Dr. Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan...

8/14/2019 Dr. Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dr-eunetra-ellison-simpson-phd-dissertation-defense-dissertation-chair 1/36

Eunetra Ellison Simpson

March 2009

PVAMU Educational Leadership Doctoral Program

A Mixed- Method Analysis

of the Effectiveness of

Tutoring Programs in

Public Schools



Dr. William A. Kritsonis(Dissertation Chair)

Dr. David Herrington(Member)

Dr. Tyrone Tanner (Member)

Dr. Camille Gibson(Member)

Committee Members



Outline

I. The Problem

II. Purpose of the Study

III. Theoretical Framework

IV. Research Questions

V. Method

VI. Major Findings

VII. Review of Literature

VIII. Recommendations



THE PROBLEM

Federally mandated public after-school tutoring is

not always reaching the children it's intended to

help, and when it does, it does not always help as

much as it could (Toppo, 2008).

Questions are being raised about the effectiveness

of tutoring for underachieving students, the

accountability of tutors, and academic return on this

investment (Buczynski, 2008).



PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study was to investigate

administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions

regarding the structure of tutoring programs

currently employed by public schools in thefollowing areas: (1) Program

Administration, (2) Program Design, (3)

Family Involvement, (4) Tutoring Sessions.



Theoretical Framework (Koralek & Collins, 1997)

EFFECTIVE TUTORING

PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM

DESIGN

FAMILY

INVOLVEMENT

TUTORING

SESSIONS



RESEARCH QUESTIONS

(Qualitative)

1. What are the benefits of implementing a

tutoring program in a public school as

reported by teachers and administrators?

2. What are the challenges of implementing

a tutoring program in a public school as

reported by teachers and administrators?



RESEARCH QUESTIONS

(Quantitative- Descriptive Analysis)

3. Which of the Characteristics of Effective Tutoringare sometimes, seldom, or almost never implemented in the tutoring programs of publicschools according to the survey response ratesteachers and administrators?

4.Which of the Characteristics of Effective Tutoringare almost always or frequently implemented inpublic schools according to the response rates

of teachers and administrators?



RESEARCH QUESTION

(Quantitative- Inferential Analysis*)

5. What difference exists between

administrators and teachers in rating the

characteristics of effective tutoring

programs?

* A t-test of independent means was applied to

each survey item to analyze the 2

independent variables: administrator

responses & teacher responses.



NULL HYPOTHESES

H1- There is no statistically significant

difference between administrators and

teachers in rating the effectiveness of the

administration of tutoring programs in publicschools.

H2- There is no statistically significant

difference between administrators andteachers in rating the effectiveness of the

design of tutoring programs in public schools.



NULL HYPOTHESES (cont.)

H3- There is no statistically significant difference

between administrators and teachers in rating theeffectiveness of family involvement associated withtutoring programs in public schools.

H4- There is no statistically significant difference

between administrators and teachers in rating theeffectiveness of tutoring sessions in public schools.



METHOD

(Subjects of the Study)

Teachers (n=108) and administrators (n=14)

were purposively selected to participate in the

study.

Faculty members (n=122) rated the

effectiveness of tutoring programs by

completing an online, cross-sectional survey,

Characteristics of Effective Tutoring Scale.



METHOD (cont.)

(Research Design)

Quantitative:

Survey response rates were determined for each item to

determine the mean responses for teachers and

administrators.

A t-test of independent means was calculated for each

characteristic to determine if there was a statistically

significant difference in the responses of teachers

and administrators.

Qualitative:

Open-ended responses were coded for themes and

triangulate the quantitative data.



METHOD (cont.)

(Instrumentation)

The Characteristics of Effective TutoringScale was derived from a list of protocolsissued by the Corporation for NationalService.

In developing this Guide, the authors havecarefully reviewed reading curricula and tutor training materials as well as research studiesconcerning how children learn to read(Koralek & Collins et al., 1997).



METHOD (cont.)

(Instrumentation)

The protocols were converted into Likert-

scale items in an online survey format to be

distributed to faculty members.

