effects of a volunteer tutoring model on the early...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]On: 23 January 2013, At: 13:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading Research andInstructionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

Effects of a volunteertutoring model on the earlyliteracy development ofstruggling first grade studentsPaige C. Pullen a , Holly B. Lane b & Maureen C.Monaghan aa University of Virginiab University of FloridaVersion of record first published: 28 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Paige C. Pullen , Holly B. Lane & Maureen C. Monaghan(2004): Effects of a volunteer tutoring model on the early literacy development ofstruggling first grade students, Reading Research and Instruction, 43:4, 21-40

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070409558415

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulri19

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388070409558415

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs ordamages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013

Reading Research and InstructionSummer 2004, 43(4) 21-40

Effects of a Volunteer Tutoring Model onthe Early Literacy Development of Struggling

First Grade Students

Paige C. PullenUniversity of Virginia

Holly B. LaneUniversity of Florida

Maureen C. MonaghanUniversity of Virginia

Abstract

This study examines the effectiveness of a one-on-one reading intervention using trainedtutors. Participants were 49 first-grade students at risk for reading failure. The three-steptutoring model included repeated reading of familiar text, explicit coaching in decodingand word-solving strategies, and reading new books during each 15-minute session.Pretest and posttest data were collected on measures of phonological awareness, sightword knowledge, and decoding. Analyses revealed significant group differences in eachbeginning reading area assessed. This tutoring model is a promising intervention forstruggling beginning readers and is particularly appropriate for implementation byclassroom volunteers.

The most effective and efficient methods for addressing readingdifficulties begin with early prevention and intervention efforts (Torgesen,1998). Numerous recent studies have focused on the skills involved in readingand outcomes of early prevention and intervention programs (e.g., Foorman,Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte,Alexander, & Conway, 1997; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). Many of these studieshave found significant results when intervention is implemented in earlyelementary years, further supporting the importance of early intervention.

Vellutino, Scanlon, and Tanzman (1998) conducted individualremediation sessions for poor readers for one semester of first-grade. Theyfound that 67.1% of the sample identified as in the bottom 15th percentile on astandardized reading battery scored at or above the 30th percentile and in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013

22 Reading Research and Instruction Summer 2004, 43 (4)

average range after remediation, and only 15.8% remained below the 15thpercentile. Applying these results to the educational community, Vellutino et al.(1998) hypothesized that if one-on-one intervention were utilized as anintervention prior to entrance into the special education system, the currentincidence of specific learning disability could be reduced from 10% of theschool-age population to less than 3%. Therefore, targeting reading problemswith effective intervention above and beyond typical classroom instruction isessential to reducing the number of reading problems.

Emergent Literacy SkillsMost reading difficulties in the early elementary years are hypothesized

to be the result of instructional and experiential deficits rather than cognitivedeficits (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2001). Effective interventions implementedduring this critical period can help circumvent the cycle of failure commonlyknown as the Matthew effect (Stanovich, 1986). Like the biblical passage inwhich the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the Matthew effect in readingrefers to the ever-widening gap between good readers and poor readers.Children without solid reading foundations in first and second grade will readless and have consequently slower reading development, falling even furtherbehind peers (Stanovich, 1986).

Research literature suggests certain skills and experiences that shouldbe included in intervention programs to aid in increasing reading skills. Thecritical aspects of beginning reading include phonological awareness,alphabetic understanding, decoding, word recognition, and print awareness(Chard, Simmons, & Kame'enui, 1998). Phonological awareness has beenfound to be the single strongest predictor of reading success (Adams, 1990;Torgesen, et al., 1997), and numerous studies have demonstrated thatinstruction in phonological awareness significantly improves students' readingskills, including decoding and comprehension. (See, for example, Foorman,Francis, Beeler, Winikates, & Fletcher, 1997; Smith, Simmons, & Kame'enui,1998.) Decoding involves making the connection between printed letters andthe sounds they represent. Effective word recognition strategies allow childrento quickly translate the letters of written words into speech sounds and focusmore on the meaning of the passage they are reading (Chard & Osborn, 1999).Decoding intervention can produce significant gains in not only decoding skills,but also in comprehension and phonological awareness (McCandliss, Beck,Sandak, & Perfetti, 2003). The differences in comprehension between good andpoor readers can often be attributed to differences in the level of automaticdecoding (Perfetti & Hogaboam, 1975).

Comprehension and fluency are often linked in the literature(Arlington, 1983; Johns, 1993; Samuels, 1988; Schreiber, 1980). In fact,fluency has been demonstrated to be the most reliable predictor of reading

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013

Volunteer Tutoring 23

comprehension in early elementary grades (Schatschneider, 2004). Whenwords become instantly recognizable and a reader has sufficient fluency skills,processing resources can be focused on the message of the passage. Wordrecognition and comprehension cannot occur simultaneously if a reader mustfocus the majority of his or her attention on word recognition. As students gainexperience rereading books at their appropriate level, their fluency improves(LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). To develop comprehension skills, children needpractice with reading text, with these early literacy experiences carefullyconstructed to increase vocabulary development, identify relationships betweenconcepts, and connect new information to previously learned information(Adams, 1990; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

Repeated ReadingOne of the more effective methods for increasing reading accuracy and

automaticity is repeated reading. The technique of repeated reading has beenunder empirical investigation since the 1970s. (See, for example, Laberge &Samuels, 1974; National Reading Panel, 2000; Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985;Samuels, 1979; Sindelar, Monda, & O'Shea, 1990), with results showing anoverall increase in reading rate, word accuracy, word expression, andcomprehension of passages (Dowhower, 1994). Assisted repeated readingpractice, or reading familiar text under the supervision of a fluent reader,appears to be the most powerful approach to repeated reading intervention(Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). Young, Bowers, and MacKinnon (1996) compared theresults of students randomly assigned to unassisted, assisted repeated reading,repeated listening, or repeated list reading conditions. Overall, each groupimproved in fluency and comprehension; however, only assisted repeatedreading practice significantly improved reading accuracy on an untrained text.Levy, Nicholls, and Kohen (1993) examined the effects of repeated readingacross fluency and comprehension measures among third, fourth, and fifthgraders. Their data supported the use of repeated reading, as both poor and goodreaders improved their reading rate across readings, their detection ofmisspelled words, and comprehension. In a study of poor readers in middleschool, Mercer, Campbell, Miller, Mercer, and Lane (2000) found significantgrowth in reading level and reading rate with only 5 to 6 minutes of dailyassisted repeated reading practice. These findings suggest that the assistedrepeated readings technique is an effective way to increase the skills of poorreaders across contexts.

Benefits of Individual TutoringUsing a one-on-one tutoring model has been shown to be a powerful

model for helping children with reading difficulties (Wasik & Slavin, 1993).Classroom teachers name adult one-on-one instruction as an ideal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


supplementary teaching practice (Moody, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1997). A meta-analysis conducted by Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, and Moody (2000) determinedthat students with low reading skills who received one-on-one interventionsperformed at a level .40 standard deviations higher than the average level of thecomparison group. Tutoring programs utilizing one-on-one tutoring, includingEarly Steps (Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2000), Success for All (Slavin, 2002),and Great Leaps (Mercer et al., 2000), have all been successful in increasingliteracy skills of struggling readers.

Reading Recovery, a widely used one-on-one tutoring program, trainscertified teachers to work intensively with poor readers for 30 minutes a day for12 to 20 weeks (Shanahan & Barr, 1995). Results from studies examining theeffectiveness of Reading Recovery have found significant effect sizes rangingfrom +.36 to +.72 on measures of basic literacy skills (Huck & Pinnell, 1986;Pinnell, Short, Lyons, & Young, 1986). However, the effectiveness of ReadingRecovery should be viewed cautiously. Some have criticized its studies fordropping from samples students who did complete the program; data analysesinclude approximately 65% of students served (Hiebert, 1994; Shanahan &Barr, 1995). This program is also costly to implement (between $8,000-10,000per student) and requires a large commitment on the part of the school (Hiebert,1994; Wasik & Slavin, 1993).

Use of Community Volunteers as TutorsVarious studies have demonstrated that children at-risk for reading

problems can benefit from programs implemented by volunteers, as long asvolunteers are supervised and receive training. Wasik (1998) identified severalimportant factors in the effective use of volunteers: (a) having certifiedspecialists supervise volunteers, (b) giving tutors ongoing training andfeedback, (c) structuring tutoring sessions in accordance with a specific lessonplan, (d) ensuring tutoring is intensive and consistent, and (e) including ongoingassessment of the progress of the student.

The effectiveness of community volunteers has been empiricallysupported. The meta-analysis performed by Elbaum et al. (2000) revealed thatcollege students and trained, reliable community volunteers were able toprovide significant help to struggling readers. Reliability was a critical factor ina tutor's effectiveness; the effect size for consistent tutors was +.85 versus aneffect size of +.06 for inconsistent tutors. Tutor training was also a vitalcomponent to an intervention program, with the effect size of trained tutors(+.59) significantly higher than the effect size associated with untrained tutors(-.17) (Elbaum, et al., 2000).

A number of studies have examined the results of programs employingcommunity volunteers, such as the America Reads Challenge, Book Buddies,and the Sound Partners program. The America Reads Challenge provides

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


college work-study funding to place college students in elementary schools asreading tutors. Several studies of America Reads programs have demonstratedthat, even with minimal training, America Reads tutors can effect significantgains in reading for struggling students (e.g., Fitzgerald, 2001; Topping, 1998).Invernizzi, Rosemary, Juel, and Richards (1997) examined the effectiveness ofBook Buddies, a program using trained volunteers, and found an overall effectsize of +1.12 in word recognition and +.42 in phoneme-grapheme knowledge.The Sound Partners program was designed for nonteacher tutors to supplementclassroom reading instruction with specific activities to raise phonologicalawareness and phonological reading skills. Initial studies examining theeffectiveness of Sound Partners found significant increases on measures ofspelling (effect size = +.88) and word segmentation tasks (effect size = +.76),but not on timed reading (effect size = -.09) (Vadasy, Jenkins, Antil, Wayne, &O'Connor, 1997).

Cost-effective Reading InterventionSchools face the challenge of implementing a successful intervention

that is both cost-effective and beneficial to the students involved (e.g.,Shanahan & Barr, 1995; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). As the aforementionedstatistics indicate, reading difficulties compound as a child ages, and the mostefficient way to address the needs of at-risk readers is through early andintensive intervention. Most schools are looking for ways to marshal existingresources or to make the most of their current personnel. An intervention thatcan be effectively implemented by volunteers can provide schools with animportant resource and an inexpensive way to help struggling readers. Thepurpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a short (15-minute)tutoring model that could be implemented by volunteers. The tutoring modelcomprises repeated oral reading, coaching by a trained volunteer, and usesmaterials that are readily accessible in most schools. Specifically, this studyexamined the effects of a volunteer tutoring model on first-grade students' earlyreading skills, including phonological awareness, decoding, and sight wordknowledge.

Method

SubjectsParticipants included 49 first grade students. To identify students for the

study, all first grade students in 10 schools in one north central Florida districtwere screened on a measure of invented spelling (Lane & Pullen, 2004). Thismeasure assesses children's ability to construct phonologically accuratespellings of unfamiliar words. The test is administered much like a traditionalspelling test, and children's spellings are scored for phonological accuracy. Two

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


scorers rated each child's spellings, and strong interrater reliability wasobtained (.97). Students who scored at or below the 30th percentile on theinvented spelling assessment were invited to participate in the study.Participants who returned a letter of parental informed consent were randomlyassigned to an intervention or control group. The testing and tutoring sessionsoccurred at the individual student's elementary school during a portion of thetypical school day. Student demographics are provided in Table 1.

Table 1Student Demographics

GenderMale

FemaleEthnicity

African AmericanCaucasian

HispanicAsianOther

Lunch StatusFree

Reduced PriceFull Pay

Intervention

1310

1210

105

1413

Control

159

138102

1205

The tutors who implemented the reading intervention in this study wereuniversity students recruited and hired as tutors. Most of the tutors wereeducation majors (elementary or special education), although some came fromcommunication disorders or psychology programs. At the time of the study, theeducation majors who served as tutors had had limited field experience. Thetutors received four hours of training and were given lesson guides andmaterials for the tutoring lessons. The tutors were trained and supervised by thedevelopers of the tutoring model and each tutor demonstrated mastery of eachelement of the tutoring model, including use of repeated reading, developmentof strategies, and taking a running record, before beginning implementation ofthe model with students.

ProcedureAfter the students were selected for the study and randomly assigned to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


the intervention group (n =25) or the control group (n =24), a battery of pretestmeasures was administered to determine their baseline functioning on readingtasks. The pretest measures included assessments selected from the Jump Startin Reading Assessment of Early Literacy Development (Pullen, Lane, & Hayes,1999). The pretest measures assessed phonological awareness, sight words, andnon-word decoding. After gathering the pretest data, the reading tutoringlessons began. Pretest means and standard deviations are provided in Table 2.There were no significant differences between groups on measures at pretest, asrevealed by analyses of variance (ANOVA). Table 3 provides results of theANOVA for pretest measures.

Table 2Pretest and Posttest Means and Standard Deviations

Pretest

Phonological AwarenessSight Words

Nonword Decoding

Posttest

n

232323

Intervention

Mean

41.78317.8708.826

SD

7.134815.3875.331

n

242424

Control

Mean

37.25023.0838.708

SD

10.60123.9557.012

Phonological AwarenessSight Words

Nonword DecodingWDRB Letter Word ID

WDRB Word Attack

2323232323

50.56561.08713.82696.83

100.61

4.68841.3254.2829.2389.248

2424242424

43.08356.125

8.83391.3792.63

9.42741.0617.075

17.7569.107

Table 3ANOVA for Pretest Measures

Measure

Phonological AwarenessNonword DecodingSight Words

2.931.004.781

.094

.949

.382

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


Tutoring was implemented with the intervention group beginning inlate January and continuing through late April. All of the lessons occurredduring the school day and followed a tutoring session guide. Supervisorsobserved two randomly selected tutoring sessions (5%) and provided tutorsfeedback over the course of the intervention to ensure fidelity of the tutoringmodel and adherence to the session guide. (See Figure 1 for the treatmentfidelity checklist and Figure 2 for the tutoring session guide.) Overall,supervisors observed that the tutors implemented the model as designed.Fidelity for the intervention lessons, based on the percentage of sessionsconducted according to protocol, was .92.

Figure 1.Treatment Fidelity Checklist

Tutor: Date:

Observer:

Step 1: Gaining Fluency

The tutor provided appropriate books (within a 2-level rangefrom current new book level; read w/90% accuracy or better).

Student read familiar books for 5-7 minutes.

Tutor coached student through books as needed.

Tutor pointed out strategies used.

Tutor recommended strategies to use.

Tutor reinforced reader's successes.

Yes No NA

Step 2: Measuring Progress

The tutor completed a running record on yesterday's newbook.

Tutor analyzed student strategies/errors.

Tutor determined book level based on accuracy.

Yes No NA

Step 3: Reading a New Book

The tutor introduced a new book and discussed the story.

Tutor led discussion about illustrations.

Tutor pointed out repetitive language.

Tutor used vocabulary from story.

Tutor helped student make predictions about story.

The tutor coached students through the new book.

Tutor prompted strategy use.

Tutor encouraged students to re-read sentence afterdecoding word.

Yes No NA

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


Figure 2.Tutoring Session Guide

Step 1: Gaining Fluency

EQ Select and read 1-4 familiar books (5-7 minutes)

EQ Coach student through books as needed

ËQ Record observations

Step 2: Measuring Progress

£3 Present book from previous session

£3 Take running record while child reads (2-3 minutes)EQ Provide feedback regarding self-corrections you observed

£3 Quickly discuss story

Step 3: Reading a New Book

G3 Introduce new book (1 minute)£3 Coach student through new book (4-6 minutes)£Q Discuss story (30 seconds)£3 Record strategies used

At the end of the tutoring sessions, the students in both the interventionand control group were reassessed using the Jump Start assessments. To providea standardized measure of basic reading skills, two subtests from the WoodcockDiagnostic Reading Battery (Word Attack and Letter-Word Identification) werealso administered at posttest only (Woodcock, 1997). As most standardized testslack the sensitivity required to accurately measure short-term growth in theskills of a beginning reader, these measures can only be administered, as a rule,at a minimum of six-month intervals. All of the testing measures, both pretestand posttest, were administered by competent researchers trained in thesespecific assessment techniques, and blind to the students' group assignment.

MeasuresThe Jump Start in Reading: Assessment of Early Reading Development

(Pullen et al., 1999) consists of a group of informal measures designed toevaluate skills related to early literacy development. The PhonologicalAwareness, Sight Word Knowledge, and Nonword Decoding subtests wereselected to provide a measure of literacy skills. The assessment of phonologicalawareness measured skills at the word, syllable, onset-rime, and phonemelevels by requiring the student to blend, segment, and delete parts of words,syllables, or phonemes and match and generate rhymes. Assessment ofdecoding skills required students to read sight words and nonwords following aconsonant-vowel-consonant pattern.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


The Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery (WDRB) provides astandardized measure of reading skills (Woodcock, 1997). Two subtests fromthe Basic Reading cluster of the WDRB were administered as posttest measuresof reading skill proficiency levels. The Word Attack subtest measures decodingskills by requiring the student to read nonsensical words that conform to typicalspelling patterns prevalent in the English language. The Letter-WordIdentification subtest assesses subjects' knowledge of letter names and sightwords. A child must read letters and words presented in isolation; therefore, thechild cannot rely on context cues to identify the word or letter (Woodcock,1997). The Basic Reading cluster has strong reliability, with a median clusterreliability of .96. Both of the subtests also have strong reliability at the subtestlevel, with reliability coefficients for first grade data of .97 for Letter-WordIdentification and .94 for Word Attack (Woodcock, 1997).

MaterialsThe lessons for the tutoring sessions required the tutor to use books that

were both challenging and instructional, typically books in which a child couldaccurately decode between 90% to 98% of the words in the text. The booksprovided were all leveled by the Reading Recovery program. The ReadingRecovery book leveling system rates the difficulty of books based on featuresof the text that provide more or less support to the reader (e.g., length ofsentences, difficulty of words, predictability of language patterns, supportprovided by pictures). Students in first grade typically progress toapproximately level 16 by the end of the school year. The leveled books areconsidered to be engaging, with interesting stories and colorful pictures, andthey are typically accessible for struggling beginning readers.

In addition to the leveled books, tutors used a Session Notes form torecord book titles and levels and to take the running record. They also used aSession Guide to remind them of the steps of the lesson and the criticalcomponents of each step. Finally, tutors used timers and timing charts to recordthe progress of their students on timed readings. All of these materials wereprovided to the tutors.

The InterventionDuring the study, both the intervention and control groups continued to

receive regular reading instruction from their classroom teachers. Theintervention group received tutoring as supplemental instruction. The study wasdesigned to provide 40 sessions of thel5-minute tutoring lesson over the courseof 12 weeks. Each lesson followed the same three-step structure, and thestudents progressed through the book levels at their own rates. The following isa general overview of the steps involved in each tutoring session.

Step 1: Gaining Fluency (5-7 minutes). The tutor, prior to each lesson,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


selected a text that the student was able to read with between 90% and 98%accuracy. With the exception of the first lesson, the student had read the booksduring previous sessions. The student read the text with coaching from the tutor,focusing on decoding skills and word solving strategies. The tutor also offeredstrategies to the student for approaching the text and asked the student toexplain strategies used independently. Strategies utilized included monitoring,searching for cues, self-correcting errors, scaffolding, and prompting (Clay,1991). Tutor training emphasized the importance of a gradual release ofresponsibility for strategies from tutor to student. For example, in an earlylesson, the tutor would demonstrate how to break apart a word to say it soundby sound. In a later lesson, the tutor would prompt the student to use thisstrategy independently. Still later, the tutor would look for instances where thestudent used the strategy without prompting and would document strategy use.

Once a student was able to read somewhat more demanding books(typically, once he or she reached a Reading Recovery level eight), the tutorwould shift the focus of the Gaining Fluency step from improving word-readingaccuracy to increasing word-level and text-level automaticity. To promoteautomaticity, the tutor would conduct timed readings of the familiar books. Thestudent read the text for one minute as the tutor recorded reading rate andaccuracy. The progress of the student was recorded on a chart, and the tutor andstudent would establish goals for improvement over time. The student wouldread the same text for the timed reading portion of the session until the goalwas achieved.

Step 2: Measuring progress (3-4 minutes). Measuring student progresswas important to individualize the tutoring sessions, allowing each tutor tomodify the level of the books or decoding strategies presented as a result of astudent's progress. During each lesson the tutor measured the child's progressby taking a running record on the new book that was introduced and read duringthe previous lesson. The primary purpose of this step of the lesson was to selectthe appropriate book level that should be introduced in the current lesson.Although running records also provide information about a child's strategy use,this purpose was secondary to determining book level due to the inexperienceof the tutors. We did not expect the tutors to be able to make sophisticateddecisions based on running records with their limited training, but we did asktutors to record the strategies they noticed the students using or failing to useduring the lesson.

Step 3: Reading a new book (5-7 minutes). During each session, thestudent read a new and somewhat challenging book. This book was firstintroduced to the student by the tutor focusing on the pictures of the story andthe vocabulary of the text. The pictures were used to make predictions about themain characters, storyline progression, and outcome. The tutor was encouragedto engage the student in casual conversation about the book and to relate the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


concepts of the book to the life of the student, because actively introducing anddiscussing the book increases comprehension of the story (Clay, 1991;Invernizzi, 2001). Following the book introduction, the student read the newbook with guidance and coaching from the tutor. Coaching consisted primarilyof instruction in decoding and comprehension monitoring strategies. Forexample, the tutor may help the student notice a decoding error by asking if thetext, as read, makes sense. The new books read in this portion of the tutoringsession would become the familiar books to be reread in later sessions duringStep 1 : Gaining Fluency.

Results

Students in the intervention group received an average of 38 sessions.Students who received fewer than 35 sessions were eliminated from the study,thus resulting in a total of 47 students in the final analyses (23 in theintervention group, 24 in the control group).

Posttest data were analyzed using a series of analyses of covariance(ANCOVAs) with the pretests as covariates. Random assignment to groupsminimized group differences on the pretest (see Table 3), making analysis ofcovariance appropriate (Keppel, 1982). Each measure was examined as anindependent construct, therefore, univariate analysis was more appropriate thanmultivariate analysis (Huberty & Morris, 1989).

Informal assessments of early literacy development. We administeredthree subtests of the Jump Start Assessment of Early Literacy Assessment atpretest and posttest. In each case, the pretest was used as a covariate and anANCOVA was conducted to determine if significant differences betweengroups existed at posttest. For the phonological awareness subtest, analysesrevealed significant group differences, F(2, 44) = 9.002, p = .004, with theintervention group performing significantly better than the control group. Onthe measure of nonword decoding, the intervention group performedsignificantly better than the control, F( 1,44) = 11.275, p = .002. Analyses of thesight word knowledge revealed no significant group differences on the informalmeasure of sight word reading.

