, you know.
C: (Inaudible).
U: Okay. Did you (Inaudible) on how much?
T: No, whatever, she -- okay, no problem.
U: Okay, put it in her purse, thank you.
T: Put it in your purse.
U: Thank you.
T Okay. M-, let's get back on track. Let's help S- out because S- wasn't here
right now when we started this. Okay.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
177
C: I was gone, so -
T: So, S-, what we’ re doing is we talked about the word family that we did
yesterday, okay. And then we read - 1 read this first, okay, and then they
said it and they read it together. Okay, so we're gonna try why are the
glasses going in the box? Put them on, please, I don't want to have to tell
you again, M-.
C: I don't wanna get a glasses.
T: You don't understand, if you don't want them while you’ re reading
(Inaudible). M-, can you tell S- what this word family is?
C: Ash.
T: Ash, good.
C: Ash and that's at.
T: And this one's what, S-?
C: At.
T: Good job, S-. Okay. So, S-, we read to words that you might not know.
Maybe you will. One of them is what, M-, what was this word?
C: Invited.
T: Invited. Let's look at this word. Invited.
C: Invited.
T: And then there was another word here that was part of the title of this story.
C: (Inaudible).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178
T: Good job. Good job. Can we read this line together then we can move onto
the next one, okay, so let's read this altogether. Is everybody looking at the
word? M-, are you looking at the word? Okay, remember you only read
the word that I'm pointing at. Don't go ahead. Here we go...
C: (Inaudible) hat you’ re -
T: Invited. M-, look at the word. Say the letters, M-. Say the letter.
C: I-v-i-e-t.
T: Invited.
C: Invited.
T: Good.
C: Invited to (Inaudible).
T: S-.
C: A birthday — .
T: A birthday what? What letter is this?
C: A birthday bash.
T: No, what letter is this?
C: Bash.
T: No, no, no you're not listening to my question. What letter is this?
C: B - B.
T: B--theB.
C: Bash.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
179
T: So we know that this is what word family?
C: Bash.
T: No, no, no. Listen to my question. What is this word family?
C: (Inaudible).
T: What is this word family? ASH?
C: Oh, I know it.
T: ASH, ASH. Now, let's put the B in front of it. Bash. Bash. It's notanS,
so it's not going to be sash. Bash. Remember it's has to be a B.
C: Bash.
T: Good. So first it's bash. Here we go.
C: (Inaudible).
T: Said -
C: (Inaudible).
T: Good job, guys. Very good. M-, what's this word, again? I-n-v-i-t-e-d?
This hat was —
C: Invited.
T: (Inaudible). Hold on, M-, this is (Inaudible), this is what you're saying.
This is a word (Inaudible) on the board.
C: Invited.
T: Invited.
C: Invited.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
180
T: Okay. Look at the two of them, does this one and this one, look the same?
C: No.
T: (Inaudible). Do this two words look the same, M-? No. This is not the one
we're saying. This one.
C: (Inaudible).
T: Whafs this word?
C: No.
T: No, this is joining. You don't want to say joining. You want to say invited.
C: Invited.
T: This word, invited. This is the word we want. Okay?
C: Invited.
T: Invited. No more, get joining out. It's out. It's gone. Okay, good. Let's
say (Inaudible).
C: Joining.
T: I'm gonna lock the door, guys.
C: (Inaudible).
T: Okay. Noone--
C: (Inaudible).
T: Okay. From 3:30 to 6:30. Okay. Now, let's look at some words that might
give us some trouble. This word right here. Box.
C: Box.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
181
T: No, not -- let's not look at any other word right now. We’ re just looking at
box.
C: Box.
T: Box, okay. Let's see another word that might give us trouble. Plain.
C: Plain.
T: (Inaudible) don't look at the word, please. Don't look at me, look at the
word. Plain.
C: Plain.
T: Okay. Here's another one that might give us a little trouble. Straw.
C: Straw.
T: Okay, let's try this word again, the first one that we might have to watch.
Box, plain. And then, Straw.
C: Straw.
T: Straw, good. Okay. Let's try this. I will say it first. This is the first time
we did it. M-. I will say it first and then who says it? You do? Like the
same one at the top. Here we go. But you eyes have to be where? In the
ceiling, on the floor?
C: No.
T: Looking at your neighbor?
C: No.
T: No, looking at the word. Looking at the word, so here we go. The —
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
182
C: The -
T: — next day--
C: Day.
T: I say it first, S-, then you say it. Right now you're gonna be able to say it
together. Okay. The--
C: The -
T: I said the right now, I didn't hear anybody. The —
C: The -
T: I didn't hear anybody.
C: The.
T: — next.
C: - n ex t-
T: ~ day -
C: - day.
T: No, no, you're doing it again. Don't say it when I say it.
C: (Inaudible).
T: Say it. Well, no, you do that. That's why you're saying it. But say it after
so we can learn these words that might give us trouble, okay. So one more
time. T h e -
C: The -
T: — next ~
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
183
C: -- next day.
T: You guys, day.
C: - day.
T: Now, you say it. Day.
C: Day.
T: She got -
C: She got a --
T: Uhn-uhn, M-, did I say it? Okay. A?
C: A.
T: S-, you're not finished. A plain --
C: Plain.
T: Straw.
C: Straw..
T: Hat.
C: Hat.
T: Good. This--
C: This.
T: - hat -
C: Hat.
T: Too.
C: Too flat.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
184
T: Flat.
C: Flat.
T: Said this -
C: Hat.
T: Flat.
C: Flat.
T: Good, okay. Now, let's see if you guys can say it together without me.
C: T h e -
T: Think you can do it? Have I pointed to a word yet?
C: No.
T: No, not yet. Here we go.
C: The (Inaudible) bought a plain straw hat.
T: This -
C: Hat is --
T: Hey, we're not saying the apostrophe S, hat's too flat.
C: (Inaudible).
T: Miss --
C: Mrs. Pack.
T: Ms. Pack. Good.
C: I did good.
T: Very good. Okay, now, let me see. You think you can read this word and-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
185
C: Yes.
T: I don’t think so. I don't think so. I don't think so.
C: Miss Pack was-- yes.
T: Okay. Let's go. Now--have I pointed to anything yet. Reading this
together. Are you ready?
C: Yes.
T: Okay, here we go.
C: (Inaudible).
T: I don't hear everybody. Let's see. (Inaudible). Here we go, one two, three.
C: Miss Pack was (Inaudible).
T: (Inaudible).
C: (Inaudible).
T: Said Miss Pack. Here we go.
C: (Inaudible).
T; Good. This is a high frequency word, you've never at this one before. This
C: This (Inaudible).
T: Said Miss Pack. Okay, I can already see some words I need to give you so
you can learn how to spell them and say them. Like the word, said.
C: Said.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
186
T: Said. Said. We're gonna work on the word said. Okay. Now, let's look at
some of the word soundings that we came up with yesterday, some of the
words that we came up with yesterday. S-, how do you say this word
family right there?
C: (Inaudible).
T: Ash.
C: Ash.
T: Ash. Now, S-, if I put that N in front of ash, what word do I have there?
C: Nash.
T: Good job, S-. What is this? If I put the B in front of ash, what word do I
have?
C: Bash.
T: Good job, M-. If I put R in front of ash, what word do I have?
C: (Inaudible).
T: How do we say this word family, how do we ~
C: (Inaudible).
T: How do we say this word family, ash.
C: (Inaudible).
T: Where are you getting the oush from? What sound is the ending? Okay.
M, say the sound rrr ash.
C: Rash.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
187
T: Thank you. S-, the CL, S-, in front of ash. What sound is the C going to
make.
C: C.
T: Uh-huh. C ll-
C: Clash.
T: Good job, S-. Penmore says the SPL — what sound does the S and P make
together.
C: Splash.
T: Good job. M-, the S in front of an ash?
C: (Inaudible).
T: Okay. We know, M-, look it, look it. We know that the ones in red is this
sound right here. This is the same as this. All of these in red are the same
as this sound, and this sound is what? Ash. Say it, M-.
C: (Inaudible).
T: No, no, no. Ash. Say it.
C: (Inaudible).
T: Don't put a sound in front of it, don't put a bbb, ash.
C: Ash.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
188
T: It's always gonna be ash. All the way down, ash, ash, ash, ash, ash, ash,
ash. It just depends on what letter's in front of it. So now you have a what
letter in front of it? What letter is this?
C: S.
T: What letter is this?
C: S.
T: What sound does S make? Ash. Ash. (Inaudible). Here, we go, M-. Ash.
Say it. I shouldn't be saying it for you.
C: Lash.
T: Okay. Why you putting an L with it? Is there an L right here? Only the S.
Only the S. Try it. Ash. Ash. What word are you looking at? (Inaudible).
M-, M-. Sash.
C: Sash.
T: Sash. Is there an L there?
C: (Inaudible).
T: No, is there a L there, okay. So you only - M-, no, uhn-uhn. You only say
the word — the letters that are there. Don't put any other letters there. Look,
M-l. Okay. Okay. Good. Let's go on to the other one, M- Stephanie,
what word family is this one?
C: At.
T: At.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
189
C: No.
T: S-, yes, she's right.
C: At.
T: No, M-, at. Okay. S-, can you put the SPL?
C: Ooh, that's easy.
T: The S and the P make what sound?
C: Splash.
T: Splash. Good job. Good job. What is this?
C: Hat.
T: Good, M-?
C: (Inaudible).
T: Good, good. Stephanie?
C: Hat.
T: Good, M-? High frequency word we had -- M-. We had (Inaudible) about
this one. What's the word? The TH makes what sound?
C: Oh, easy.
T: Why is this? Why is this? No, no, no, the TH together makes what sound?
C: (Inaudible).
T; What's the word?
C: That.
T: Good job.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
190
C: I tell you.
T: Yes, but you — it wasn't your turn. What me to give M -a turn? S-?
C: That.
T: M-?
C: That.
T: M-? What's the word?
C: That.
T: Good. S-?
C: That.
T: M-?
C: (Inaudible).
T: Uh-huh. Say it.
C: (Inaudible).
T: S-
C: Hat
T: Hat. Like this? Good job. Good job. Remember when you have a little bit
of free time see if you can come and read this. Okay. Later on today Til
probably call you guys up so we can review the word that were giving us a
little trouble, okay. Like, that and plain and straw, and said, especially,
said. Okay? So remember, what are you going to do when you’ re finished
with your work today? You're gonna come and do what?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
191
C: This.
T: This what? Come and read this. And if you can, try and read the rest of it.
Okay. Can you do that?
C: Yes.
T: Okay. Now you can go outside and play.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A comparison of public and private governance in new teacher induction practices

