AFTER-SCHOOL
TUTORING: IS IT A GOOD OPTION?
An
Action Research Project
Presented
to
The
Faculty of the College of Graduate Studies
Lamar
University
In
Partial Fulfillment
Of
the Requirements for the Degree
Master
of Education in Education Administration
By
Rebecca
Phifer
May
2014
ABSTRACT
AFTER-SCHOOL
TUTORING: IS IT A GOOD OPTION?
By
Rebecca
Phifer
After-School
Tutoring: Is It A Good Option?
Visit any school in America and you will
likely find some type of tutoring program incorporated into the school day. In addition, some schools offer tutoring
before, during, and after school. Since
the passage of No Child Left Behind Act, tutoring became law in the sense that
students from low-income families could receive free tutoring if they attended
a school that did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress three years in a row.
(Viadero, 2009) How effective is
tutoring, though?
Data
was collected for the school year of 2012-2013 that tracked the reading
progress of approximately 20 second graders who received after-school
tutoring. These students attend a Title
1 campus and most students are considered at-risk. Second grade students were selected because
it provided an opportunity to observe students who had received a few years of
classroom instruction, but were not in a grade level where high stakes testing
was involved.
As
an educator, the researcher experienced frustrations with tutoring after
school. The researcher is no longer in
the classroom; however, the researcher trains/coaches teachers in the classroom
and continually hears the same frustrations regarding after-school
tutoring. The researcher wanted to find
out for how effective after-school tutoring is and dig into the research to
learn more effective methods of tutoring after school.
Background
The problem that was
experienced with tutoring was not necessarily the time it took, rather the lack
of progress students were making. Time
is a precious commodity in schools and it simply cannot be wasted. Often teachers feel after-school tutoring is
an enormous waste of time. Students as
well as educators are tired and motivation is a struggle. The concern for student achievement and
success along with the teachers’ investment led the researcher to become very
interested in making a difference by examining better methods of achieving
student success through tutoring.
The problem, was that many variables affected
tutoring. Complications such as students
moving, parents not allowing their children to attend tutoring regularly,
teaching methods, deciding on how many subjects to track, other factors that
might be attributed to student achievement, and taking the teachers’ time away
from other responsibilities were some of the concerns.
With the help of a mentor, the researcher decided
to dig into research already completed on tutoring and keep this research
appropriate for purposes of this campus.
The data the researcher decided to use is the universal screening
assessment, Aimsweb, chosen by the district, which is administered three times
throughout the year. The researcher
tracked where the students scored during the first administration of the screening,
where they scored during the second screening, and where they scored on the
final assessment. Additionally, a
comparison of the reading levels where students began the year and how much
achievement they made by the end of the year.
Problem
Statement
The purpose of this
research is to investigate how effective after-school tutoring is for
students. If it is not effective, what
can be done to improve the situation for both educators and students? In order to improve student achievement and
reduce the amount of students who will ultimately drop out of school because
they cannot achieve success, educators must implement best teaching practices
in every area of instruction.
Significance
of the Study
Throughout this study
of tutoring, the main focus has been improving student achievement through
strengthening an understanding of best practices for educators when
implementing after-school tutoring. Many
studies, included in this research have been provided for educators to identify
better methods for improving after-school tutoring. Some forms of tutoring may do more harm than
good (Deshler, Hock, & Pulvers, 2001) and it is the
responsibility of educators to eliminate this possibility.
Definitions
Universal Screening: This is a first step to identifying students
who are at risk for learning difficulties (Dexter,
2013).
Title 1: Education act of 1965 that gives extra
government money to schools that qualify through students who receive free or
reduced lunch.
Review of the Literature
Tutoring is not a new concept. It has been implemented for many years. Most of the research found on the topic of
tutoring for this research addressed the enactment of NCLB (No Child Left
Behind). NCLB was an expansion of the
1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Nelson-Royes, 2011).
Significant reform came from NCLB in an effort to ensure that every
child received a quality education (Nelson-Royes, 2011).
Tutoring, in the process of the reform, was revamped as well. Under the new law, low-income students who
attend a school that has not met achievement goals for three years, qualify for
free tutoring services outside of school (Viadero, 2009). Along with the implementation of new tutoring
standards, discussion of the effectiveness of tutoring has emerged.
Instructional
Tutoring, Assignment-Assistance Tutoring, and Strategic Tutoring (Deshler, Hock, & Pulvers,
2001)
Can tutoring be harmful
or helpful? It all depends on how it is
addressed and the expected outcome. If
the outcome is to achieve independent thinkers and learners, then
assignment-assistance tutoring is harmful (Deshler, Hock, & Pulvers, 2001). Tutoring that addresses a specific assignment
will achieve its goal if the tutoring session is assignment based. It’s basically homework help (Deshler, Hock, & Pulvers, 2001). If the outcome of tutoring is content
knowledge then instructional tutoring is the most beneficial model (Deshler, Hock, & Pulvers, 2001). To achieve the outcome of generating
independent thinkers and learners, strategic tutoring works best (Deshler, Hock, & Pulvers, 2001). The prime difference in the success of a
tutoring program is the projected outcome (Deshler, Hock, & Pulvers, 2001).