Formal assessments. Two subtests, Word Attack and Letter-WordIdentification, from the Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery (WDRB) wereadministered at posttest. An ANCOVA was conducted for the Word Attacksubtest of the WDRB with the pretest phonological awareness score used as acovariate, as the two were highly correlated (r(47) = .56, p = < .001). As withthe informal decoding measure, the intervention group performed significantlybetter than the control group, F(l, 44) = 6.213, p = .017. For the Letter-WordIdentification subtest, sight word knowledge at pretest was used as thecovariate (r(47) = .57, p = < .001). ANCOVA revealed significant group

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


differences, with the intervention group outperforming the control group,F(l,44) = 5.211, p = .027. The difference in outcomes of the sight wordsmeasures may be that the informal measure of sight word reading yielded highstandard deviations (see Table 2).

In addition to the ANCOVAs for each measure, effect sizes werecalculated using Cohen's d. Effect sizes ranged from small (sight words) tolarge (phonological awareness, nonword decoding, and word attack). Values forthe ANCOVAs and effect size calculations are provided in Table 4.

Table 4ANCOVA and Cohen's d Effect Size Estimates

Measure

Phonological AwarenessSight WordsLetter Word IDPseudoword DecodingWord Attack

F

9.002**1.6825.211*

11.275**6.213*

P

.004

.201

.027

.002

.017

d

1.06.12.40.87.87

*p < .05**p <.01

In addition to pretest and posttest measures, ongoing progressmonitoring of students in the intervention group was conducted through the useof daily running records. Because students' book levels for each session weredetermined using daily assessment data, examination of students' book levels atthe beginning and end of the intervention period provides valuable informationabout reading growth. The beginning reading levels for students in theintervention group ranged from a Reading Recovery level 1 to a level 6, with amean of 2.3. Ending levels ranged from a Reading Recovery level 6 to level 20,with a mean of 14. On average, the students in the intervention group gained11.75 levels during the course of the study. Figure 3 illustrates students' startingand ending book levels.

Discussion

After tutoring, the children in the intervention group demonstratedsignificant increases on measures of phonological awareness, decoding, andsight word reading. Although fluency and comprehension were not measured inthis study, it is important to note that improving the foundational skills ofphonological awareness and word recognition skills in struggling beginning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


readers is necessary before improvements will be noticeable in reading fluency.The significant differences between groups on early literacy skills support theconclusion that these struggling readers benefited from the short-term,volunteer-implemented tutoring program under investigation.

Figure 3.Starting and ending book levels for intervention students

Start End

Examination of the beginning and ending book levels of the students inthe intervention group reveals that these students made excellent progress. Inlate January (midyear) of first grade, the typically developing reader reads atapproximately a level 8 or 9 in the Reading Recovery book levels. The averagebeginning book level for students in the intervention group was a level 2, farbelow grade level expectations. By the end of the school year, first graderstypically reach a level 16. In late April, at the conclusion of the tutoringsessions, the average ending book level for students in the intervention groupwas a level 14, which is approximately where a typically developing first graderwould be expected to be. Thus, students who received tutoring moved fromreading text substantially below the level of their typically developing peers toreading at approximately the same level as their peers. Students in theintervention group gained an average of 11.75 levels over a 12-week period,compared with the expected gain of approximately 6 levels for typicallydeveloping readers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


One of the strengths of this model is that it is relatively easy to put intopractice. Numerous adults volunteer to assist classroom teachers throughout theyear; however, teachers often struggle deciding which activities can be easilyadministered by non-teacher volunteers and, more importantly, which activitieswill produce measurable gains for these students. The tutoring interventionpresented is an effective and efficient intervention that can benefit strugglingbeginning readers. Because this model is not particularly complex or intensive,the tutors can be trained in a short period of time. Training is certainlynecessary, however, to help volunteers gain knowledge of coaching studentsthrough the text, focusing on decoding and word-solving strategies, takingrunning records, and making instructional decisions.

The tutoring model is also implemented in a short time period; theactual time for implementation is less than 20 minutes for each session, andsignificant differences were detected between groups after only 40 sessions.The materials required are basic materials that are commonly found in first-grade classrooms. Many schools currently use adult volunteers to read tochildren daily; this model provides the structure to organize these interactionsinto a more formal tutoring intervention without adding many additionalcomponents to burden the volunteers. Therefore, the model is not only valuableto struggling readers, but it is also cost-effective.

The affective benefits of a one-on-one tutoring intervention should notbe overlooked. With this model, children receive not only beneficialinstruction, but also one-on-one time with an attentive adult. One factor thatpredicts reading difficulties is limited adult-child interactions in the home,which are often much less frequent in low-income homes (Hart & Risley, 1995).Therefore, for some struggling students, the tutoring intervention could be theonly undivided attention from an adult they receive all day. Students in thisstudy, who were predominately from low-income families, respondedextraordinarily well to their college-student tutors. Several teachers reportedthat students looked forward to their tutoring sessions throughout the day.

LimitationsThere are a number of limitations that require consideration. The

intervention is aimed at augmenting instruction for struggling readers, but thosein need of intensive, remedial assistance would likely be better served by moreexpert instruction. All the students in this intervention group evidenced growthin phonological awareness and decoding skills, and most of these students madesubstantial progress in moving through book levels. Figure 4 illustrates boththe progress made by the struggling readers in this study and the expectedprogress for typically developing readers. Although none of the students beganat or above the expected level, many students finished the intervention at orabove the expected level, and nearly all students made progress at a steeper than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


average trajectory. Accelerating the rate of improvement of struggling readersis the only way to close the gap between good and poor readers—to reduce theMatthew effect.

Figure 4.Expected progress of typically developing readers and the progress ofintervention participants

• Expected Growth

• — Intervention Students'Growth

Start End

The students in the intervention group who made the least progress arealso those who started at the lowest levels. In fact, these students' beginningbook levels indicated that they had made almost no progress in reading throughJanuary of first grade. Students who are this far behind their typicallydeveloping peers by mid-first grade likely need more intensive instruction thana volunteer tutor would be able to provide. These students deserve instructionfrom highly qualified reading professionals who are able to diagnose theirdifficulties and develop individualized interventions.

The changes in book levels of the children in the intervention grouprepresent improvements in important elements of reading fluency (i.e., accuracyand automaticity). It is unclear, however, whether these improvements have ledto improvements in reading rate or text comprehension. Follow-up testingshould evaluate if the changes are maintained over time and whether theytranslate into improvements in comprehension.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


Directions for Future ResearchThe tutoring model implemented in this study provides a viable

alternative for schools to help their struggling readers while making effectiveuse of their volunteers. The tutors in this study were college students withmajors related to education. Additional research is needed to determine howeffectively other volunteers, especially parents, can implement the model andeffect reading growth.

The study was also conducted with struggling beginning readers.Additional research with older struggling readers is necessary to determine theextent to which this model can be used in schools. Other tutoring models thatuse repeated readings have been demonstrated to be effective with olderstruggling readers, but most of these interventions use short passages. Theengaging and motivating nature of many of the leveled books may provepowerful for struggling readers in the intermediate grades.

ConclusionIn conclusion, the tutoring model produced significant changes in

phonological awareness and decoding skills of struggling first-grade readers.The intervention also increased students' rate of reading growth as measured bytheir book levels. Training for tutors was brief and the content of the sessionswas manageable for tutors with limited background in reading intervention.The results provide support for a volunteer-implemented, short-term tutoringmodel. This study provides further evidence that struggling beginning readerswho need instructional support in addition to their classroom reading instructioncan obtain significant benefit from participation in a non-intensive tutoringprogram from trained classroom volunteers.

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The ReadingTeacher 36 (6), 556-561.

Chard, D. J., & Osborn, J. (1999). Phonics and word recognition in earlyreading programs: Guidelines for accessibility. Learning DisabilitiesResearch and Practice, 14, 107-117.

Chard, D. J., Simmons, D. C, & Kameenui, E. J. (1998). Word recognition:Research bases. In D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kameenui (Eds.), What readingresearch tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases andbasics (pp. 141-167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Clay, M. M. (1991). Introducing a new storybook to young readers. TheReading Teacher, 45, 264-273.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


Dowhower, S. L. (1994). Repeated reading revisited: Research into practice.Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10, 343-358.

Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective areone-on-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk forreading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 92, 605-619.

Fitzgerald, J. (2001). Can minimally trained college student volunteers help youngat-risk children read better? Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 28-47.

Foorman, B., Francis, D., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J. (1997). Earlyinterventions for children with reading problems: Study designs andpreliminary findings. Learning Disabilities: A Multi-disciplinary Journal,8, 63-71.

Foorman, B., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C, & Mehta, P. (1998).The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-riskchildren. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experienceof young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Hiebert, E. (1994). Reading Recovery in the United States: What differences doesit make to an age cohort? Educational Researcher, 23 (9), 15-25.

Huberty, C, & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariateanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302-308.

Huck, C. S. & Pinnell, G. S. (1986). The Reading Recovery Project in Columbus,Ohio: Pilot year, 1984-85. Columbus: Ohio State University.

Invernizzi, M. A. (2001). The complex world of one-on-one tutoring. In S. B.Neuman & D. K. Dikinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp.459-470). New York: Guilford.

Invernizzi, M. A., Rosemary, G, Juel, C, & Richards, H. C. (1997). At-risk readersand community volunteers: A 3-year perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading:The Official Journal of the Society, 1, 277-300.

Johns, J. L. (1993). Informal reading inventories. DeKalb, IL: Communitech.Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (2nd ed.).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Kuhn, M., & Stahl, S. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial

practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3-21.LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information

processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2004). Phonological awareness assessment and

instruction: A sound beginning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Levy, B. A., Nicholls, A., & Kohen, D. (1993). Repeated readings: Process benefits for

good and poor readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 303-327.McCandliss, B., Beck, I. L., Sandak, R., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing attention

on decoding for children with poor reading skills: Design and preliminary testsof the Word Building intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 75-104.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


Mercer, C. D., Campbell, K. U., Miller, M. D., Mercer, K. D., & Lane, H. B. (2000).Effects of a reading fluency intervention for middle schoolers with specificlearning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 179-189.

Moody, S. W., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1997). Instructional grouping forreading: Teachers' views. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 347-356.

Morris, D., Tyner, B., & Perney, J. (2000). Early Steps: Replicating the effects of afirst-grade reading intervention program. Journal of Educational Psychology,92, 681-693.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-basedassessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implicationsfor reading instruction. Washington, D C: National Institute of Child Healthand Human Development.

Perfetti, C. A., & Hogaboam, T. (1975). Relationship between single word decodingand reading comprehension skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 461-469.

Pinnell, G., Short, K., Lyons, C. A., & Young, P. (1986). The reading recoveryproject in Columbus, Ohio: Volume II pilot year, 1985-1986. (TechnicalReport). Columbus: The Ohio State University.

Pullen, P. C, Lane, H. B., & Hayes, L. F. (1999). Jump start in reading assessmentsof early literacy development. Gainesville, FL: Author.

Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluencyin learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180-188.

Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32,403-408.

Samuels, S. J. (1988). Decoding and automaticity: Helping poor readers becomeautomatic at word recognition. The Reading Teacher, 41, 756-760.

Schatschneider, C. (2004, February). Predicting reading comprehension: A study ofthird, seventh, and tenth grade students. Paper presented at the Florida Center forReading Research Conference on Vocabulary and Reading, Captiva Island, FL.

Schreiber, P. A. (1980). On the acquisition of reading fluency. Journal of ReadingBehavior, 7 (3), 177-186.

Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation ofthe effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 30, 958-996.

Sindelar, P. T., Monda, L. E., & O'Shea, L. J. (1990). The effects of repeatedreadings on instructional and mastery level readers. Journal of EducationalResearch, 83, 220-226.

Slavin, R. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educationalpractice and research. Educational Researcher, 31, 15-21.

Smith, S., Simmons, D., & Kame'enui, E. (1998). Phonological awareness:Curricular and instructional implications for diverse learners. In D. C.Simmons & E. J. Kame'enui (Eds.), What reading research tells us aboutchildren with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013


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

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences ofindividual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 21, 361-407.

Topping, K. (1998). Effective tutoring in America Reads: A reply to Wasik.Reading Teacher, 52, 42-50.

Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Catch them before they fall: Identification andassessment to prevent reading failure in young children. AmericanEducator, Spring/Summer, 1-8.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Alexander, A. W., & Conway,T. (1997). Preventive and remedial interventions for children with severereading disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 8, 51-61.

Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & O'Connor, R. E.(1997). Community-based early reading intervention for at-risk firstgraders. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 29-39.

Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (2001). Emergent literacy skills, earlyinstruction, and individual differences as determinants of difficulties inlearning to read: The case for early intervention. In S. B. Neuman & D. K.Dikinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 295-321). NewYork: Guilford.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, M. S. (1998). The case for earlyintervention in specific learning disability. Journal of School Psychology,36, 367-397.

Wasik, B. (1998). Using volunteers as reading tutors: Guidelines for successfulpractice. The Reading Teacher, 51, 562-570.

Wasik, B. A. & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-on-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly,28, 178-200.

Woodcock, R. W. (1997). Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery. Itasca, IL;Riverside.

Young, A. R., Bowers, P. G., MacKinnon, G. E. (1996). Effects of prosodicmodeling and repeated reading on poor readers' fluency andcomprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17, 59-84.

Author NoteThis study was conducted with support from the US Department of Education,Office of Special Education Programs, Grant H324D000066-01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 1

3:45

23

Janu

ary

2013

effects of a volunteer tutoring model on the early...

Documents