PDF

Administrative evaluations and their impact on school leadership in public and private secondary schools: A comparison study of governance structure

PDF

Accountability practices: A comparison between two elementary schools under different governance models

PDF

A longitudinal comparative study of the effects of charter schools on minority and low-SES students in California

PDF

A longitudinal look at what's important in comprehensive reform: A case study

PDF

Exploring a team-based model for organizing schools: The case of Fenton Avenue Charter School

PDF

Emerging from the shadows of inner-city barriers: A California urban middle school that has outperformed its expectations

PDF

A case study of a successful urban school: Climate, culture and leadership factors that impact student achievement

PDF

Improving student achievement: An urban success story

PDF

A substitute teacher preservice staff development program: A case study of the Los Angeles County Office of Education

PDF

HP2 schools achieving in spite of: A case study looks at programs, culture, and leadership

PDF

Communication techniques utilized by superintendents with their governing boards that develop trust, unity, and a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities

PDF

Holding traditional and charter schools accountable for student achievement in one California school district

PDF

A case study of Long Beach Unified School District: How elements of effective reading strategies can be implemented at the secondary level

PDF

A study of doctoral student -advisor satisfaction: Considering gender and ethnic grouping at a private research university

PDF

Determining the impact of state takeover of school districts on the academic program at individual schools

PDF

Implementing and assessing problem -based learning in non -traditional post -secondary aviation safety curricula: A case study

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

American Sign Language as a high school language elective: Factors influencing its adoption

PDF

Black male perception of opportunity structures

Asset Metadata

Creator Leon, Margaret A. (author)

Core Title A comparative case study: Tutoring in reading in two settings

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, curriculum and instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert (committee chair), Cohn, Carl (committee member), Gothold, Stuart (committee member), Melendez, Thelma (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-488752

Unique identifier UC11335840

Identifier 3133303.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-488752 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3133303.pdf

Dmrecord 488752

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Leon, Margaret A.

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 au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA