The Effects of in-class tutoring of Kindergarteners on Patterning, Reading, or Mathematics

Abstract

Kindergarten students were pretested on the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), the Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills -Revised (ABLLS-R), and Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III).Following testing, the students were randomly assigned to tutoring groups which focused on patterning, reading, mathematics or social studies (control IntroductionPatterning instruction (i.e., instruction focusing on the alternating presentations of colors, shapes, or objects) is traditionally a part of early childhood education. Such instruction begins with simple ababab patterns such as red blue red blue red blue, and becomes increasingly complex. This subject matter has been taught across the USA for the last half-century, and many educators still view it as a necessary foundation for elementary school mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1993; National Association for the Education of Young Children/National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Education, 2002/2010). Patterning is thought to improve young children's understanding of mathematics (Baroody, 1993; Clements &Sarama, 2007, a,b,c; Threfall,1993;Warren, Cooper, & Lamb, 2006); however, empirical evidence that instruction in patterning contributes to young children's understanding of mathematics is sparse.The limited research supporting the importance of patterning instruction for children's mathematical development includes a recent longitudinal study done by Fyfe, Rittle-Johnson, Hofer and Farren (2015). Significant regression coefficients (.17-.18) were found between children's performance on patterning measures as preschoolers and their performance on a mathematical composite score. Another correlational study done by White, Alexander, and Daugherty (1998) found a strong correlation (.56) between preschoolers' ability to extend alternating patterns and their scores on analogical reasoning as measured by the Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program (GKAP). Both of these studies support the conclusion that an early understanding of alternating patterns is related to later mastery of mathematics. However, there was no instructional component to these studies, and correlational studies alone cannot prove causality. A more direct approach is to instruct children in patterning and to then measure the resulting benefits on mathematical ability.

Teaching Early Literacy, Mathematics, and Patterning to Kindergartners

“…Although the intervention did not improve literacy scores, there were correlations between some literacy measures and patterning scores. Such relations have Psychology been reported previously for first graders, both as a result of interventions (Hendricks et al, 2006;Kidd et al, 2013;Kidd et al, 2014;Pasnak et al, 2015;Shriver et al, 2017) and in the absence of any intervention (Bock et al, 2015;Pasnak et al, 2016, Schmerold et al, 2017. The correlation between the patterning scores for these kindergartners and the TOWRE SWEscale is similar to that between this scale and complex patterns reported for first-graders (Pasnak et al, 2016).…”

“…The patterning instruction clearly was effective, as the children taught pattering outscored those taught either mathematics or early literacy on the patterning test, even though groups were small and the conservative Bonferroni correction was applied. However, as in the experiment by Shriver et al (2017), there was no demonstrable effect of the patterning instruction on early literacy or mathematics.…”

“…reviews by Burgoyne et al, 2017;Pasnak, 2017) has consistently shown relations between the patterning and mathematics scores of both preschoolers and first graders on a variety of mathematics measures, whether the patterns were simple alternations or complex like those used in the present research. However, this experiment and that of Shriver et al (2017) are the only ones conducted with kindergartners, and neither shows such a relationship. The difference could be a function of the mathematics measures used, but Shriver et al (2017) used Woodcock-Johnson III scales 10, 18A, and 18B, which did show such relationships for first grade children (Kidd et al, 2013;Kidd et al, 2014;Pasnak et al, 2015) and the KEYmath Algebra scale used present experiment also showed relations for first graders.…”

“…However, this experiment and that of Shriver et al (2017) are the only ones conducted with kindergartners, and neither shows such a relationship. The difference could be a function of the mathematics measures used, but Shriver et al (2017) used Woodcock-Johnson III scales 10, 18A, and 18B, which did show such relationships for first grade children (Kidd et al, 2013;Kidd et al, 2014;Pasnak et al, 2015) and the KEYmath Algebra scale used present experiment also showed relations for first graders. The relevant limitation of the experiment by Shriver et al is the time (spring) that most of the intervention was conducted, which may not have left time for it to affect the children's subsequent mathematics achievement.…”

“…In sum, the instruction avoided the pitfalls of the only other patterning intervention conducted with kindergartners (Shriver et al 2017) in that instruction was conducted for seven months beginning in the early Fall, and the patterning measure was appropriate for the patterns taught. It produced an effect on patterning scores but had no demonstrable effect on mathematics or literacy scores.…”