22 • Reading Horizons • 59.3 • 2020

Learning to Teach Reading Responsively Through Tutoring
Jodi Nickel, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Canada
Scott Hughes, Vancouver School Board, British Columbia, Canada
Abstract
This article describes a community service learning collaboration between a
teacher education program and a nonprofit literacy society. Seventeen teacher
candidates (TCs) tutored young readers weekly for seven months as part of their
course-related field experience and completed reflective assignments analyzing
their own learning and the learning of their tutees. The study demonstrates how
the tutoring experience enhanced the pedagogical competence of TCs (kidwatching, assessment, instruction, responsiveness, professional conversations,
and affirmation of impact). These findings align with contemporary research in
literacy teacher preparation, which identifies that the combination of coursework
and tutoring is effective in promoting the integration of TC knowledge and
confidence in supporting student reading.
Keywords: tutoring, reading, teacher education, community service learning,
responsive teaching

This article describes a community service learning collaboration between
a teacher education program and Calgary Reads, a nonprofit literacy society. Teacher
candidates (TCs) tutored young readers weekly for seven months as part of their courserelated field experience and completed reflective assignments analyzing their own learning
and the learning of their tutees. They shared their learning in focus groups at the midpoint
and end of the program.
Teaching young children to read is complex. Teachers need to develop a broad
repertoire of strategies to support children in developing from the early, tenuous stages of
decoding words and sight word recognition to confidently reading text with fluency and
comprehension. Research suggests that developing an effective reading program is one
of the challenging tasks faced by preservice teachers and that there are perceived gaps in
TCs’ foundational knowledge about reading processes and methods (Hikida et al., 2019).
Further, research identifies the need for robust coursework and fieldwork experiences for
effective literacy teacher preparation, especially guided practice of teaching strategies with
pupils (Risko et al., 2008). The Preliminary Report on Teacher Preparation for Literacy
Instruction (International Literacy Association, 2015) recommends that “all preservice

Learning to Teach Reading • 23

teachers should be required to participate in activities during their practica that develop their
ability to design literacy instruction and monitor literacy growth” (p. 8), a recommendation
that emerged from its study showing inconsistent preparation for literacy teaching in
universities and practica. Tutoring is a promising context for connecting fieldwork and
coursework in a way that can prepare TCs to “be successful in enacting complex teaching
practices” (Zeichner, 2010, p. 89), beginning with application of course material in a oneto-one context.
This project was aligned with contemporary research in literacy teacher
preparation, which identifies that the combination of coursework and tutoring is effective
in promoting the integration of TC knowledge and confidence in supporting student reading
development (Haverback & Parault, 2008; Hoffman et al., 2016; Hoffman et al., 2019).
This research addresses the question: How does a tutoring program contribute to TCs’
understanding of reading instruction?
Review of Research on Literacy Teacher Candidates
Tutoring in Teacher Education
The teacher education research literature calls repeatedly for increasing the
amount of practicum experience as well as the variety and quality of these experiences
(Clift & Brady, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2006). However, these calls are issued with a
caution that the experiences must be intentionally designed lest they deepen the common
divide between coursework and fieldwork. In his landmark work on reflective practice,
Schon (1983) urged teacher educators to place TCs in “field experiences that present
uncertain, unique, and conflicting situations where prospective teachers can think and act
like teachers” (p. 27), a description that aptly describes the tutoring context.
There is a wealth of research demonstrating how tutoring young readers contributes
to the effective preparation of literacy teachers beginning nearly 30 years ago (Juel, 1996;
Wasik & Slavin, 1993). A review of tutoring research by Hoffman et al. (2019) identifies
an impressive list of factors that influenced TCs’ learning, including the embodied and
experiential nature of tutoring, engagement with students’ lives, building relationships
with students, TCs’ beliefs and expectations of students, responsive teaching, reflective
teaching, connection to academic content, and shaping TC identity and beliefs.
In their review of research on tutoring programs embedded in teacher education
courses, Hoffman et al. (2016, 2019) observe that tutoring is frequently used as an
opportunity for practice in a fieldwork setting earlier in the sequence of courses and
preceding practicum. Murphy Odo (2016) compares this practice to training wheels for
TCs, “a scaled-down version of teaching that offers the new teacher the mental space to
be more reflective about the teaching and learning process” (p. 54). School observation
experiences early in the program may not involve TCs in engaging with readers, and formal
student teaching often requires a TC to assess and engage an entire classroom. Conversely,
TCs in tutoring must identify a reader’s needs, motivate the reader, and use instructional
strategies to support the reader; this creates a unique opportunity for TCs to self-assess the
impact of their teaching and to develop self-efficacy (Hoffman et al., 2019).
Tutoring to Foster TC Knowledge and Efficacy
In another literature review, Haverback and Parault (2008) identify ways in which
tutoring impacts TC efficacy; TCs engaged with tutoring made strong theory-practice
connections, felt more prepared to teach reading, were better able to differentiate for student
needs, and were committed to professional learning to enhance their reading instruction.

24 • Reading Horizons • 59.3 • 2020
Brannon and Feine (2013) highlighted the value of tutoring over helping a
classroom teacher when they compared two groups of TCs: one group helped a teacher
in a reading classroom, and the other group participated in a structured field experience
based on a Response to Intervention (RtI) model that identifies students requiring support,
provides interventions, monitors progress, and adjusts interventions. TCs in the RtI
experience worked significantly more often with students and learned more about child
development, teaching strategies, and the teacher role.
Other individual studies show similar benefits for TCs through tutoring, including
helping them understand
•

foundational concepts of reading development (Fang & Ashley, 2004; Murphy
Odo, 2016),

•

reading assessment (Hill et al., 2010; Lipp & Helfrich, 2016; Massey & Lewis,
2011),

•

instructional strategies for differentiation (Brock et al., 2007; Hedrick et al., 2000;
Hopkins et al., 2018; Massey & Lewis, 2011),

•

the role of motivation in reading (Massey & Lewis, 2011),

•

reflective and responsive teaching (Assaf & López, 2012, 2015; Dawkins et al.,
2009; Fang & Ashley, 2004; Hoffman et al., 2019; Lipp & Helfrich, 2016).

The findings of these studies confirm that paired coursework and tutoring
produce teachers who have a strong understanding of the appropriate pedagogy for reading
instruction and who are attuned to the needs of individual students. It is noteworthy that of
the 62 tutoring studies reviewed by Hoffman et al. (2019), none seem to have been based
in Canada, the location of our study.
Tutoring to Support TC Reflection
In addition to developing teaching skills, tutoring paired with coursework can
significantly change TC beliefs and capacity for reflective practice. A large analysis
of reading teacher preparation (Risko et al., 2008) showed evidence of changes in TC
beliefs and knowledge when they engage in teaching activities and reflect on student
data, particularly over an extended period. Their analysis distinguishes between research
conducted from five paradigms: positivist (focused on outcomes and teacher effectiveness),
cognitive (grounded in learners’ prior knowledge and deepening teacher knowledge through
reflection), constructivist (constructing meaning by reflecting on classroom experiences),
sociocultural (understanding students’ and TCs’ relations to the social context), and critical
theory (focused on promoting social justice). Although the current study attended to
student outcomes consistent with a positivist paradigm, the emphasis was on cognitive,
constructivist, and sociocultural paradigms as TCs engaged in inquiry and challenging
preconceptions to better address the challenges of tutoring.
Several studies aligned with a constructivist view. Hart and King (2007) describe
tutors’ sense of ownership as they engaged in responsive teaching in an authentic setting
and in subsequent problem-solving with instructors and peers who served as a community
of practice: “a social context in which learners collaborate on knowledge construction,
supporting and learning from one another” (p. 330). Tutoring motivated the TCs to learn
course concepts to address authentic teaching challenges. In a tutoring program based on
Reading Recovery, Nierstheimer et al. (2000) observed a promising shift in the beliefs
of many of the 67 participants: TCs previously assigned others (parents, tutors, readings

Learning to Teach Reading • 25

specialists) responsibility for students’ reading difficulties but subsequently recognized
their role in addressing the needs of readers, including specific and efficacious instructional
strategies tailored to the needs of the children. Similarly, Mallette et al. (2000) powerfully
demonstrated the way that interactions with readers shifted TCs’ perspectives from deficit
models to pedagogical problem-solving as they sought ways to address children’s needs.
Linek et al. (2006) echo the recommendation that teacher educators should provide
experiences that lead to realizations concerning student learning that challenge personal
beliefs in order to encourage reflection and self-directed inquiry that are necessary for
professional growth.
The tutoring study by Brock et al. (2007) incorporated Wenger’s (1998)
communities of practice literature, particularly the notions of reification (following the
elements of practice required by the tutoring program) and participation (adapting practices
to promote individual success). “Teachers abide by documented elements of effective
practice (reification), but must also modify and adapt effective practices to ensure individual
success (participation)” (p. 900). In Brock et al.’s research, one team of TCs was shaped by
true participation, recognizing the needs of the children and their responsibilities to those
children; the other team spoke in generalities and deficit stereotypes about “those kids.”
The authors caution that without critical examination, teacher education can contribute to
reified beliefs and practices; they encourage instructors to invite genuine participation in
Wenger’s sense of that term.
Methods and Context
Research participants were 17 TCs in their second year of a 4-year elementary
teacher education program at a Canadian university. All TCs were required to complete 20
half-days of field experience in local elementary schools during their second year as part
of two courses, the first on language development and literacy in the fall and the second
on assessment in the winter. As part of the literacy course and weekly field experience,
all 90 TCs in the degree were required to participate in a read-aloud program called
wee reads coordinated by Calgary Reads. Seventeen of the 90 TCs opted for a more
demanding program called Read Up that included 35 tutoring sessions. This required
them to tutor a young reader (usually a second grader) at their school placement 15 times
throughout the school year in addition to their 20 field experience days until they reached
the required 35 tutoring sessions. They typically spent the remainder of their weekly field
experience time supporting a mentor teacher in the classroom. This research focuses on
those 17 TCs and their tutees.
Calgary Reads is a nonprofit literacy society that aims to build a community
where all children “read with confidence and joy.” Read Up, one of its core programs
targeted at Grade 1 and 2 readers, draws on principles of Reading Recovery, America Reads
(2020), and the local school board’s early literacy initiative. In addition to TCs, community
volunteers also support these programs in schools. For the present study, Calgary Reads
provided the training program to the TCs, the materials in schools, and support to a teacher
coordinator at each school.
The children selected for tutoring were typically able to read books ranging from
level E to I on the Fountas and Pinnell (2006) leveling system, somewhat lower than
expected at their grade level (mostly second grade). Core elements of the program include
the following:

26 • Reading Horizons • 59.3 • 2020
•

Warm-up: The child reads a familiar book to the tutor. (5 minutes)

•

New Read/Focus Read/Familiar Read: Usually the child reads the same book in
three subsequent reading sessions. (18 minutes)
z

New Read: The tutor engages the child in a book walk (browsing pictures)
and then supports the child in reading the book.

z

Focus Read: The second day the child reads the book, and the tutor asks
questions to deepen the child’s understanding.

z

Familiar Read: The child may read only a portion of the book to build fluency
and confidence.

•

Read Aloud: The tutor reads aloud to the child, normally a book that is more
difficult than those the child can read independently. (10 minutes)

•

Word Work: Practice new and mastered Dolch sight words, building sentences
with the words or playing word games to develop graphophonic knowledge. (5
minutes)

•

Wrap-up: Using a reflective sentence frame, the child reflects on the lesson and
the tutor also reflects (e.g., “I’m getting better at…”; “I feel …”). (2 minutes)

The tutor handbook provides specific recommendations for each of these
elements. During reading, TCs encourage the children to make predictions and use
decoding strategies; general comprehension questions are provided to prompt discussion
of the book. The read-aloud portion of each session is intended to foster a love of reading,
develop listening skills, and expand vocabulary. Tutors are encouraged to share their
observations with the classroom teacher and discuss when the child is ready to progress to
more challenging books. TCs in both wee reads and Read Up submitted a running record
assessment assignment and a reflective case study assignment at the end of the fall course
(midpoint of tutoring for those in Read Up) analyzing the child’s growth and their own
learning about literacy.
All but one participant was female, and all ranged in age from 20 to 33. Qualitative
data were drawn from two focus group meetings: one at the midpoint of the tutoring
experience and one at the end. Krueger and Casey (2014) argue that focus groups are an
efficient way to gather data from multiple participants. Further, they are social and can
contribute to the participants’ sense of comfort and cohesion within the group (Krueger &
Casey, 2014; Peters, 1993). Participants in this study were members of a cohort and were
engaged in a busy term with weekly field experience and academic responsibilities; thus,
the focus group met the aims of gathering data efficiently while valuing the participants’
time and social connections. The study is a form of teacher research (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1999) and scholarship of teaching and learning (Hutchings et al., 2011) that we used
to study our course expectations and ways to better prepare TCs for the complexities of
teaching reading to diverse learners.
During the focus groups, TCs were asked to report on their assessment of
their tutee’s reading level growth and comment on comprehension, attitude, and other
observations about the children. They were also asked to assess their own growth, including
what they learned about children’s reading development, assessment, differentiation, and
instructional strategies. Twelve TCs participated in the first two focus groups in January;
16 TCs participated in three focus groups in April. The study was approved by the research
ethics board of the university, and all TCs freely consented to participate.

Learning to Teach Reading • 27

Analysis followed a constant comparative framework of three phases (Strauss
& Corbin, 2008). In the first phase, we both freely coded the focus group transcripts and
created a combined list of 467 open codes. In the second phase, we met to compare and
contrast our codes, which provided us with the opportunity to ask questions about and
discuss our understandings of the codes and data (Kolb, 2012). During these second phase
meetings, the 467 open codes were collapsed to 40 code families (e.g., decoding, hands-on
strategies, relationships) and redundancies were eliminated. In the third phase, the codes
were further gathered into five themes; phases two and three followed table-top coding
processes (Saldaña, 2009). Themes describing the growth in TCs’ professional competence
are listed below. The number following each theme indicates the number of codes attached
to that theme in order to demonstrate the strength of that theme in the data:
•

kidwatching for reading development (124)

•

assessment and instruction (54)

•

responsive teaching (80)

•

teaching conversations (20)

•

affirmation of impact (14)

Quotes are referenced with codes (e.g., A3) that refer to the focus group (A) and the page
number of the focus group transcripts (3). TT represents quotes from the mid-year “Tutor
Tune Up” which also served as focus group meetings. Participants are identified with
pseudonyms.
Findings
Definitions of teaching competence often include content knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005;
Shulman, 1986); Johansson et al. (2015) assert that it is the interaction of content knowledge
with experience relevant to the grade being taught that contributes most to the development
of competence. Findings from this study indicate that in addition to participants developing
their knowledge of how children learn to read, they developed a sense of pedagogical
competence in their abilities to support their tutees’ reading growth.
Kidwatching for Reading Development
Kidwatching is a term advanced by Goodman and Owicki (2002) to describe how
teachers who pay close attention to what their students do can better understand students’
thinking and use these observations to inform their instruction. Participation in the Read
Up tutoring helped TCs closely observe the tutees and document these observations
through weekly field notes, identify ways to improve tutees’ reading skills, increase tutees’
motivation and confidence, and deepen their own understanding of reading development
firsthand. By observing children’s reading development, participants described a newfound
ability to focus on student learning, shifting from the question of “what do I need to do?”
to “what does my tutee need to grow as a reader?” The TCs spoke knowledgeably about
changes observed in their tutees, particularly the development of decoding skills, sight
word recognition, and their ability to read more challenging texts. Improvements in fluency
and comprehension were also noted by some TCs, though comprehension can be more
difficult to discern with simple patterned texts.
Most tutors were able to identify growth in their tutees’ decoding skills. Olive
described how her tutee initially lacked strategies to decode words and “would look at the
corner of the room rather than looking at the book itself.” However, several months later

28 • Reading Horizons • 59.3 • 2020
she used strategies like “finger pointing, pictures, and book walk.… I find her seeing a
word and trying her best to [read] it on her own” (B1). Similarly, Delaney explained the
growth in her tutee’s confidence in decoding:
She didn’t know any of the strategies or why she would use them. So as soon as
she figured out how they would help her, she just soared. Now when I read with
her, she doesn’t look at me at all. She looks at the page. She doesn’t sound it out
loud, but I can tell that she is thinking about it and then she gets the word 90%
of the time. (C10)
Several TCs described the value of strategies such as covering part of the word or sentence
either with a finger or, for Christy’s tutee, with the use of a popsicle stick. “These are words
that she knows but then she [sees] them together [in a sentence] and all of a sudden it is
confusing” (Christy, A5) unless the words are isolated. Jillian said she had come to notice
her tutee doing this independently: “She’ll take her finger and cover parts of the word, and
do that for each section, and then she’ll put it all together” (A5). These TC observations
confirm the ways their support helped the children develop greater metacognitive awareness
of the decoding strategies they might use and provides evidence that TCs could identify
how the children were beginning to internalize and use these strategies more independently.
Growth in sight word recognition provided a concrete way for TCs to gauge
progress, and this boosted many children’s confidence. In January, Britney reported that
her tutee was so excited to master all of his sight words and took the stack of words home
to teach his brother over the holidays. The measurable nature of sight word mastery was
especially motivating for this child. Even Shannon’s tutee, who ultimately progressed by
only one reading level, experienced more flow in reading when she recognized words and
didn’t have to decode as much. Shannon observed:
My tutee hasn’t really improved a lot in the reading level, but a significant
amount in high-frequency words. Why she did improve the reading level and is
being so successful is because of her memorization of the words…. The struggle
she has is sounding out words; she gives up fairly easily. With the Dolch
words…her reading has a lot more flow. (C1)
Mastering sight words seems to have been a compensatory strategy for this child that
helped her experience at least some progress in reading despite her decoding challenges.
In the language and literacy course, TCs were learning about the importance
of rhyming words for fostering phonological awareness, and they recognized firsthand
the importance of rhyme recognition for early readers. Lorelei’s tutee did not initially
understand rhyming but had a lightbulb moment when she exclaimed, “‘Oh, those two
sound the same!’… And now when my mentor teacher says, ‘Find something that rhymes,’
she’s on the ball; she knows it right away. She gets it now” (C7). It was gratifying for the
TCs to observe the tutees internalize the concept of rhyming and subsequently recognize
rhymes independently.
TCs observed that comprehension can be more difficult to discern with low-level
patterned texts but became more noticeable as children progressed to more complex texts,
including the ability to infer a character’s motives. Kristina said her tutee would observe,
“‘Oh, the character is probably mad because she and her friend are fighting,’ or ‘She did
this and it wasn’t very fair.’ [She is using] more inference and understanding and analytic
skills when she is reading” (C11). For Jillian’s tutee, comprehension was evident in her
newfound grasp of and excitement for punctuation:

Learning to Teach Reading • 29

Before when she started, she was very monotone, like one big, long run-on
sentence. But now she loves using character voices. She knows when to start
and stop her character voice and end it, because she knows quotation marks now.
And same with exclamation marks. She gets excited when she sees it; she says,
“Oh, I can talk loudly now!” (A3)
Jillian recognized that this child’s use of character voice is also an indication of fluency
because she was now reading expressively. The simple texts these children were reading
seldom required the comprehension monitoring necessary for more complex texts, but the
TCs were still able to observe progress in their ability to show understanding of the story
meaning through simple inferences, fluency, and expressive reading.
Almost all the TCs described significant changes in the children’s confidence and
motivation for reading during the months they spent together. One tutee “began by telling
me he hates reading and running away from me.… Now when we miss a session, he gets
mad at me. He comes to my class and says, ‘Where are you?’” (Evan, TT7). Becky’s
mentor teacher said that even after a few tutoring sessions her tutee was excited when
Becky arrived and returned to the classroom ready to learn. As the tutees learned to read
more complex texts, TCs reported that they found the stories more relatable and interesting
and became more motivated to read. Alyssa’s tutee explained to her that he read every night
before bed during spring break despite having seldom read at home before they began the
program. This newfound motivation for reading was gratifying for the TCs because they
felt they had a hand in changing the children’s attitudes.
Rona described how her tutee became motivated by recognizing how reading
could support his personal interests:
I think he realizes now that reading is something that contributes to his interest,
like he wants to read what’s on his Pokémon cards, and the book that he got at
the book fair, that’s for Grade 6. He used to do that thing where he would grab
two pages instead of one so that [he] would skip over the next two; he doesn’t
really do that anymore. He picks the higher level books so that he can learn how
to read the ones he wants to read instead of “get it over with, get the program
over with.” (A4)
Britney’s tutee became similarly interested in challenging himself, suggesting books three
levels higher than his current level:
When we started, he was like, “I am on an E. I only read E books.” Even to get
him to try an F was a challenge. Now, every time I go, “Oh, what type of book
do you want to try today?” And he is currently working on the level L, and he
says, “Maybe we can try an O.” (C9)
Here, Rona and Britney both describe the powerful relationship between their tutees’
positive experience and the increase in their motivation to challenge themselves. Further,
Britney describes a shift in her tutee’s identity from someone who “only read[s] E books”
to a reader who will confidently try new challenges. This also speaks to the important role
of the TC in helping their tutee make reading choices that will support their growth.
Judging when the tutees need support and when they need encouragement to
be self-sufficient requires careful discernment. Tasha observed how her tutee’s apparent
lack of confidence was a type of learned helplessness, causing her to depend on Tasha for
assistance: “Then I started making her rely on herself and know that she has confidence and
she can do it. That is the reason why she started to excel, because she knew she could do it”

30 • Reading Horizons • 59.3 • 2020
(A3). Consistent affirmation caused Kristina’s tutee to grow “leaps and bounds to improve
her reading” but she was concerned that without the one-to-one support, there would be
no one to “celebrate her success in that moment” (C5–6). For this child, it is possible that
tutoring creates greater dependence, not the independence Kristina hoped to foster.
Shannon’s tutee (who made the slimmest progress in reading levels) “compares
herself [to others] and she doesn’t feel confident in herself....When I can point out, ‘that’s
right’ and ‘you did a great job, and you are improving so much,’ it really helps her believe
in herself and be motivated to learn” (C7–8). Shannon incorporated kinesthetic strategies
like asking the tutee to run and bring her words hung on the gym walls, “something she
knows she’s good at” (C14), to foster confidence. It was rewarding for the TCs to observe
shifts in the tutees’ motivation because it affirmed the impact of their efforts and increased
their teacher self-efficacy. However, tutoring also illuminated the complexity of the reading
process for TCs like Shannon and Kristina, who continued to worry about their tutees’
progress.
Assessment and Instruction
In addition to becoming proficient kidwatchers, TCs commented consistently on
their growth in the use of assessment tools and instructional strategies. Sophia described
how completing the running records helped her focus on strategies to address errors such
as “pointing out words or having him break up the word so he can sound it out a lot easier”
(B4). Further, the tutoring experience provided TCs with insight into the fact that reading
is not merely the act of sounding out words, but a process leading to comprehension and
meaning. For example, Lorelei described the moment of insight when she recognized that,
although her tutee was accurately decoding words, she was not comprehending the text:
I actually figured this out when we were doing the running record, with those
extra questions on the bottom. I would ask her, “Why do you think they did
that?” And she would be, “They did that?” [laughter]. So then I was like, “Wow,
she didn’t even get it. No clue.” That was a huge turning point for me. (C12)
Without the comprehension questions, Lorelei might have mistakenly assumed her tutee
was reading and understanding the text. The growth in assessment and instructional
strategies and recognizing the complexity of children’s reading growth through the tutoring
experience were important benefits for the TCs.
At the Tutor Tune Up meeting held in January, the Calgary Reads facilitator
introduced several new activities and materials for the TCs to try. This was an excellent
opportunity for them to also share with one another the collection of instructional activities
and games they used with their tutees, including letter tiles for word work, Stretchy Snake
(sounding out letter by letter), hiding keywords in the book under sticky notes, highlighters
to preview sight words, popcorn blending game, and using a magnetic white board to
practice concepts such as rhyming words. TCs like Allison noted that it was important to
have a variety of options:
I will think, “He will really like this.” And then I will bring it to him, and he
will say, “No, I don’t want to do that.” And I am like, “Oh, okay.” So, I have to
think of something else right on the spot. Having different resources and games
on hand to do for him. The student and their interest are going to be different for
each student. (C15)
In addition to their own instructional strategies, the TCs helped the tutees adopt
reading strategies. Britney (C2) described the importance of previewing a longer text

Learning to Teach Reading • 31

to find sight words prior to reading so they wouldn’t need to stop and sound these out.
Lorelei’s tutee became excited to see the connection between their word games and the
books they were reading and exclaimed: “‘Oh my gosh, today in the game we played, do
you remember, that was the word we came up with!’” (C6). Delaney said: “Explaining
why the strategies are useful; once they made sense to her, she started using them. That is
when we saw the improvement” (C3). The children’s ability to transfer reading strategies
from one text to another demonstrated their growing independence as readers (Fisher et al.,
2017).
TCs assessed text reading level and changes in sight word recognition; these are
two of the scales used in Clay’s (2013) Observation Survey, a commonly used tool to assess
children’s literacy. Improvements in sight words were not uniformly recorded, but Table
1 provides an indication of improved reading levels according to Fountas and Pinnell’s
(2006) leveling system, with many children reaching or approaching grade-level reading
expectations despite having been significantly behind at the start of tutoring. Although it is
beyond the scope of this research to make definitive judgments about the impact of tutoring
on the tutees, these results demonstrate the assessment data the TCs were able to collect
and learn from.
Table 1
Change in Tutee Reading Level
Tutor pseudonym

Tutee’s grade

Tutee’s reading level

Level change

Britney

3

E–K/L

7+

Olive

2

E–K

7

Tasha

2

E–J/K

6+

Delaney

1

E/F–K

6

Yasmin

2

D–I

6

Jacqueline

2

D–I

6

Rona

1

E–J

6

Tara

2

D–H

5

Alison

2

E–J

5

Carolyn

2

E–J

5

Christy

2

G–J

4

Lorelei

2

E–H

4

Sophia

1

A–C/D

3+

Becky

2

H/I–J/K

3+

Kristina

3

J–M

3

Shannon

2

D–E

1

Evan

2

Not available

Note: Average reading level increase = 4.8 levels over 35 tutoring sessions.

32 • Reading Horizons • 59.3 • 2020
Responsive Teaching
Almost every TC spoke powerfully about the one-to-one relationship and how
this helped them recognize the specific needs of their tutees and adapt to those needs, even
attentional strategies such as breaking the tutoring program into two separate time blocks
or recognizing how the children’s body language reflected their anxiety. For example,
Olive explained:
I never really paid attention to [her body language] or thought it was important.
But she... used to fidget when she doesn’t understand the word, so I recognized
that. I don’t think she was comfortable saying the incorrect word, so she would
say nothing and just move her body. So now that she knows the strategies to help
her figure the word out, she just calmly does it without moving so much. (B4)
Even by the midpoint in January, TCs were describing ways they were adapting the program
when the framework did not fit their tutees’ needs. Like Olive, Delaney described how she
responded to her tutee’s behavioural cues:
I find that my student, by the second time we go through a book, she’s sort of
flopping down and kind of sighing. Very exasperated. To do it a third time is not
effective. So, [instead] I’ve been doing a new read, pinpointing the words she’s
having difficulty with, going over those words again, then going back to those in
the next session. (TT2)
The individualized nature of tutoring helped many TCs notice and adapt to the signals
the children were sending with their body language, signals that might be overlooked in
whole-class instruction.
Several TCs commented on how tutoring helped them enact the ideals of
personalized learning often espoused in their teacher education courses. Christy observed:
We all say students are unique, but meeting with my student each week, and
then talking and meeting with other students [TCs] from my field placement
classroom, I have realized how you can’t just generalize how to read to all of
them because they are all so different. (A7)
Some strategies others found effective did not necessarily suit Christy’s tutee, which
deepened her understanding of students’ unique needs. Britney echoed this in describing
the importance of student choice:
Although [personalized learning] is something that we have talked about
in all our other classes, I didn’t really realize the implications to a student’s
development until I did this. Today I left it up to the student and asked, “What
two cycles do you want to work on?” It made a huge difference in how much he
paid attention, how much he got from it. (C15)
Adapting to the needs of students is a critical aspect of effective teaching; tutoring provided
a manageable context for the TCs to practice recognizing needs and teaching responsively.
Teaching Conversations
TCs benefitted from the opportunity to share experiences with their classmates
each week and to confer with mentor teachers about ways to meet their tutees’ needs.
These conversations were a valuable factor in helping the TCs assess and plan for their
weekly sessions with their tutees while also consolidating their professional learning. For
example, Allison described her positive relationship with her mentor teacher and the ways

Learning to Teach Reading • 33

this relationship helped both her learning and that of her tutee:
I have been lucky to have my tutee’s teacher. She reassesses him and informs
me where he is at with his reading. Having her is supportive. She is friendly
and forthcoming with information. She has told me she is grateful for me as a
volunteer for Read Up and the one-to-one relationship with him because she has
seen the difference in him too. (C19)
TCs like Christy consistently affirmed the opportunity to engage in tutoring alongside the
course because this resulted in such powerful professional learning.
I think doing this program, along with doing the class, was the best thing....
Calgary Reads set us up pretty well with resources and everything, but the more
resources that we got from the class just really helped set me up to succeed in
this program. (A9)
Reading development concepts came to life when TCs understood their importance in their
tutee’s development. When sharing experiences with peers and mentor teachers, they saw
themselves as problem-solving professionals with insights to offer. In the Discussion, we
explore further ways to enrich these professional discussions, better prepare for tutoring,
and invite deeper connections between research-based strategies and tutoring.
Affirmation of Impact
When they compared their experiences with the rest of their classmates who
engaged in wee reads, Calgary Reads’ 10-week read-aloud program, the TCs were insistent
that the tutoring experience was more impactful. Jillian said,
I did wee reads in my second semester. My mentor teacher asked if I would like
to do it. I found Read Up more rewarding because of the growth, knowing that
you were the reason and you helped them. It is one of the reasons why I became
a teacher, so you can see that growth. (A8)
Tasha agreed: “To see the child excel and bring them up to grade level again is… I can’t
explain it. It’s something I never thought was possible” (A9). She continued to describe
the powerful impact that the rigorous tutoring experience of Read Up had on her growth
as a teacher:
I think the Read Up program should be mandatory over wee reads. From a
lot of the wee reads students that I have talked with, they did not get the same
experiences or strategies. If I were to say, “This is how I applied the program,”
they have nothing compared to what we did. (Tasha, A8)
One should never diminish the importance of reading aloud to children, as their classmates
did in the wee reads program. However, guiding children while they are reading as the TCs
did in Read Up provided unique insight into children’s thinking process and required TCs
to act on those observations to guide children’s reading.
Discussion
Affirming Responsive Teaching
Findings from this study align with the body of research outlined in the literature
review, which describes the effectiveness of integrated coursework and tutoring in
promoting the development of TCs’ knowledge, efficacy, and reflective capacity for
teaching reading. As identified in the analysis, TCs in this study learned to carefully
observe and assess young readers, reflected on their own professional learning, practiced

34 • Reading Horizons • 59.3 • 2020
new strategies associated with effective reading assessment and instruction, and grew in
responsiveness to their tutees’ needs. In this way, the tutoring program aligns with Murphy
Odo’s (2016) notion of pedagogical training wheels for the TCs, in which they were able
to engage fully with the learning of one child, undistracted by the complex management
inherent with whole-class instruction. The TCs’ ability to kidwatch, assess, and adapt to
children’s needs is one of the most powerful outcomes of this study and demonstrates their
growing ability to “know thy impact,” a powerful mantra emerging from Hattie’s (2009)
impressive meta-analysis of learning experiences that have the greatest impact on student
achievement.
Darling-Hammond and Bransford (2005) identify that effective teacher
professional learning is embedded in practice, is authentic to the challenges faced by the
teacher, and is enriched through reflective dialogue with colleagues. Further, DarlingHammond and Bransford argue that opportunities that compel TCs to think like a teacher
through enacting course-based learning in the classroom setting enrich their understanding
of children as complex learners, each with unique needs. This tutoring program accelerates
the learning experiences typical of preservice teachers to experiences that are more typical
of in-service teachers. They began to think like teachers and enriched their practice through
professional conversations embedded in the teaching context (all key elements of effective
professional learning for in-service teachers) before they even entered the profession. As
Schon (1983) has argued, field experiences are rich with uncertainty; learning to deal with
this uncertainty underscores for TCs the urgency of thinking like a teacher, responding
authentically to their tutees, and developing a strong repertoire of instructional strategies
to support children’s literacy growth. The very nature of the ongoing, extensive tutoring
experience elevated this sense of urgency as distinct from course-based learning and
whole-class instruction.
Structural Limitations
Although there were numerous benefits to the tutoring experience, there were
also significant structural challenges including scheduling, communication, and multiinstitution collaboration. Managing the schedules and expectations of three organizations
(i.e., the local school, Calgary Reads, and the teacher education program) was complicated.
For example, the university program required 20 field experience half-days, but the
tutoring program required 35 tutoring sessions. Thus, TCs needed to liaise individually
with classroom teachers to find 15 additional tutoring opportunities. TCs were expected to
be in schools one morning each week for field experience and frequently had courses at the
university in the afternoons. Other challenges included tutee absenteeism, cancellation of
tutoring sessions to accommodate school events, and the fact that teachers in participating
classrooms were sometimes reluctant to release the child for tutoring, all issues that made
it difficult for TCs to complete the required number of sessions to meet their tutoring
obligations. Further, teachers sometimes asked TCs to stay for the afternoon when the
schedule required only mornings; this was not feasible because many TCs faced the
constraints of attending afternoon courses, often having to travel great distances on public
transportation.
Communication between the three organizations was sometimes challenging.
Calgary Reads had a school coordinator in each school—a teacher who would liaise
between Calgary Reads and teachers, TCs, and other tutors in the school. However, these
school coordinators were usually classroom teachers who were unable to monitor all of
the tutor activities. Some teachers misunderstood the expectations of the tutoring program

Learning to Teach Reading • 35

and urged the TCs to tutor a different child each week so more children could benefit from
the TCs’ support, failing to recognize that the program required each selected child to
experience 35 tutoring sessions. Concentrating more TCs in fewer schools could make it
feasible for Calgary Reads staff to visit schools and provide timely support for tutoring.
Finally, TCs faced a number of practical, school-based challenges. Calgary Reads
provided each school with a tutoring bin that included a selection of games, manipulatives,
and basic stationery materials. Sometimes teachers or tutors borrowed materials and
neglected to return them to the tutor bin. The TCs had to become increasingly self-sufficient
in bringing their own resources from home.
Implications and Conclusions
This research has shown that tutoring alongside a literacy teacher education
course has tremendous potential to enhance the theoretical understanding and pedagogical
competence of TCs. Our findings align with contemporary research in literacy teacher
preparation, which identifies the combination of coursework and tutoring as effective
in promoting the integration of TC knowledge and confidence in supporting children’s
reading. In addition to TC learning, this study shows the benefits of tutoring for children’s
reading growth.
The teacher education program has implemented a modified program requiring 20
tutoring sessions over 7 months during the TCs’ regular field experience days. Typically,
the Read Up program requires 35 tutoring sessions; including 20 tutoring sessions on field
experience days was feasible for the study participants, but it was challenging to meet
the 15 additional required sessions. This modified expectation addressed TCs’ scheduling
challenges and made it possible for all TCs in the program to benefit from the tutoring
experience.
Further research examining the long-term impact of this program is underway;
future research will examine TCs’ retention of their knowledge as they transition into their
role as beginning teachers. As we consider future teacher education practice, we believe
there may be more opportunities to explicitly link the course and the tutoring experience,
perhaps through the concept of core practices (Grossman, 2018). In Grossman’s (2018)
recommended learning cycle, TCs begin by analyzing cases such as video examples of
a core practice (in this case, guiding children as they read could be considered a core
practice), then planning and rehearsing that practice, then enacting the practice in schools,
and finally reflecting on the experience. Calgary Reads training provided some analyzing,
and school-based tutoring surely provides opportunities for enacting, but there may be more
opportunity for course instructors to “engage in repeated cycles of observing, analyzing,
planning, and enactment” (Janssen et al., 2015, pp. 137–138) and reflection in the literacy
coursework to deepen TC learning in intentional ways. As TCs developed confidence in
practices that supported their tutees, they were better able to teach responsively and develop
“adaptive expertise” (Janssen et al., 2015, p. 139). However, with insufficient confidence in
core practices, the necessity to regularly adapt can lead to frustration.
[One] line of research might investigate the best way to sequence the teaching
of core practices to encourage adaptive expertise. Do novices develop a greater
sense of experimentation when they have first had a chance to master the
components of practice with which they are most familiar and then begin to
experiment? Or does leading with the familiar simply encourage an emphasis
on routine practice and make it less likely that teachers will innovate over time?
(Janssen et al., 2015, p. 145)

36 • Reading Horizons • 59.3 • 2020
The notion of core practices is not embedded in a positivist orientation that focuses on
what works or simple reified practices (Wenger, 1998); rather, core practices emerge from
a sociocultural framework that “incorporates knowledge, judgment, skill, and identity…
[to develop] a more theoretical understanding of why and under what circumstances such
a core practice might be useful for supporting student learning” (Janssen et al., 2015, p.
138). To ensure that all TCs benefit maximally, course instructors may need to provide
more opportunities to plan for and rehearse tutoring experiences in class and subsequently
reflect on those experiences in light of research on reading to help TCs deeply understand
children’s reading and teachers’ role in supporting reading development.
Despite the structural challenges inherent to the collaboration between three
distinct organizations, the learning afforded by TCs’ participation in the Read Up tutoring
program was robust. In fact, TCs came away from this experience advocating strongly for
the continuation of this one-to-one tutoring program embedded within the language course.
Although this study is not generalizable due to its small sample size, findings can serve as a
contribution to course development to effectively prepare responsive teachers and support
reading instruction in the broader teacher education community.
About the Authors
Jodi Nickel, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Education at Mount Royal University.
She taught first and second grades for 9 years before entering academia, where she teaches
courses primarily in the areas of educational foundations and literacy and language arts.
Her research is focused on teacher education, literacy, reflection, and the professional
identity of teacher candidates and new teachers.
Scott Hughes, PhD, is an elementary teacher with the Vancouver School Board; he was
previously an associate professor at Mount Royal University. His research is focused on
the pedagogical conditions that promote children’s well-being and happiness in the early
primary grades. As a classroom teacher, he promotes children’s language and literacy
development through the integration of the arts, the outdoors, and storytelling into the
school day.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Innovation Grant of the Faculty of Health, Community
and Education and the Marshall Family Literacy Fund Grant at Mount Royal University. We
acknowledge the tutor training from Calgary Reads and the support of our undergraduate
research assistant, Nouralhuda Ismail.

Learning to Teach Reading • 37

References
America Reads. (2020). History. https://americareads.as.ucsb.edu/about-us/.
Assaf, L. C., & López, M. (2012). Reading rocks: Creating a space for preservice
teachers to become responsive teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 33, 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2012.732667
Assaf, L. C., & López, M. M. (2015). Generative learning in a service-learning project
and field-base teacher education program. Literacy Research: Theory, Method,
and Practice, 64(1), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336915617578
Brannon, D., & Feine, J. (2013). The effect structured participation experiences have on
pre-service teachers’ preparedness to teach reading. Education, 134(2), 185–194.
Brock, C. H., Moore, D. K., & Parks, L. (2007). Exploring pre-service teacher’s literacy
practices with children from diverse backgrounds: Implications for teacher
educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 898–915. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.02.002
Clay, M. (2013). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (3rd ed.). 			
Heinemann.
Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M.
Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The
report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 309–424).
Erlbaum.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Learning to teach for social justice. In G. A.
Griffith (Ed.), The education of teachers: Ninety-eighth yearbook of national
society for the study of education (pp. 114–144). University of Chicago.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education. Lessons from exemplary
programs. Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world:
What teachers should learn and be able to do. Jossey-Bass.
Dawkins, S., Ritz, M., & Louden, W. (2009). Learning by doing: Preservice teachers
as reading tutors. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2), 40–49.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2009v34n2.4
Fang, Z., & Ashley, C. (2004). Preservice teachers’ interpretations of a field-based
reading block. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 39–54.
10.1177/0022487103259814
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2017). Teaching literacy in the visible learning
classroom. Corwin.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2006). Leveled books, K–8: Matching texts to readers for
effective teaching. Heinemann.
Goodman, Y., & Owicki, G. (2002). Kidwatching: Documenting children’s literacy
development. Heinemann.
Grossman, P. (2018). Teaching core practices in teacher education. Harvard Education
Press.

38 • Reading Horizons • 59.3 • 2020
Hart, S. M., & King, J. R. (2007). Service learning and literacy tutoring: Academic
impact on pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 323–338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.004
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. Routledge.
Haverback, H. R., & Parault, S. J. (2008). Pre-service reading teacher efficacy and
tutoring: A review. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 237–255. 10.1007/
s10648-008-9077-4
Hedrick, W. B., McGee, P., & Mittag, K. (2000). Pre-service teacher learning through
one-on-one tutoring: Reporting perceptions through e-mail. Teacher and Teacher
Education, 16, 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00033-5
Hikida, M., Chamberlain, K., Tily, S., Daly-Lesch, A., Warner, J. R., & Schallert, D. L.
(2019). Reviewing how preservice teachers are prepared to teach reading
processes: What the literature suggests and overlooks. Journal of Literacy
Research, 51(2), 177–195. doi:10.1177/1086296X19833297
Hill, M., Cowie, B., Gilmore, A., & Smith, L. F. (2010). Preparing assessment-capable
teachers: What should preservice teachers know and be able to do? Assessment
Matters, 2, 43–64. https://doi.org/10.18296/am.0085
Hoffman, J. V., Mosley Wetzel, M., & Peterson, K. (2016). Approximating literacy
practices in tutorials: What is learned and what matters for teacher preparation.
Literacy Research and Instruction, 55(3), 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/1938
8071.2015.1128023
Hoffman, J. V., Svrcek, N., Lammert, C., Daly-Lesch, A., Steinitz, E., Greeter, E., &
DeJulio, S. (2019). A research review of literacy tutoring and mentoring in initial
teacher preparation: Toward practices that can transform teaching. Journal of
Literacy Research, 51, 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X19833292
Hopkins, S. L., Round, P. N., & Barley, K. D. (2018). Preparing beginning teachers for
inclusion: Designing and assessing supplementary fieldwork experiences.
Teachers and Teaching, 24, 915-930. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.14
95624
Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and
learning reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact. Jossey-Bass.
International Literacy Association. (2015). Preliminary report on teacher preparation for
literacy instruction. https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/
where-we-stand/teacher-preparation-report.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Janssen, F., Grossman, P., & Westbroek, H. (2015). Facilitating decomposition and
recomposition in practice-based teacher education: The power of modularity.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2015.06.009
Johansson, S., Myrberg, E., & Rosén, M. (2015). Formal teacher competence and its
effect on pupil reading achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 59, 564–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2014.965787

Learning to Teach Reading • 39

Juel, C. (1996). What makes literacy tutoring effective? Reading Research Quarterly, 31,
268–289.
Kolb, S. M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid
research strategies for educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational
Research and Policy Studies, 3(1), 83–86.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
researchers (5th ed.). Sage.
Linek, W. M., Sampson, M. B., Raine, I. L., Klakamp, K., & Smith, B. (2006).
Development of literacy beliefs and practices: Preservice teachers with reading
specializations in a field-based program. Reading Horizons: A Journal of
Literacy and Language Arts, 46(3), 183–213.
Lipp, J., & Helfrich, S. R. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ growth in understandings of best
practice literacy instruction through paired course and field experience. Reading
Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 55(2), 45–66.
Mallette, M. H., Steven, K. R., Smith, M. M., McKinney, M., & Readence, J. E. (2000).
Constructing meaning about literacy difficulties: Preservice teachers beginning
to think about pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 593–612.
Massey, D. D., & Lewis, J. (2011). Learning from the “little guys”: What do middle and
high school preservice teachers learn from tutoring elementary students?
Literacy Research and Instruction, 50(2), 120–132.
10.1080/19388071003725705
Murphy Odo, D. (2016). An investigation of the development of pre-service teacher
assessment literacy through individualized tutoring and peer debriefing. Journal
of Inquiry and Action in Education, 7(2), 31–61.
Nierstheimer, S. L., Hopkins, C. J., Dillon, D. R., & Schmitt, M. (2000). Preservice
teachers’ shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners. Reading Research
and Instruction, 40, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070009558331
Peters, D. A. (1993). Improving quality requires consumer input: Using focus groups.
Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 7(2), 34–41. DOI: 10.1097/00001786199301000-00006
Risko, V. J., Roller, C. M., Cummins, C., Bean, R. M., Block, C. C., Anders, P. L. &
Flood, J. (2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education.
Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 252–288. 10.1598/rrq.43.3.3
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Temple
Smith.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques (3rd ed.). Sage.
Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-toone tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28,
178–200. 10.2307/747888

40 • Reading Horizons • 59.3 • 2020
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge
University Press.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field
experiences in college and university-based teacher education. Journal of
Teacher Education, 61(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671

Copyright of Reading Horizons is the property of Western Michigan University, College of
Education & Human Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.