Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Our goal through this literature review is to report and synthesize the findings from research into literacy tutoring and literacy mentoring in initial teacher preparation. We identified a total of 62 published articles that met our selection criteria. We identified four conceptual areas of focus to organize and represent our findings: (a) the structural and design features of the one-to-one or small-group experiences, (b) preservice teacher learning and growth within the tutorial/mentoring experience, (c) preservice teacher learning and growth beyond the tutorial/mentoring experience, and (d) mediating factors associated with preservice teacher growth. We discuss the challenges and promises for this line of research for transforming teacher preparation through the attention to third and hybrid spaces for mentoring experiences.

Keywords

preservice teachers teacher preparation tutoring mentoring

Socrates tutored Plato. Plato tutored Aristotle. Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great. By anyone’s standards, this is an impressive lineage for aspiring tutors today. The traditions of tutoring continue to be a centering point for education in such outstanding institutions as the University of Oxford and across Europe. However, the term tutoring, which originates from the Old English word tutour (guardian; teacher), has become highly contested in public schooling in the United States. The positive, relational side of the tutor guiding the child (as a “pedagogue”) has given way to deficit thinking around the child labeled as behind and in need of fixing. The tutor has become less of a mentor and more of an interventionist. We begin with, and will return in the end to, this contested discursive space for what it means to be a tutor. In the interim, we will use the term tutoring in this review as it reflects the language used in the vast majority of studies.

We focus this review on research that has centered on preservice teachers engaging with students in one-to-one or small-group settings with the goal of supporting the preservice teachers in learning to teach literacy. We consider these kinds of tutoring experiences as part of the larger body of practicum experiences offered in teacher preparation programs. The experiences we focus on are distinct in their specific focus on literacy instruction, in their functioning outside of traditional classroom settings and routines, in their association or connections with academic coursework and, in some instances, in their direct involvement of teacher educators in support of preservice teacher learning.

Background

In 2001, as part of the International Reading Association’s study of undergraduate teacher preparation in reading, Hoffman and Roller (2001) conducted a national survey revealing that the tutoring of elementary children was a substantial part of most preparation programs and was rated by literacy teacher educators as “very important” to the success of the programs. Just 40 years earlier, Austin and Morrison (1961) reported that practicum experiences like these were uncommon in university-based teacher preparation programs. We will argue that the introduction of one-to-one and small-group work as a context for literacy teacher preparation relates to two distinct movements in literacy teacher education.

Reading Clinics

According to Smith (1965), the first university-based reading clinic was founded by Grace Fernald at UCLA in 1921. Throughout the first half of the 20th century, reading clinics increased in number as the field of reading expanded through the study of reading processes, reading disabilities, and reading education. These reading clinics were often associated with some of the leading figures in reading education (e.g., William S. Gray and Helen M. Robinson at the University of Chicago, Ira Aaron at the University of Georgia). Although the structure for clinics varied from one institution to another, there was generally a space set aside where teachers enrolled in university courses worked with young students who had been identified with some kind of reading disability. The work in these clinics was focused on three areas: (a) serving children in need of remedial support in reading, (b) preparing reading specialists to work with these children, and (c) providing a context for research into reading problems. Bates (1984) reported that these clinics tended to follow a diagnostic, prescriptive model for assessing and remediating reading difficulties, with tutoring sessions closely supervised by faculty.

Laster (2013) reported that university-based reading clinics may have reached their peak in the 1960s (with around 242 clinics), declining to around 145 by 1993. Much of the work with reading disabilities supported in reading clinics was being taken up by the emerging field of learning disabilities (Laster, 2013). Those clinics that continued to operate gradually took on new directions as they began to serve undergraduates in teacher preparation programs as complements to methods courses.

Field-Based Teacher Preparation

The second movement that supported the rise of one-to-one and small-group work in teacher preparation came in response to the scathing critique of teacher preparation in reading reported by Austin and Morrison (1961). These authors decried the lack of practicum experiences in teacher preparation directly tied to academic coursework. Teacher preparation programs around the United States began to increase the number of practicum hours, offered earlier opportunities for field experiences, and created spaces for university faculty to work directly with preservice teachers in schools. This work in schools often took the form of tutoring experiences associated with methods courses. Here we describe the evolution of one program, as an example of this movement, that is well documented in the professional literature.

Guszak (1969, 1971) reported extensively on the shift of the reading specialization program he was directing from a university-based (campus) setting to a field-based (school) setting. The first iteration (1969) reported on the offering of a tutorial experience as part of a summer course on the university campus. Elementary students were brought to the campus for tutoring. The second iteration (1971) involved a shift of the practicum experience from the university setting into an elementary school. Guszak and Mills (1973) described the evolution of the program in terms of the titles given to the associated university courses the undergraduates were taking. They asserted that “a diagnostic reading teacher must, in reality, possess the capability to interrelate all areas of communication in her instruction” (p. 448).

It is significant that the historical roots for tutoring in teacher preparation, both in clinical and in practicum settings, were associated with the predominant mid–20th-century views of reading as a skill. Tutoring was grounded in the historical traditions of a diagnostic–prescriptive approach to skills acquisition and an emphasis on one-to-one work as the ideal setting. The social practice turn in literacy (Schutz & Hoffman, 2017) has shifted the focus away from skills toward the social and cultural dimensions of literacy activity and the importance of these contextual and community-related forces in becoming literate. This shifting theoretical lens for understanding literacy from a skill to a process to a practice (Hoffman, DeJulio, & Lammert, 2018) is a perspective that underscores our consideration of future directions for tutoring in literacy teacher preparation.

Method

The problem space for our integrative review focuses on the purpose, design, and impact of these individual and small-group experiences on the preservice teacher. Our synthesis of research in these experiences spans the period of 2000 to 2017, with consideration of studies from 2018 accessible at the time of the review. The studies included in this review are a subset of the comprehensive CITE-ITEL database (https://cite.edb.utexas.edu), developed at the University of Texas at Austin, which includes all studies focused on initial teacher preparation in literacy (see Maloch & Dávila, 2019, for a full explanation of the CITE-ITEL database and article selection process).

Following Cooper’s (1988) guidelines for an integrative review, we identified 62 studies through CITE-ITEL that related to the topic of tutoring. All of the articles linked to our area of focus within the CITE-ITEL system were read and discussed by members of the authoring team. The initial readings and discussion of the articles were completed to confirm that each article met the conditions for our review, to identify major focus areas for each study, and to consider the quality of each study’s research design and the significance of each study’s contribution to the literature. While there was certainly variation in the quality of the studies, we determined that all 62 studies in the CITE-ITEL system were important to include in our review.

We created broad categories that were inclusive of all the focus areas identified in the individual analysis of articles. Through this process we identified four conceptual areas of focus: (a) the structural and design features of the one-to-one or small-group experiences, (b) preservice teacher learning and growth within the tutorial experience, (c) preservice teacher learning and growth beyond the tutorial experience, and (d) mediating factors associated with preservice teacher growth. None of the studies addressed all four of these areas (see in the supplementary archive), but most studies touched on more than one. In the end, these four focus research questions emerged: What structures and design features have been explored? How have preservice teachers grown through these experiences? How have preservice teachers taken what they have learned forward? and What mediating contributed to growth?

We have used these focus areas to organize and report our findings.

Findings

We begin with a description of the studies in terms of general characteristics and then move to consider the four conceptual areas of focus. All 62 studies were associated with university programs, although the work of the preservice teachers was most often conducted outside of the university setting. In terms of methodology, 44 of the 62 studies framed their work as qualitative, with the remaining studies adopting quantitative, mixed methods, or action research designs. All but nine of the studies focused on preservice teachers working with elementary-aged students. Six of the studies focused on work with middle school or secondary students and three with adults. Only three of the studies were conducted outside of the United States (Dawkins, Ritz, & Louden, 2009a, 2009b; Gallagher, Woloshyn, & Elliott, 2009). Of the 62 studies, 57 were conducted by researchers studying their own practices or the teacher preparation programs where they were working.

The term tutoring was used often, with 52 (84%) of the studies explicitly using this term. Nine studies used terms such as small-group and one-to-one to describe the teaching setting, and just one study (Van Valkenburgh & Grierson, 2000) used the term mentoring. With reference to the students who worked with the preservice teachers, 25 studies used the term struggling or at-risk. Seventeen studies described the diversity of the student population worked with using such terms as English language learners, incarcerated youth, or resettled refugee children.

Focus Area 1: Structural and Design Features

All 62 of the studies attended to structural and design features of the tutorial experience. For this area of analysis, however, we focused on the 38 studies that were intentional and explicit in the examination of the structural and design features as a focus for the study. There were some strong commonalities across this collection of tutorial studies related to structural and design features. Eleven of the 38 studies were clearly described as situated in school settings (e.g., Assaf & López, 2012; Dutro & Cartun, 2016; Lysaker, McCormick, & Brunette, 2004; Payne, Hoffman, & DeJulio, 2017). All of the tutoring experiences in these 38 studies were offered concurrently with university literacy courses. In most cases, the tutoring experiences were focused primarily on reading (27/38 studies). The other 11 studies all included reading as part of instruction in some way but also focused on writing and other curricular areas. Almost all of the studies in this area (35/38) were organized to create a balance of structure and spaces for tutors to construct a curriculum that is responsive to students. Only one study was focused on fidelity to the program as designed and discouraged deviation (Dawkins et al., 2009b). Coaching support was offered and explicitly described in nine of the 38 studies.

In the subsections that follow, we describe some of the variations we found that set some studies apart from the others in reference to design or structural features.

