A Literacy Tutoring Experience for Prospective Special Educators and Struggling Second Graders

Abstract

This study examined the learning of teacher candidates taking a language arts course in a special-educator preparation program and that of the second graders they tutored in a supervised field component of the course. Teacher candidates' knowledge of literacy instruction was assessed using five knowledge tasks; children were assessed on several measures of basic reading and spelling skills as well as on their knowledge of phonics concepts such as syllable types. Teacher candidates generally had inaccurate perceptions of their knowledge at pretest, but their knowledge improved significantly on all tasks after course instruction. Tutored children improved significantly from pre- to posttest on all assessments. The study suggests that carefully designed literacy coursework with field experiences can benefit both prospective special educators and struggling readers.

Preparing beginning reading teachers: An experimental comparison of initial early literacy field experiences

“…The PSTs’ improved level of knowledge about the structure of language was similar to gains (from a pretest mean of about 12 correct to a posttest mean of about 15 correct) found on the same 22-item test (Al Otaiba & Lake 2007; Bos et al, 2001). The magnitude of gains was similar to the magnitude of gains on slightly different tests of the same construct (McCutchen et al, 2002; Spear-Swerling, 2009; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004). This increased knowledge may not be surprising given that the Early Literacy course we described had a syllabus and a text that were consistent with the NRP (2000) evidence base and the instructor, the final author of the study, was knowledgeable as well.…”

“…Two of the three studies found a relationship between PST’s knowledge and student progress; one did not (Spear-Swerling, 2009). In the present study, we emphasized this relationship in the Early Literacy course using Gough and Tunmer’s Simple View (1986) of reading to provide preservice teachers with a useful and practical theoretical framework for understanding the importance of pedagogical knowledge in improving student progress.…”

“…A handful of researchers have shown that special education PSTs have improved their knowledge about language structure after participating in course and fieldwork (Al Otaiba & Lake, 2007; Mayhew & Welch, 2001; Spear-Swerling, 2009; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004). Two of the three studies found a relationship between PST’s knowledge and student progress; one did not (Spear-Swerling, 2009).…”

“…Indeed, many states are taking the option offered by IDEA 2004 to use a Response to Instruction (RTI) approach, which requires that all students at risk for reading difficulties receive evidence-based beginning reading instruction, and if they do not respond adequately, that they also receive small-group, individualized interventions before determining whether a child has a reading disability. Although there is a well-established body of research about the type of instruction it takes to prevent reading difficulties (Adams, 1990; National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998; Snow, Griffin, & Burns 2005), converging evidence suggests a gap—some may call it a divide—between the research and teachers’ knowledge and beginning reading instructional practices (Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, & Chard, 2001; Brady & Moats, 1997; Fitzgerald, 2001; Hoffman & Roller, 2001; Mather, Bos, & Babur, 2001; Moats, 2009; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Moats & Lyon, 1996; Podhajski, Mather, Nathan, & Sammons, 2009; Spear-Swerling, 2009). Thus, the important question remains: how can future teachers be prepared to provide adequate Tier 1 instruction to prevent reading difficulties and implement small-group individualized interventions?…”

Promoting Special Education Preservice Teacher Expertise

“…In our review, several studies of reading and mathematics revealed teacher educator approaches to integrating how to teach content with the procedural knowledge necessary for implementing instruction and knowledge of student performance (Alexander, Lignugaris-Kraft, & Forbush, 2007;Paulsen, 2005;Spear-Swerling, 2009;Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004). Mostly, these approaches involved contentfocused methods coursework combined with highly structured field experiences.…”