SES
Tutoring
Supplemental Education Services or SES is
a tutoring program that was developed as a result of NCLB in an effort to
improve student learning (Viadero, 2009).
It is a free program offered to low-income students. A few studies were done that showed students
made small or insignificant gains on standardized tests as a result of SES
tutoring (Viadero, 2009). The question
which then needs to be addressed is will SES tutoring continue as a result of
these studies?
Reading
Partners: Beyond Tutoring (Saddler & Staulters, 2008)
Four goals were
presented through research conducted on a program entitled Reading
Partners (Saddler & Staulters, 2008). Goal 1 is to equip students with a better
foundation of reading strategies (Saddler & Staulters, 2008). Goal 2 involves improving student
comprehension using social studies curriculum (Saddler & Staulters, 2008). Goal 3 is to enhance students’
self-efficacy (Saddler & Staulters, 2008). Finally, goal 4 is to help tutors gain
experience and improve their skills (Saddler & Staulters, 2008). By using this method, students in the
research gained at least one grade level in reading (Saddler & Staulters, 2008).
Effective
After-School Tutoring Programs
Results from research
done on after-school programs, suggests that students who attend programs where
classroom teachers provided the tutoring were highly successful (Henderson
& Rothman, 2011). Other school
personnel involved with tutoring produced beneficial results when they were in
consistent communication with the classroom teacher (Henderson & Rothman,
2011). The results of this study indicated that
students who were tutored by school personnel invested in student achievement
on standardized test significantly outperformed borderline students who did not
receive after-school tutoring (Henderson & Rothman, 2011)
Schema-Broadening
Tutoring
In relation to RtI
(Response to Intervention), students who receive schema-broadening tutoring
over 12 weeks made greater improvements than students who remained in Tier 1
instruction (Fletcher,
Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Powell, 2008). This type of tutoring is preventative and
occurs during the regular school day (Fletcher,
Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Powell, 2008). This tutoring is an instructional approach
for students needing Tier 2 instruction (Fletcher,
Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Powell, 2008).
Action Research Design
Subjects
Students who were selected for this research
included all students from four sections of second grade who received tutoring
after school. They were students who
scored below average or well below average on the universal screening test,
Aimsweb which was administered in the fall of 2012. The only subject addressed for this research
was reading. Most students were
considered at-risk according to results of the universal screener. These students attend a Title 1 campus which
has met AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) each year. Students were both male and female as well as
representative of different ethnic groups.
Procedures
Data was collected throughout the year, beginning in
the fall of 2012 and ending with the last administration in the spring of
2013. Teachers were asked to help
provide the names of students who were tutored and how often they were
tutored. Aimsweb results as well as
reading level results were used to help
determine progress of the students involved in tutoring.
Data Collection
Data was collected from the fall 2012
administration of Aimsweb, a universal screening test. Second grade teachers were asked to submit
names of students who were receiving after –school tutoring based on these
results. Data was again collected after
the winter administration of Aimsweb.
After the final administration of the Aimsweb test in the spring of
2013, data was again collected. A
comparison was then made between the students who were still below or well
below average after several months of tutoring.
A comparison was also made with the students who fell in the same area
of well below average on the Aimsweb test who did not receive tutoring. In addition to the Aimsweb data, data was
also collected on reading levels comparing the progress made from the beginning
of the year to the end of the year.
Findings
Conclusions
and Recommendations
References
Deshler, D., Hock, M., & Pulvers, K., & Schumaker, J.
(2001). The effects of an after-school tutoring program on the academic
performance of at-risk students and students with ld. Remedial and Special
Education, 22(3), 172-186.
Dexter, D., & Hughes, C. (2013). Universal screening
within a response to intervention model. Penn State University: RTI Action
Network. Retrieved from
http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/research/universal-screening-within-a-...
Fletcher, J., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Hamlett, C., &
Powell, S., & Seethaler, P. (2008). Effects of preventative tutoring on the
mathematical problem solving of third-grade students with math and reading
difficulties. Exceptional Children, 74(2), 155-173.
Gordon, E. (2009). 5 ways to improve tutoring programs. Phi
Delta Kappan, 440-445.
Henderson, M., & Rothman, T. (2011). Do school-based
tutoring programs significantly improve student performance on standardized
tests? Research in Middle Level Education Online, 34(6), 1-15. Retrieved
from http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.lamar.edu/ehost/delivery
Nelson-Royes, A., & Reglin,G. (2011). After-school
tutoring for reading achievement and urban middle school students. Reading
Improvement, 48(3), 105-117.
Saddler, B., & Staulters, M. (2008). Beyond tutoring:
after-school literacy instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(4),
203-209. Retrieved from http://isc.sagepub.com
Viadero, D. (2009, June 02). [Web log
message]. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/index.html
