Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of Supplemental Tutoring Configurations for Preschoolers at Risk for Reading Difficulties

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Child & Youth Care Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Providing preschoolers at-risk for reading difficulties with additional support is of increasing interest in early childhood education. However, the research on programming in preschool for this additional support is limited and yields inconclusive findings.

Objective

The current studies explore different grouping configurations in a supplemental tutoring program for at-risk preschoolers in order to provide early childhood educators with guidance on grouping strategies for use in their supplemental instruction.

Methods

Two grouping configurations are examined via two studies. In Study 1, 45 at-risk preschoolers (18 boys, 27 girls) were selected and randomly assigned to a one-on-one tutoring or paired tutoring condition. In Study 2, 54 at-risk children (31 boys, 23 girls) were selected and randomly assigned to one of two pairing conditions: with a highly-skilled peer or with a similarly low-skilled peer. In each study, children received tutoring that supplemented the classroom instruction twice a week over the academic year.

Results

In Study 1, children in both conditions made similar gains on the alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness measures and the one-on-one group outperformed the paired group on receptive vocabulary but the effect size was small. In Study 2, the children in the matched-pairing condition evidenced a trend toward greater gains than those paired with high-skilled peer on the phonological awareness measure but not on alphabet knowledge and receptive vocabulary measures.

Conclusion

The results of studies hold promise for achieving optimal outcomes by providing supplemental instruction to the maximum number of preschoolers using a dyad model instead of the typical one-on-one model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allor, J., & McCathren, R. (2004). The efficacy of an early literacy tutoring program implemented by college students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(2), 116–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assel, M. A., Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., & Gunnewig, S. (2007). An evaluation of curriculum, setting, and mentoring on the performance of children enrolled in pre-kindergarten. Reading and Writing, 20(5), 463–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Keating, T. (2000). When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 494–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, S., Epstein, D. J., Friedman, A. H., Boyd, J. S., & Hustedt, J. T. (2008). The state of preschool 2008. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayat, M., Mindes, G., & Covitt, S. (2010). What does RTI (response to intervention) looks like in preschool? Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(6), 493–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkun, M. M., Swanson, L. W., & Sawyer, D. M. (1966). An experiment on homogeneous grouping for reading in elementary classes. Journal of Educational Research, 59, 413–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonar, H. S. (1929). Ability grouping in first grade. The Elementary School Journal, 29(9), 703–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, T., & Ergul, C. (2012). Curriculum-based measurement. In C. Vukelich, J. Christie, & B. Enz (Eds.), Helping young children learn language and literacy: Birth through kindergarten (pp. 202–204). New York: Pearson.

  • Burris, C. C., Heubert, J. P., & Levin, H. M. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 105–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burtt, H. E., Chassel, L. M., & Hatch, E. M. (1923). Efficiency of instruction in unselected and selection sections in elementary psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 14, 154–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie, J., Roskos, K., Vukelich, C., & Han, M. (2003). The effects of a well-designed literacy program on young children’s language and literacy development. In Head Start Bureau (Ed.), The first eight years–Pathways to the future: Implications for research, policy, and practice (pp. 447–448). New York: Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, M. R., Buysse, V., & Neitzel, J. (2006). Recognition and response: An early intervening system for young children at-risk of learning disabilities. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test-III. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development. (1998). Research and development of individual growth and development indicators for children between birth and age eight (Tech. Rep. No. 4). Minneapolis, MN: Center for Early Education and Development, University of Minnesota.

  • Fitzsimmons, L. M. (2008). Early literacy support in an urban setting utilizing the EMERGE response-to-intervention model. Unpublished dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1998). High-achieving students’ interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 227–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagans-Murillo, K. (2005). Using a response-to-intervention approach in preschool to promote literacy. The California School Psychologist, 10, 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, G., & Hong, Y. (2009). Reading instruction time and homogeneous grouping in kindergarten: An application of marginal mean weighting through stratification. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(1), 54–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Invernizzi, M., Sullivan, A., Meier, J., & Swank, L. (2004). Phonological and literacy screening pre-K (PALS). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justice, L. M., McGinty, A., Guo, Y., & Moore, D. (2009). Implementation of responsiveness to intervention in early education settings. Seminars in Speech and Language, 30(2), 59–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Justice, L. M., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., & Mashburn, A. (2011). Peer effects in preschool classrooms: Is children’s language growth association with their classmates’ skills? Child Development, 82(6), 1768–1777.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, C. O., Dansereau, D. F., O’Donnell, A. O., Hythecker, V., Lambiotte, J. G., & Rocklin, T. R. (1984). Verbal ability and cooperative learning: Transfer of effects. Journal of Literacy Research, 16(4), 289–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leal, D., Johanson, G., Toth, A., & Huang, C. (2004). Increasing at-risk students’ literacy skills: Fostering success for children and their preservice reading endorsement tutors. Reading Improvement, 41(1), 51–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonigan, C. J., Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Test of preschool early literacy. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, P. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) in early childhood: Challenges and practical guidelines. Journal of Early Childhood and Infant Psychology, 2, 157–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. D. (2009). Using classroom assistants to tutor struggling third graders: How long will it take to read at grade level? Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(3), 233–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W. S., & Otto, H. J. (1930). Analysis of experimental studies in homogeneous grouping. Journal of Educational Research, 21, 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piasta, S., & Wagner, R. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: A meta-analysis of alphabet learning and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 8–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Piland, J. C., & Lemki, E. A. (1971). The effect of ability grouping on concept learning. Journal of Educational Research, 65(5), 209–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., & Monaghan, M. C. (2004). Effects of a volunteer tutoring model on the early literacy development of struggling first grade students. Reading Research and Instruction, 43(4), 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velluntino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Zhang, H., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at risk for long-term reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 21, 437–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright Group/McGraw-Hill. (2002). Doors to discovery. Bothell, WA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a U.S. Department of Education, Early Reading First grant (U.S. Department of Education Contract No. 84.359B) to the University of Delaware. We thank the centers’ teachers, directors, and children, as well as the tutors, for their work with us on this project. We also thank our colleague Martha Buell for her thoughtful assistance designing the tutoring protocol. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any products, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

    Carol Vukelich & Myae Han

  2. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Laura M. Justice

Authors
  1. Carol Vukelich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura M. Justice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Myae Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carol Vukelich.

Appendix: Supplemental Tutoring Protocols (Followed in Each Lesson)

Appendix: Supplemental Tutoring Protocols (Followed in Each Lesson)

  1. 1.

    The tutor and tutee/s read the same book during each tutoring session that the classroom teacher was reading during that week’s shared reading time. The tutor read with an engaging and highly interactive reading style and embedded literal and inferential questions. While reading, the tutor also explicitly taught print awareness skills (e.g., title, author, print directionality, punctuation).

  2. 2.

    During or after the storybook reading, the tutor explicitly taught two vocabulary words, resulting in four vocabulary words being explicitly taught each week. All words were directly linked to the content of the book. The explicit vocabulary protocol included the following steps: (1) Say the word, (2) ask the child or children to say the word, (3) tell the child what the word means, using a child-friendly definition, (4) do a word-related action or use a concrete prop to show the action, (5) invite the child or children to repeat the action, (6) invite the child or children to engage in a play episode that highlights the word.

  3. 3.

    Following the storybook reading, the tutor explicitly taught the name of a letter of the alphabet. If the child knew the name of the letter, the tutor explicitly taught the sound of the letter of the alphabet. The letter of focus was always the same letter of focus in the classroom. The children and their tutors engaged in a range of alphabet teaching activities. For example, they might make the focus letter out of Play-Doh, play a matching game with all letters taught to date, or use highlighter tape to cover all examples of the letter in the storybook. The tutor said and encouraged the children to say the letter’s name often during the activity.

  4. 4.

    Following the alphabet teaching, the tutors engaged the children in a phonological awareness activity. They might ‘fish’ for pictures of two objects that began with the same sound; or hunt for pictures of two objects with the same number of syllables; or show the child or children a set of pictures, say a word by separating each phoneme (e.g., /d/ /o/ /g/), ask the children to find the picture of the word, and say the word.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vukelich, C., Justice, L.M. & Han, M. Impact of Supplemental Tutoring Configurations for Preschoolers at Risk for Reading Difficulties. Child Youth Care Forum 42, 19–34 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-012-9184-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-012-9184-8

Keyword

Search

Navigation