Twenty-seven statements regarding programadministration, program design, family

involvement, and tutoring sessions are

included in the cross-sectional survey.



FINDINGS: Qualitative Research

Question #1

1. What are the benefits of implementing a tutoring

program in a public school as reported by teachers

and administrators?

According to participants' open-endedresponses, the benefits of implementing a

tutoring program include:

providing extra attention and help for

struggling students, increased standardized test scores,

and improved student self-efficacy.



FINDINGS: Qualitative Research

Question #2

What are the challenges of implementinga tutoring program in a public school asreported by teachers and

administrators?The challenges of providing tutoring programs are:

deficient resources,

overburdened teachers,

cumbersome tutoring groups, low student morale,

lack of consistency,

and need for parental involvement.

FINDINGS Q tit ti R h



FINDINGS: Quantitative Research

Question #3

Which of the Characteristics of Effective

Tutoring are sometimes, seldom, or almost

never implemented in the tutoring programs of public schools according to the survey response

rates teachers and administrators?



FINDINGS

R.Q.#3: Ineffective Tutoring Practices in Public Schools:

• Tutors are screened before acceptance into theprogram (CETS item 9, Program Design).

• Tutors receive an orientation before they begin workingwith children (CETS item 11, Program Design).

• Tutors receive a written job description and a tutoringhandbook that outlines the program's approach,policies, and procedures (CETS item 10, ProgramDesign).

• The program has support from the private sector andlocal and state programs that support literacy (CETS

item 3, Program Administration).



FINDINGS

R.Q.#3: Ineffective Tutoring Practices in Public Schools (cont.)

• Tutors involve families in collecting items that document the

child's progress to be included in the child's portfolio (CETS item

16, Family Involvement).

•

The program helps families gain access to children's books andwriting supplies (CETS item 17, Family Involvement).

• The program encourages families to develop or improve their own

literacy skills (CETS item 18, Family Involvement).

FINDINGS Q i i R h




Question #4

4.Which of the Characteristics of

Effective Tutoring are almost

always or frequently implementedin public schools according to the

response rates of teachers and

administrators?



FINDINGS

R.Q.#4: Effective Tutoring Practices

Key stakeholders such as teachers, school or programadministrators, reading specialists, tutors, and families areinvolved in planning, implementing, and evaluating the program(CETS item 1).

The partners can provide transportation, snacks, and/or information and referral for other support services that addresschild and family needs (CETS item 4).

The design is based upon or consistent with the latest researchon literacy and reading development and developmentally

appropriate practice for early childhood education (CETS item 6).



FINDINGS

R.Q.#4: Effective Tutoring Practices

The program has systems for identifying children in needof tutoring, recruiting volunteer tutors, conducting pre- andpost-tests of children's skills, and conducting periodicevaluations of program effectiveness, including feedbackfrom stakeholders (CETS item 7).

Tutoring takes place in an open area where the tutoring pair can be observed at all times (CETS item 22).

Tutoring sessions are up to 60 minutes in duration,depending on the age of the child and variety of activities

(CETS item 23).



FINDINGS

R.Q.#4: Effective Tutoring Practices in Public Schools (cont.):

Tutoring sessions are provided at least twice a week(CETS item 24).

Tutoring sessions are divided into segments such as: anopening activity to set the stage, activities based onindividual learning goals, reading practice, and a closingactivity (CETS item 25).

Each tutoring session includes opportunities for the childto experience success and to progress toward becomingan engaged reader (CETS item 26).



FINDINGS

R.Q.#4: Effective Tutoring Practices (cont.)

Tutors and the program director, staff, and volunteers regularlycommunicate and collaborate with families, child care program or school staff, and administrators (CETS item 8).

Tutors recognize the importance of building relationships with childrenand motivating them to want to read (CETS item 13).

Tutoring takes place during school, after school, weekends, and/or inthe summer (CETS item 20).

Tutoring takes place in an area large enough for children toconcentrate without being disturbed by others (CETS item 21).

FINDINGS Q tit ti R h




Question #5

What difference exists between

administrators and teachers in rating

the characteristics of effective tutoring

programs?

FINDINGS



FINDINGS

R.Q. #5: Inconsistent Responses Between Teachers and

Administrators

• The partners have a proven track record of workingwith children to encourage the development of literacy skills and/or have strong linkages with groupsthat have this expertise (CETS item 2).*

• The program design is based on assessed needs, awell-defined mission statement, and clear,measurable goals (CETS item 5).**

• Tutors receive ongoing training, technical assistance,and supervision (CETS item 12).*

*Not statistically significant at the .05 level** Significant at the .05 level

FINDINGS



FINDINGS

R.Q. #5: Inconsistent Responses Between Teachers and

Administrators

• Tutors communicate with families regularly to keep themup-to-date on their child's progress (CETS item 14).*

• Tutors suggest home literacy activities such as readingaloud and writing together (CETS item 15).*

• Tutors work with children one-on-one (or in small groups

of two to four children) (CETS item 19).*• Volunteers are readily available (CETS item 27).*

*Not statistically significant at the .05 level** Significant at the .05 level



Hypothesis Testing

T-Test Results for CETS Subscales by Position __________________________________________________________Subscales t Sig. Mean Std.

Dif

Error Mean

___________________________________________________________

Programs are

well administered 1.19 .231.86

Programs are

designed effectively -.11 .91 -.44 4.09

Families are involved

in tutoring processes .07 .94 .17 2.41

Tutoring sessions

are effective -.60 .55 -1

3.14

__________________________________________________________



FINDINGS

Hypothesis Testing Based on the results of the applied t-tests,

hypotheses 1-4 are not rejected. There is nostatistically significant difference in theresponses of teachers and administrators onthe subscales of the CETS.

However, when the characteristics wereanalyzed individually, the tabled t (.00) wasless than or equal to .05 for CETS item # 5.

A statistically significant difference was notedbetween administrators and teachers on item#5.



Summary of Literature Review

The common threads throughout the literaturesuggest that in order to ensure that tutoring iseffective, tutors:

must be equipped with ample training

need relevant resources require evaluative feedback from

administrators. (Ascher, 2006; Anderson & Laguarda, 2005; Buczynski, 2008;

Coulter, 2004; Gewertz, 2005).

Findings and conclusions implicated by thisstudy are supported by the existing literaturerelated to the topic of public school tutoring.



CONCLUSIONS

The quantitative mean of all responses

along with survey item #28 indicate that

teachers and administrators agree that

tutoring programs are effective based ontheir perceptions.

However, tutoring programs in public

schools fall short of the highly effective mark.

No administrators (0%) rated their

tutoring program as highly effective.



CONCLUSIONS (cont.)

A notable group of teachers (19%) and

administrators (20%) rated the tutoring programs

implemented on their campuses as 1- Needs

Improvement . If the characteristics that were deemed as

inconsistent or ineffective are improved, tutoring

programs may receive a higher regard from

educators.



CONCLUSIONS (cont.)

There is a statistically significant

difference in the responses of teachers

and administrators on CETS item 5 “The

program design is based on assessedneeds, a well-defined mission statement,

and clear, measurable goals”.



RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

FURTHER STUDY A study could be conducted with a larger sample and

random selection to increase the generalizablity of data.

A study may be conducted wherein data may be

cross-tabulated across school districts to infer whether perceptions are different.

A study could be conducted wherein responses of public school educators regarding the effectiveness of tutoring programs may be compared to educators from

the private sector and tutoring corporations that haveacclaimed significant academic results for children.



RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

FURTHER STUDY (cont.)

A longitudinal study could be conducted tocompare the pre-test and post-test scores of tutees. This type of study is necessary todetermine whether students are ascertaining

academic gains after receiving tutoring andwhether the gains, if any, are significantlydifferent to eligible students who have notreceived tutoring at all.

Dr. Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan...

Documents

Transcript of Dr. Eunetra Ellison Simpson, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan...