Beyond Tutoring: After-School Literacy Instruction

By Saddler, Bruce Staulters, Merry

One of the greatest challenges facing teachers is accommodating struggling, diverse, and at-risk readers. Even with the use of effective, research-based techniques, many children fail to make adequate progress in reading and may need additional assistance. One way to provide this assistance is through tutoring. This article outlines a successful after-school reading project that utilized university graduate students as tutors for struggling readers. The authors discuss both challenges and solutions associated with the project. Keywords: literacy; tutoring; elementary; instruction; reading

Tutoring has a well-established place in schooling and, when provided by older students, volunteers, or parents, can be a significant supplement, enhancement, or even replacement for classroom reading instruction. Because students can benefit from receiving tutoring support for their reading, the idea is very appealing to many teachers, schools, and parents (Parker, Hasbrouck, & Denton, 2002; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

Although tutoring often occurs during the school day, after- school tutoring sessions can also impact reading performance while offering additional tangible benefits. The National Research Council (2002), for example, suggested that after-school programs can provide physical and emotional safety, supportive relationships, opportunities to belong, support for efficacy and mattering, in addition to opportunities for skill building. Evidence suggests that after-school programs can help improve test scores and grades, especially for low-income students (Hamilton & Klein, 1998; Schinke, Cole, & Poulin, 1998). Furthermore, after-school programs provide children from low-income families access to the types of enriching activities that middle-class children typically experience (Hofferth & Jankuniene, 2001). Such programs are becoming increasingly important as large numbers of school-age children, between 7 and 15 million (Lumsden, 2003), go home to an empty house on many school days.

In this article, we describe an after-school literacy tutoring program called Reading Partners created through a partnership between the University at Albany and an inner-city elementary school in upstate New York. The purpose of this article is to assist teachers, administrators, and parents in establishing their own literacy tutoring after-school program by sharing the experiences and activities of our program along with the barriers we experienced as we implemented the program.

Program Description

Origin

The Reading Partners program provides after-school literacy tutoring for struggling fourth-grade readers and important field experiences for preset-vice educators enrolled in a university master’s degree program in special education and literacy. The program is an outgrowth of a study conducted by university faculty who investigated the effects a structured after-school program could have on the reading performance of poor readers in the intermediate grades (Gelzheiser, Scanlon, & D’Angelo, 2001). In the Gelzheiser et al. (2001) study, low-ability and at-risk fourth-grade students participating in a structured after-school program significantly improved their word attack skills, comprehension, and social studies knowledge compared with students of similar abilities who were not in the program. The program, which utilized community volunteers, preservice educators, and high school students as mentors, was continued after the completion of the research project because it provided quality learning experiences for the fourth-grade students as well as the university preservice teacher education students. It has since become the foundation of two semester-length, field-based courses in the master’s degree program.

Demographics

For the past several years, an inner-city elementary school has participated in the tutoring program. The school has a total population of 673 students in Grades K through 5. The student body includes 52.3% White; 35.2% African American; 6.2% Hispanic; and 6.2% American Indian, Alaskan, or Pacific Islander. Four percent of the students received English as a second-language service. Approximately 35% of the students received a free lunch, whereas 11 % were eligible for a reduced-cost lunch.

The students selected to participate in the Reading Partners project were similarly diverse. During the 2005-2006 school year, for example, of the 24 students recruited for the program, there were 14 girls and 10 boys in the group. Eleven of the students were African American, 11 were Caucasian, 1 was Asian, and 1 was Hispanic. One student had a diagnosed disability (i.e., other health impairment), and another was a non-native-English speaker. The teachers referred these particular students to the program because they struggled with reading. Many of the students lacked sufficient strategies for comprehending and decoding material at the fourth- grade level. Others simply did not enjoy reading. The students and their parents committed in writing to staying in the program for an entire school year and agreed to meet with their university tutors twice weekly for hour-long sessions at the end of the school day.

The tutors consisted of 23 master’s degree students who were in the 1st year of their 2-year course of university study. Twenty of the tutors were female. The racial breakdown consisted of 2 African American, 2 Hispanic, 2 Asian, and 1 Indian. One of the tutors had a diagnosed learning disability. Tutors were paired with students by a random selection method.

Program Goals

We did not seek to create a program and fit it to the students’ needs; rather, we encouraged each of our tutors to create an individually tailored program that met the needs of their student tutee. To do this, we suggested the use of literacy activities based on the work of Gelzheiser et al. (2001) in addition to the Early Literacy Project and Project Read (Englert et al., 1995) and tutoring guidelines by Parker et al. (2002). Because time for each session was limited, we instructed our students to structure each tutoring session to include components recommended by Gunning (2006), specifically (a) review past material; (b) introduce or extend a strategy; (c) read a new selection; (d) engage in related writing; and (e) provide a related, supplemental activity to extend or enrich the learning.

Four broad goals were created for the program to guide our thinking as we constructed expectations for our tutors. Three of the goals related directly to student outcomes with the fourth directed at the tutors.

Goal 1: Support Students by Equipping Them With a Better Foundation in Reading Strategies. To ensure that students increased their reading skills, we began with the premise that effective literacy instruction takes place when readers have frequent, sustained, and consistent opportunities to read, write, listen, and talk about literacy (Tancock, 1994). Therefore, we encouraged the tutors to increase the opportunities their students had to interact with books through various previewing strategies and repeated readings of the book. We also suggested using phonological awareness, word recognition, and comprehension activities, along with vocabulary development as appropriate. In addition, the tutors engaged their students in silent reading, choral reading, and story response and discussion.

Goal 2: Improve Student Ability to Read and Comprehend the School- Selected Social Studies Curriculum and Textbook. We incorporated an integrated literacy approach using five thematic units based on the fourth-grade curriculum of the school. These units included (a) Native Americans, (b) colonization and exploration, (c) the Revolutionary War, (d) voting and elections, and (e) transportation and immigration. This approach helped promote integration of the language arts with content area objectives of the school district and provided opportunities for developing reading skills with nonfiction and fiction books. All of the books pertained to different social studies themes. We included books on a variety of reading levels and ensured that they included a wide range of interests. During the first unit the tutors selected books based on their student’s reading level, but during later units the students self-selected books based on their particular interests.

Goal 3: Enhance Students’ Self-Efficacy. An important outcome for the program was the enhancement of self-efficacy in reading. Self- efficacy, or the belief about one’s capabilities to learn or perform at designated levels (Bandura, 1986), may influence effort, persistence, and achievement (Schunk, 2003) and can be a predictor of student academic motivation and learning (Pajares, 1996). In general, success raises self-efficacy and failure lowers it (Schunk, 2003). Therefore, we encouraged the tutors to create opportunities for success and provide positive reinforcement and feedback frequently. To accomplish this, they used modeling and self- evaluation.

The tutors provided two types of models. First, mastery models of task performance were demonstrated by reading aloud to the student tutees. In addition, coping models were provided by verbalizing how obstacles are overcome while reading. Both models provided a good idea of what a skilled reader may do and may sound like for the reading partners. Self-evaluation was promoted by requiring the students to record their progress on a reading goal sheet, daily lesson planning summary, and unit summary sheet. The collaborative completion of these forms was used to enhance the perception of learning progress by the students.

Goal 4: Tutors Gain Important Hands-On Experience and Knowledge of Curriculum and Teaching Strategies Through the Tutoring Sessions. According to Lipson and Wixson (1997), no single factor influences the instructional setting more than the teacher’s knowledge and belief about teaching and learning. Because the tutors had limited teaching experience, we included components that Wasik (1999) suggested may enhance the knowledge of less skilled reading tutors. Faculty members supervising the program provided ongoing training for the tutors via biweekly seminars. The seminars allowed time to discuss and reflect on pedagogical issues, teaching strategies, and behavioral issues. Structured mentoring sessions were provided through a series of observations of the tutors working with their students. During these observations, the faculty member would record the components of the lesson and note strengths and areas needing improvements. After the lesson, the faculty mentor and the tutor would discuss the lesson and note goals for future observations.

Components

The tutors were trained in several key components of the program prior to meeting their student tutees. These components included establishing rapport, ascertaining performance levels, monitoring and recording progress, and creating behavioral expectations. We believed these components were critical to the success of the partnership.

Establishing Rapport

An interest inventory was used by the tutors to break the ice with their students and to learn more about their tutees’ reading behaviors. The interest inventory contained a variety of questions regarding personal interests as well as knowledge about and comfort with reading. This was a helpful first step in the establishment of a relationship between the tutor and student.

Ascertaining Performance Levels

Along with the interest inventory, the tutors administered an Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI; Woods & Moe, 2003). This instrument yielded important information about the students’ ability to read and comprehend fiction and nonfiction texts and their word attack skills. The tutors administered this instrument at the beginning of the year as the baseline for choosing books and at the end of the year to document progress. By combining the information from the ARI and the interest inventories, the tutors developed a literacy picture of their students that provided a starting point for instruction. Information from the ARI was transferred to a reading goal sheet used to monitor and record progress.

Monitoring and Recording Progress

We believed that it was essential for our tutors to record the progress of their students. Two forms were created for that purpose: (a) a reading goal sheet and (b) a daily lesson-planning summary.

The reading goal sheet (see Figure 1) contained common reading behaviors that successful readers use (e.g., word attack skills and comprehension strategies). If a student did not initially use a successful strategy, a goal was established to learn and apply one. The goals were reviewed and updated periodically to show progress.

The daily lesson planning summary (see Figure 2) served as documentation of the activities occurring during each lesson. Space was provided for information about the current book being read, including title and page numbers. In addition, the reading strategies used during the lesson and the social studies concepts and vocabulary learned were recorded. Finally, both the tutor and the student commented on the quality and quantity of the work performed during the lesson.

Each form was completed collaboratively with the tutor initially modeling how to complete each section. Eventually, the student completed the bulk of the form with the tutor providing help and support as needed.

Creating Behavioral Expectations

Tutors were often very anxious about potential problems with student behaviors. To raise the tutors’ confidence levels, rule- setting approaches and articulation of behavioral expectations for their reading partners were encouraged. They were encouraged to create rules collaboratively with their students and revisit them as necessary.

Benefits

There are multiple benefits to a successful after-school tutoring program. For a university, such a program provides an opportunity to demonstrate active participation in the community and a commitment to meeting community needs. For the local school, the program provides additional support for critical content areas. For parents, their children receive intense, quality instruction from a caring, skilled, and dedicated teacher. However, we believe the greatest benefits belong to the tutors and their students.

Through the tutoring relationship, critical skills are learned and practiced that will provide significant benefits when the tutors enter the teaching field. For example, one tutor stated that “as a teacher, I need to be prepared to explain concepts, vocabulary, and key ideas in several different ways because not every student will understand a concept through one form of learning.” Another suggested that they had “learned the value of being prepared and the need to be flexible.”

The student tutees likewise gained valuable benefits. Many students improved in reading ability on measurable objectives throughout the course of the year. On average, the students improved at least one grade level in reading ability according to the results from the ARI (Woods & Moe, 2003). They also made important gains in other essential elements of learning that are more difficult to measure. As one of the tutors shared,

By far the most important outcome of my relationship with my student has been a sense of confidence. This confidence we found by working with each other. She came into the Reading Partners program frustrated and at a loss for how to improve her reading. Now I can’t get her to stop! Every small increment of success gave her newfound belief in her abilities.

Challenges

Several challenges were encountered while planning, initiating, and supervising the Reading Partners project. First, establishing trusting relationships between schools and the university is an essential goal and a significant challenge. Prosser and Levesque (1997) suggested that establishing trusting relationships between school communities and universities may be difficult because attitudes regarding instructional practices and roles may be incompatible. If common ground cannot be found, the supportive participation of the school may be at risk. We have addressed collaboration and communication challenges through intensive conversation with the building administrators, including letters explaining the program’s procedures and policies and justifications for participating. In addition, we have had ongoing personal contact with the teachers involved and periodic contact with the parents through the unit summary sheets.

In all of these communications, we have maintained the belief that the school serves as the connecting link between the university and the families because the school is the more familiar and trusted institution. Furthermore, we have promoted the belief that the university provides a valid and valued service and that time commitments and rearrangement of family schedules is worth the effort. In short, our belief remained that we must advocate for our intervention as a means of contributing to the student’s educational growth.

Along with forming trusting relationships, a second challenge was finding the physical space needed to host the program within a school. At the end of a day, teachers frequently worked in their classrooms to plan or meet with other teachers or parents. Although schools have common spaces such as libraries and gymnasiums, often these spaces are dedicated for other after-school purposes.

Although our cooperating school made the commitments necessary for the provision of space, occasionally the tutors arrived at their designated classrooms to find the classroom teacher utilizing the space to conference with students, parents, or colleagues. In many of the classrooms we experienced elevated noise levels if many tutors had to work in close proximity, and the potential for restricted movement or overcrowding was always present. We resorted to using multiple classrooms to provide the space to read aloud and interact without having to shout over others who were similarly engaged.

A final challenge was the knowledge level of the tutors. Although our tutors were graduate students in education, they had no background in teaching. All had entered the program from nonteaching backgrounds, and for many this program was their first teaching experience of any kind. For these reasons, we needed to be very explicit with the expectation and procedures for the tutoring sessions.

The success we had with our tutors indicates that an extensive teaching background is not necessary to be effective in a tutoring role. If training, procedures, and frequent monitoring and feedback are provided by skilled mentors, less skilled or less experienced tutors can successfully support a student’s growth in reading and writing. However, the level of support and mentoring should be adjusted based on the characteristics of the tutors and their comfort and experience with tutoring.

Conclusions

Although there are certainly challenges to creating a successful after-school reading tutoring program, they are far exceeded by the benefits. Creating an after-school program that brings a little magic into the life of a young person can have a profound effect not only on that student’s reading ability and self-efficacy, but on the tutor as well. As one of our tutors stated, “Seeing how my reading partner has grown and benefited from working with me has given me confidence in my abilities to actually make a difference.” REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Englert, C. S., Garmon, A., Mariage, T., Rozendal, M., Tarrant, K., & Urba, J. (1995). The Early Literacy Project: Connecting across the literacy curriculum. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 253- 275.

Gelzheiser, L., Scanlon, D., & D’Angelo, C. (2001, April). The effects of community volunteers and poor readers engaging in interactive reading of thematically-related texts. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Gunning, T. G. (2006). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hamilton, L. S., & Klein, S. P. (1998). Achievement test score gains among participants in the Foundations School-Age Enrichment Program. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Hofferth, S. L., & Jankuniene, Z. (2001). Life after school. Educational Leadership, 58, 19-23.

Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1997). Assessment and instruction of reading and writing disabilities. New York: Longman.

Lumsden, L. (2003). Afterschool programs. Eric Digest, 171, EDOEA- 03-08.

National Research Council. (Ed.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.

Parker, R., Hasbrouck, J. E., & Denton, C. (2002). How to tutor students with reading problems. Preventing School Failure, 47, 42- 45.

Prosser, T. M., & Levesque, J. A. (1997). Supporting literacy through service learning. Reading Teacher, 51(1), 32-39.

Schinke, S., Cole, K. C., & Poulin, S. R. (1998). Evaluation of Boys and Girls’ Club of America’s Educational Enhancement Program. Atlanta, GA: Author.

Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 159-172.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Tancock, S. M. (1994). A literacy lesson framework for children with reading problems. Reading Teacher, 48, 130-140.

Wasik, B. A. (1999). Reading coaches: An alternative to reading tutors. Reading Teacher, 52(6), 15-24.

Woods, M. L., & Moe, A. J. (2003). Analytical Reading Inventory (7E). Columbus, OH/Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Bruce Saddler, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Albany, New York. His current primary research interests center on writing issues for children with writing disabilities, and he has won the Early Career Research Award from the Office of Special Education, U.S. Department of Education, to fund several research projects in his area of interest. Merry Staulters, PhD, is an assistant professor in the department of Education at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania. Her current research interests include using Universal Design for Learning in math education, and special education and instructional practice in the Caribbean. Address: Bruce Saddler, University at Albany, ED 226, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12222; e-mail: bsaddler@uamail.albany.edu.

Copyright PRO-ED Journals Mar 2008

(c) 2008 Intervention in School and Clinic. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.