Settings and spaces

Some studies, in particular those that emphasized “service learning,” took the tutoring experiences out of school settings into such spaces as an urban apartment setting (Moore-Hart, 2002); a regional culture and nature center (Hitchens, 2014); a community center (Kelley, 2007); libraries, bookstores, and tutors’ and tutees’ homes (Hart & King, 2007); a local Department of Juvenile Justice facility (Styslinger, Walker, & Eberlin, 2014); and summer programs (Davis, Key, & Peterson, 2017; Pendergast, May, Bingham, & Kurumada, 2015). In a small number of studies (Allen & Swearingen, 2002; Collet, 2012; Lipsky, Schumm, Doorn, & Adelman, 2014; Rohr & He, 2010), tutoring was conducted at university-based clinics. Finally, Van Valkenburgh and Grierson (2000) and Moore and Seeger (2009) explored the effects of tutoring through digital spaces using written correspondence between preservice teachers and tutees.

Ages and grade levels

Typically, the one-to-one and small-group work involved elementary students, although five studies (Conley, Kerner, & Reynolds, 2005; Hallman & Burdick, 2011; Hedrick, McGee, & Mittag, 2000; Van Valkenburgh & Grierson, 2000; Warren-Kring & Rutledge, 2011) included secondary students. Mosley Wetzel, Martínez, Zoch, Chamberlain, and Laudenheimer (2012) created an experience where elementary preservice teachers tutored adults. Massey and Lewis (2011) had secondary preservice teachers tutor elementary students. Rohr and He (2010) created a tutorial experience in which parents and children worked together with preservice teachers.

Individuals and groups

Most of the tutoring experiences were one-to-one, but a few studies involved preservice teachers working with small groups of students (Dawkins et al., 2009b; Lipsky et al., 2014) or involved pairs of preservice teachers working together to tutor students (Allen & Swearingen, 2002; Assaf & López, 2015). Two studies involved multiple tutors working with groups of students (Kidd, Sanchez, & Thorp, 2000; Massey & Lewis, 2011; Payne et al., 2017).

Duration

Although some tutorials were as short as 2 weeks (Kidd et al., 2000), the majority of studies examined tutorials that were offered within a single academic semester. We identified only three studies that explored tutoring experiences across multiple experiences. Assaf and López (2012, 2015) and Hoffman, Mosley Wetzel, and DeJulio (2018) studied tutorials that spanned multiple semesters.

Content and curriculum

Reading was the primary focus in most of the studies. However, there were studies that focused on writing or some combination of reading and writing (e.g., Assaf & López, 2012, 2015; Dutro & Cartun, 2016; Hitchens, 2014; Hoffman et al., 2018; Moore & Seeger, 2009; Roser et al., 2014; Wake & Modla, 2009). Howrey (2016) focused on tutees’ understandings of technology, and Lake, Otaiba, and Guidry (2010) emphasized social skills. Hitchens (2014) and Payne et al. (2017) probed deeply into integrating literacy and cross-curriculum inquiry. Hitchens integrated science through a focus on the flora and fauna in a nature center.

Student assessments

Although building the capacity of the preservice teachers to conduct assessments and guide instruction was a focus in the majority of the studies, just eight of the 62 studies reported the data on learning outcomes for the students working with preservice teachers (Al Otaiba, 2005; Al Otaiba, Lake, Greulich, Folsom, & Guidry, 2012; Lysaker et al., 2004; Massey, 2003; Moore-Hart, 2002; Spear-Swerling, 2009; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004; Warren-Kring & Rutledge, 2011). Data sources for student outcomes varied in these studies. Six studies included standardized pre- and post-measures of oral vocabulary, phonemic awareness, phonics, spelling, and/or reading comprehension (Al Otaiba, 2005; Al Otaiba et al., 2012; Massey, 2003; Spear-Swerling, 2009; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004; Warren-Kring & Rutledge, 2011). One study relied on running records of leveled texts, retellings, and preservice teachers’ observations of students’ reading strategy usage (Lysaker et al., 2004). Another study used student questionnaires and interviews, as well as thank-you notes written at the end of the program, to examine students’ experiences of reading and writing within a community-based literacy program (Moore-Hart, 2002). Seven studies reported statistically significant growth and/or positive learning outcomes for students.

Focus Area 2: Preservice Teacher Learning and Growth Within the Tutorial Experience

The vast majority of identified studies (51/62) attended to preservice teacher learning in detail. These studies documented the effects of the small-group or one-to-one teaching on preservice teacher growth both during and at the conclusion of these experiences. The studies provided evidence that the one-to-one or small-group experiences resulted in preservice teachers (a) improving their knowledge of literacy, language, and word structure; (b) strengthening their pedagogical and instructional abilities, including their ability to use a variety of literacy strategies, their ability to use assessment data to individualize instruction, and their behavior management skills; (c) enhancing their attitudes toward the use of particular instructional strategies; (d) learning to build and value relationships with students, families, and colleagues, and to draw on those relationships to enhance students’ literacy development; (e) developing an understanding of culturally responsive teaching (CRT); and (f) rejecting deficit ideas about students who were participating in small-group or one-to-one instruction.

Across this area, studies identified ways in which teachers self-reflected or demonstrated growth. Six studies documented that as preservice teachers engaged in one-to-one or small-group teaching, their confidence in teaching reading and writing improved (Conley et al., 2005; Dawkins et al.,2009a, 2009b; Hoffman, Wetzel, & Peterson, 2016; Moore-Hart, 2002; Rohr & He, 2010). In addition, studies reported that preservice teachers became more metacognitive and reflective about their teaching both in the moment and after the teaching event (Al Otaiba, 2005; Assaf & López, 2015; Hadjioannou & Hutchinson, 2010; McLoughlin & Maslak, 2003; Nierstheimer, Hopkins, Dillon, & Schmitt, 2000; Timmons & Morgan, 2006). Warren-Kring and Rutledge (2011) reported an increase in content area teachers’ attitudes toward implementing literacy strategy instruction after engaging in a semester-long tutoring experience. Two studies reported the growth of preservice teachers’ pedagogical and procedural understandings based on their work with students (Allen & Swearingen, 2002; Hedrick et al., 2000). Furthermore, preservice teachers’ respect for the profession of teaching was strengthened and their career choice was affirmed (Cobb, 2005; Fang & Ashley, 2004).

Preservice teachers’ feelings of responsibility toward their students and assertion in taking on more challenging aspects of teaching grew in the context of these one-to-one or small-group teaching experiences (Colby & Stapleton, 2006; Hart & King, 2007; Massey, 2003; Mosley Wetzel et al., 2012; Paquette & Laverick, 2017; Worthy & Patterson, 2001). Furthermore, preservice teachers’ knowledge of the affective dimensions of teaching increased (Moore & Seeger, 2009), and their ability to tie social skills to literacy was strengthened (Assaf & López, 2012; Lake et al., 2010; Morgan, Timmons, & Shaheen, 2006). Four studies found that preservice teachers grew in their ability to identify the children’s needs and provide targeted and intentional instruction using a variety of strategies (Davis et al., 2017; Flint, Van Sluys, Lo, & East, 2002; Paquette & Laverick, 2017; Wake & Modla, 2009). Van Valkenburgh and Grierson (2000) promoted a protégé relationship through virtual tutoring and feedback and found that the preservice teachers shared personal stories to build trusting relationships with the students. Hallman and Burdick (2011), working within a service learning “third space,” found that the service learning experience created space for preservice teachers to become aware of relational aspects of teaching beyond the narrow and traditional views of the position of a teacher. Styslinger et al. (2014) worked in a “third space” as well; they refer to these cultural immersion experiences, or “third space” teaching opportunities, as allowing “preservice teachers to interact with students who are frequently culturally, ethnically, and socioeconomically different from themselves” (p. 23).

Seven studies examined differences among preservice teachers in their ability to enact instruction in the form prescribed within the study. Haverback (2009) found that teachers with high efficacy scores did not use a significantly higher number of reading strategies than those with low efficacy scores. Scharlach (2008) found that preservice teachers who questioned their own ability to reach struggling readers supplied students with answers and did not allow wait time, whereas preservice teachers who believed in their ability to reach struggling readers acted as coaches by using enough wait time to allow students to apply strategies. Hill (2017) and Kidd et al. (2000) found that preservice teachers who participated in the tutoring experiences became more comfortable and effective at selecting children’s literature for their teaching. Likewise, Lazar (2007) found that preservice teachers engaged in urban field placements and additional literacy courses developed more confidence in their teaching and in the literacy potential of their students. Furthermore, Timmons and Morgan (2010) noted that more able preservice teachers provided various prompts to foster students’ uses of strategies and were able to incorporate more instructor feedback.

Focus Area 3: Preservice Teacher Learning and Growth Beyond the Tutorial Experience

The nine studies we identified in this area are focused on how (or if) the growth associated with specific tutoring experiences is taken forward into general literacy teaching practices. How are literacy practices appropriated into future contexts?

Five of these studies focused specifically on preservice teachers currently engaged in a tutorial or service learning program (Allen & Swearingen, 2002; Davis et al., 2017; Hallman & Burdick, 2011; Massey, 2003; Morgan et al., 2006). A sixth study looked across a program to compare the attitudes of preservice teachers who had engaged in tutoring within a course focused on diversity with those of preservice teachers enrolled in a separate course (Lazar, 2007). Another study focused on preservice teachers reflecting on past experiences in a volunteer tutorial program (Gallagher et al., 2009). These studies provide evidence that the experiences affected the preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching, influenced their understanding of their roles as teachers and their attitudes regarding diversity, allowed them to draw connections between their tutoring experience and future teaching in the classroom, enhanced their pedagogical knowledge, and helped them recognize the complexity of teaching a class full of individuals who vary in instructional needs. One study included data collected across three semesters as well as data collected at the end of the participants’ teacher education program (Hoffman et al., 2018). This study documented that the preservice teachers’ understandings and strategies continued to expand with each additional tutorial experience.

The studies in this focus area, though few in number, indicate that the work with students in one-to-one and small-group tutorial experiences can have a long-term influence on what preservice teachers take forward into their teaching.

Focus Area 4: Mediating Factors

The 42 studies included in this focus area investigated the path between the preservice teachers’ participation in an experience and the growth of the preservice teachers; we call these mediating factors. Often the mediating factors were part of a study’s theoretical framing and also appeared as features in the design and structure of the experiences. We focus on nine mediating factors that were highlighted in the design, analysis, and findings.

Embodying experiences

Tutoring is something you can talk about with preservice teachers, but it is the embodied “doing” in particular spaces that stands out as important across all of the studies reviewed. This mediating factor stood out, in particular, in the reports where the tutoring experiences were taken beyond the common one-semester, in-school, reading-focused experience. The location of the experience, such as the use of a nature center (Hitchens, 2014) or working with incarcerated youth (Styslinger et al., 2014), was important, or mattered, to the preservice teachers. Tutoring that was cross-disciplinary, as in Flint and colleagues’ (2002) disruption of traditional writing instruction or in tutoring framed as inquiry (e.g., Kidd et al., 2000; Payne et al., 2017), mattered to students. Finally, tutoring experiences sequenced across a teacher education program (Hoffman et al., 2018) provided extended experiences that mattered to preservice teachers in the ways their practices grew over time.

Reframing practices and participation

Eleven of the studies examined tutoring through the lens of service learning (e.g., Hallman & Burdick, 2011; Hart & King, 2007; Kelley, 2007; Lake et al., 2010; Paquette & Laverick, 2017). Here, the preservice teachers were positioned as more than just delivering content, but as engaged with students’ lives, community, and cultural contexts. Several studies focused on preservice teachers building on their students’ cultural and linguistic resources and practices (e.g., Abrego, Rubin, & Sutterby, 2006; Assaf & López, 2012; Mosley Wetzel et al., 2012; Rohr & He, 2010). Moreover, collaboration and family partnerships were viewed as essential (Abrego et al., 2006; Assaf & López, 2012). Several studies used theories of community of practice or third space to understand teaching across multiple communities and reaching beyond the traditional (Abrego et al., 2006; Assaf & López, 2015; Hallman & Burdick, 2011; Hart & King, 2007; Kelley, 2007; Kindle & Schmidt, 2013). These theories were used to explore preservice teachers’ tensions in service learning, for example, negotiating course requirements and being responsive to students (Kelley, 2007). These studies suggest that service learning provided an opportunity for preservice teachers to gain confidence as teachers, make learning relevant to students, draw connections between students’ lives and their teaching, complicate notions of teaching, and see the importance of partnership with community and family members in educating students.

Building relationships

Eleven of the studies in this area focused on building a positive relationship as essential for the success of the experience for both the student and the preservice teacher (e.g., Abrego et al., 2006; Assaf & López, 2015; Lysaker et al., 2004; Scharlach, 2008; Worthy & Patterson, 2001). In one study, focusing on telementors mentoring over e-mail, preservice teachers noted they had to begin by building a personal relationship using nonhierarchical language before helping their students in reading and writing (Van Valkenburgh & Grierson, 2000). Hedrick and colleagues (2000) reported the importance of preservice teachers developing emotional attachments to their students, leading to the tutors taking on an increased sense of responsibility toward student learning. Hallman and Burdick (2011) concluded that having preservice teachers work with students outside of the official school space helped preservice teachers understand the relational aspects of teaching, providing a counter-narrative for the student–teacher relationship. These caring relationships led to more informed curriculum decision making and a greater willingness of the elementary students to take risks in their own learning.

Reshaping beliefs and expectations for students

Although teacher identity and beliefs were discussed across a number of the studies, 15 specifically examined the role of preservice teachers’ beliefs and expectations of students in the experience. Scharlach (2008) offered the most attention to how preservice teachers view their students, teach, and take responsibility for student learning. Attention was also paid to working with students labeled as “struggling readers” (e.g., Cobb, 2005; Gallagher et al., 2009; Helfrich, 2012; Nierstheimer et al., 2000; Worthy & Patterson, 2001). After tutoring experiences, preservice teachers noted their appreciation for their students’ diversity and increased resistance to negative stereotypes about their students or their students’ literacy abilities (e.g., Styslinger et al., 2014; Worthy & Patterson, 2001). Hoffman and colleagues (2016) documented the importance of the preservice teachers taking an appreciative and asset-based stance toward the students they worked with in their tutorials.

Encouraging responsive teaching

Seventeen studies emphasized the importance of preservice teachers constructing a curriculum that is student centered (Assaf & López, 2012, 2015; Hoffman et al., 2016; Kelley, 2007) and instructional moves that are responsive to the students (e.g., Barnes, 2006; Davis et al., 2017; Dutro & Cartun, 2016). One way of being responsive was selecting texts that reflected students’ interests (e.g., Styslinger et al., 2014). For example, one preservice teacher learned of her student’s biracial identity and with the support of her instructor found texts specifically including biracial characters, noting that the existing learning environment included none to explore (Hill, 2017). As responsive educators, the preservice teachers offered their students opportunities to learn about topics and ideas that were relevant to them. This practice afforded the preservice teachers the opportunities to experience the power of teaching to students’ interests, to plan for flexibly incorporating real-world experiences into teaching, and to observe meaningful learning in action.

Reflecting on and for teaching

Reflection, as a tool for preservice teacher learning, was relied on heavily in 13 studies (e.g., Barnes, 2006; Collet, 2012; Hoffman et al., 2016; Lysaker et al., 2004; Moore-Hart, 2002; Mosley Wetzel et al., 2012; Ro, Magiera, Gradel, & Simmons, 2013). Hoffman et al. (2018), for example, documented the important link between reflection—both the group reflections guided by the course instructor immediately after the tutoring sessions and the students’ reflections in their teaching plans—and the growth of the preservice teachers. During reflection, preservice teachers considered their students and their teaching, and some studies further noted the commitment to students in envisioning their future. Overall, when reflection was part of the tutoring experience, preservice teachers made sense of their experiences in ways that shaped their practices.

Connecting to academic content

Fifteen of the studies (e.g., Hadjioannou & Hutchinson, 2010; Kelley, 2007; Kidd et al., 2000; Leader-Janssen & Rankin-Erickson, 2013; Rohr & He, 2010; Timmons & Morgan, 2006, 2010; Wake & Modla, 2009) focused on the close connections between the academic coursework tied to the tutoring experience and the learning of the preservice teachers. These studies showed that exploration of connections between tutoring and academic experiences (considering both content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge) enhances the acquisition of the concepts that undergird teaching (e.g., Colby & Stapleton, 2006; Flint et al., 2002).

Coaching for growth

While the presence of teacher educators is noted in almost all of the studies, their active role in mediating the learning is often not described in detail. There are seven studies, however, that address this role of mediation directly. Four of these (Collet, 2012; Hoffman et al., 2016; Kindle & Schmidt, 2013; Ro et al., 2013) used the term coaching to refer to the support offered to the preservice teachers working with students. For example, Collet (2012) explored coaching interactions over time for preservice teachers during a clinical teacher education experience, identifying coaching moves such as providing models for instruction, making recommendations, posing questions, providing affirmation, and offering praise. Timmons and Morgan (2010) referred to feedback. Dawkins et al. (2009a) were perhaps the most explicit and direct about the feedback offered, using a checklist to encourage and monitor the preservice teachers’ implementation of the intervention program. In Hedrick et al. (2000), supporting preservice teachers included a combination of methods, including both e-mail and face-to-face meetings throughout the semester. Across the studies, the support of knowledgeable others was often noted as beneficial to the growth of the preservice teachers.

Reshaping teacher identity and beliefs

Although developing an identity as a teacher was explored across many of the studies, eight specifically focused on identity development during tutoring experiences. Some connected teacher identity development with situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), placing emphasis on the interaction with students during tutoring as a requirement for identity development (e.g., Assaf & López, 2012; Davis et al., 2017; Hallman & Burdick, 2011; Helfrich, 2012). Another important aspect of teacher identity development was reflection and attention to knowledge and beliefs that preservice teachers brought from past experiences (e.g., Helfrich, 2012). Moreover, studies identified how preservice teachers developed an expanded understanding of what was important in teaching through tutorial experiences, further shaping their teacher identity (e.g., Gallagher et al., 2009; Hoffman et al., 2018).

Discussion

Following Torraco (2016), and consistent with our own goals in this review, we set out to report findings from recent research and provide fresh, new perspectives on the topic. We found substantial evidence in these studies documenting a positive impact of one-to-one and small-group teaching experiences on the growth of preservice teachers in learning to teach. There were also significant findings on the important design features of these experiences and how these features work through mediating factors to promote preservice teacher learning. Although there may appear to be some obvious connections between the design features and the mediating factors (e.g., more time working with kids leads to more powerful relationships), these connections are not that clean or simple. Our data do not warrant any strong conclusions regarding direct causal relationships. We suspect that all of these structural design features and mediating factors are highly interactive.

Overall, these studies revealed a breadth of learning associated with experiences that provided preservice teachers with ongoing opportunities to put understandings from their coursework into practice. Our review found that preservice teachers commonly (a) improved their knowledge of literacy, language, and word structure; (b) strengthened their pedagogical and instructional abilities, including their ability to use a variety of literacy strategies, their ability to use assessment data to individualize instruction, and their behavior management skills; (c) learned to build and value relationships with students, families, and colleagues, and to draw on these relationships to enhance students’ literacy development; and (d) developed an understanding of CRT and rejected deficit ideas about students who were participating in the experiences because of their status as “struggling” or “at-risk” readers.

In addition, these experiences were shown to help preservice teachers consider not only their status as teachers but also their long-term future as reflective and responsive educators. These experiences contributed to preservice teachers’ long-term learning by affecting their beliefs and attitudes about teaching, allowing them to draw connections between their tutoring experience and future teaching in the classroom, and providing a space to recognize the complexity of teaching a class full of individuals who vary in instructional needs.

The experiences described in these studies were situated within practicum experiences. There is little consideration, however, about how these tutorial experiences complemented or articulated with other field experiences. We identified only one study that contextualized tutoring within the broader context of teaching and teacher education: Sailors and colleagues (2004) examined how literacy tutorials fit within field experiences and the larger teacher preparation program. Other concerns for areas not addressed deeply enough in this literature include the following:

Most of the experiences in these studies were offered within a single semester. There are few details in these studies about how these experiences scaffold preservice teachers into practices in other contexts that challenge the status quo.

The paucity of studies that explore middle school and secondary experiences is of concern, as well as the lack of attention to mentoring in multilingual settings.

Few studies explore the shifts that occur in preservice teachers’ dispositions from a deficit to an appreciative stance toward students (or from a closed to a more open mind-set about teaching and learning). Perhaps certain kinds of structures and design features may actually reinforce deficit thinking.

Few studies address, in innovative ways, the forms of coaching support that can be offered for preservice teachers in their tutoring experiences.

Few of the studies examine an extended view of literacy that reaches into digital spaces and multimodal forms of literacy work.

To Tutor or Not to Tutor?

We began this review with a brief consideration of the contested space for the term tutoring in public education in the United States and with a promise to dig a little more deeply into the implications moving forward. We have been intentional in writing this review only to use the term tutoring when it was explicitly used by the researchers in the reporting of their work. There is a good case for continuing to use the term based on its common use and rich historical traditions. However, there is also the case for a change to mentoring. Language changes over time. Words change in meaning and use. There is no question that tutoring has taken on the negative connotations of something that is done to those falling behind—most often in schools serving students of color and low-income communities.

We have concluded that literacy mentoring is a more conceptually appropriate term than tutoring for describing the work of teacher educators, in particular, in the view of this work as transformative. In a comprehensive review of mentoring, Jacobi (1991) referred to mentoring relationships as having five basic components: They “(1) are helping relationships which focus on achievement; (2) provide emotional and psychological support, career and professional development, and role models; (3) benefit both the mentor and the protégé; (4) are personal; and (5) allow more experienced people to share knowledge with less-experienced people” (p. 513).

These features are notably aligned with the findings from the studies we have reviewed. We believe that literacy mentoring not only avoids the negativity associated with tutoring but also better reflects an emphasis on relationships, reflection, and the goal of learning new ways to teach following a communities of practice framework. This shift to mentoring signals a clear separation between our historical roots in clinical perspectives to a new focus on the practice of literacy and the practice of literacy teaching. We hope a shift to literacy mentoring will create a dialogue among teacher educators and teachers around the features of literacy mentoring that are important to transforming literacy teaching in schools.

Toward Practices That Can Transform Teaching

Britzman (2003) has cautioned teacher educators about the potential dangers associated with uncritical practicum experiences in schools as part of initial teacher preparation. Building on Lortie’s (1975) construct of apprenticeship of observation, Britzman suggested that simply adding more practicum experiences may not serve the goal of preparing powerful teachers who can step beyond the status quo. The more we engage preservice teachers in classrooms that reflect the status quo of teaching, the more likely it is that preservice teachers will be inducted into these teaching practices and away from the innovative teaching practices that are often the focus of teacher preparation programs.

What if the goal of working in one-to-one and small groups was not to simplify practices to move into the complexity of the classroom, but to prepare teachers to engage in practices that may not be dominant (or even present) in current literacy teaching? Could these experiences prepare teachers not only to step into but also to disrupt what exists? Kelley (2007) and Styslinger and colleagues (2014) described these experiences as utilizing third spaces, with specific reference to teacher learning across cultural divides (see also Abrego et al., 2006; Assaf & López, 2015; Hart & King, 2007; Kelley, 2007; Kindle & Schmidt, 2013). Zeichner (2010) has described these kinds of experiences as hybrid spaces where progressive literacy practices can be nurtured and taken forward into classroom teaching. We see promising examples of this approach in several of the studies we reviewed. Barnes (2006) gave explicit attention to prepare preservice teachers in CRT practices through a tutoring program specifically designed around CRT teaching principles. Dutro and Cartun (2016) used one-to-one work to engage preservice teachers in a critical examination of “control” and “failure” discourses in the teaching of writing and how these can be disrupted. Similarly, Flint and colleagues (2002) used their preservice teacher mentoring experiences to disrupt traditional writing instruction. Both Kidd and colleagues (2000) and Payne and colleagues (2017) engaged preservice teachers in literacy as a tool for inquiry and cross-curricular teaching by pushing into classroom settings for an intensive period combining whole-class and small-group mentoring work.

Repositioning one-to-one and small-group experiences as spaces to prepare teachers for such disruption is a promising step along this path. This suggests the power of disruption in the moment that may help position the teachers who have these experiences to become change agents for the future. Although a growing body of research is exploring literacy mentoring practices that break the mold of traditional tutoring models, it is still unclear how this work influences future teaching in the classroom. A logical and necessary next step is for researchers to investigate whether the transformative practices in literacy mentoring are making their ways into the preservice teachers’ classrooms after graduation. In other words, are teacher educators preparing preservice teachers to disrupt the status quo or are these disruptive practices abandoned as teachers move into their professional teaching careers? To consider the design of mentoring and field experiences, teacher educators must understand the power of these experiences in their graduates’ future teaching.

Supplemental Material

OL_SUPP_TB_1_Hoffman – Supplemental material for A Research Review of Literacy Tutoring and Mentoring in Initial Teacher Preparation: Toward Practices That Can Transform Teaching

Supplemental material, OL_SUPP_TB_1_Hoffman for A Research Review of Literacy Tutoring and Mentoring in Initial Teacher Preparation: Toward Practices That Can Transform Teaching by James V. Hoffman, Natalie Svrcek, Catherine Lammert, Annie Daly-Lesch, Erica Steinitz, Erin Greeter and Samuel DeJulio in Journal of Literacy Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The appendix referenced in this article and abstracts in languages other than English are available at

References

Abrego

Rubin

Sutterby

J. A.

(2006). They call me maestra: Preservice teachers’ interactions with parents in a reading tutoring program. Action in Teacher Education, 28, 3-12.

Allen

Swearingen

(2002). Development of pedagogical knowledge related to teaching at-risk students: How do inservice teachers and preservice teachers compare? Reading Horizons, 43, 49-60.

Al Otaiba

. (2005). How effective is code-based reading tutoring in English for English learners and preservice teacher-tutors? Remedial and Special Education, 26, 245-254.

Al Otaiba

Lake

V. E.

Greulich

Folsom

J. S.

Guidry

. (2012). Preparing beginning reading teachers: An experimental comparison of initial early literacy field experiences. Reading and Writing, 25, 109-129.

Assaf

L. C.

López

M. M.

(2012). Reading rocks: Creating a space for preservice teachers to become responsive teachers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 33, 365-381.

Assaf

L. C.

López

M. M.

(2015). Generative learning in a service-learning project and field-based teacher education program: Learning to become culturally responsive teachers. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 64, 323-338.

Austin

M. C.

Morrison

(1961). The torch lighters: Tomorrow’s teachers of reading. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.

Barnes

C. J.

(2006). Preparing preservice teachers to teach in a culturally responsive way. Negro Educational Review, 57(1/2), 85-100.

Bates

G. W.

(1984). Profile of university-based reading clinics: Results of a U.S. survey. Journal of Reading, 27, 524-529.

10.

Britzman

D. P.

(2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany: State University of New York Press.

11.

Cobb

(2005). Planting the seeds . . . tending the garden . . . cultivating the student: Early childhood preservice teachers as literacy researchers exploring beliefs about struggling readers and diversity. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26, 377-393.

12.

Colby

Stapleton

(2006). Preservice teachers teach writing: Implications for teacher educators. Reading Research and Instruction, 45, 353-376.

13.

Collet

V. S.

(2012). The gradual increase of responsibility model: Coaching for teacher change. Literacy Research and Instruction, 51, 27-47.

14.

Conley

Kerner

Reynolds

J. M.

(2005). Not a question of “should,” but a question of “how”: Integrating literacy knowledge and practice into secondary teacher preparation through tutoring in urban middle schools. Action in Teacher Education, 27(2), 22-32.

15.

Cooper

H. M.

(1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1, 104-126.

16.

Davis

Key

Peterson

(2017). Summer literacy: A school/university partnership that benefits young learners and beginning teachers. Journal of Literacy Practice & Research, 42, 28-33.

17.

Dawkins

Ritz

M. E.

Louden

(2009a). Evaluating the practicability and sustainability of a reading intervention programme, using preservice teachers as trained volunteers. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 32, 136-147.

18.

Dawkins

Ritz

M. E.

Louden

(2009b). Learning by doing: Preservice teachers as reading tutors. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2), 40-49.

19.

Dutro

Cartun

(2016). Cut to the core practices: Toward visceral disruptions of binaries in practice-based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 119-128.

20.

Fang

Ashley

(2004). Preservice teachers’ interpretations of a field-based reading block. Journal of Teacher Education, 55, 39-54.

21.

Flint

A. S.

Van Sluys

Y. G.

East

(2002). I never thought a first grader could teach me how to write: Examining beliefs and positions in author’s circles. In Schallert

Fairbanks

Worthy

Maloch

Hoffman

(Eds.), 51st yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 164-175). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.

22.

Gallagher

T. L.

Woloshyn

V. E.

Elliott

(2009). Exploring the salient experiences of pre-service teacher candidates who were former volunteer tutors. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17, 129-146.

23.

Guszak

F. J.

(1969). Reading methods: A new turn. The Reading Teacher, 23, 121-125.

24.

Guszak

F. J.

(1971). Preservice program in the classroom. Journal of Reading, 15, 199-202.

25.

Guszak

F. J.

Mills

W. R.

(1973). Preparation of a reading teacher: A program metamorphosis. Journal of Reading, 16, 444-448.

26.

Hadjioannou

Hutchinson

M. C.

(2010). Putting the G back in English: Preparing pre-service teachers to teach grammar. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 9, 90-105.

27.

Hallman

H. L.

Burdick

M. N.

(2011). Service learning and the preparation of English teachers. English Education, 43, 341-368.

28.

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.

29.

Haverback

H. R.

(2009). Situating pre-service reading teachers as tutors: Implications of teacher self-efficacy on tutoring elementary students. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17, 251-261.

30.

Hedrick

W. B.

McGee

Mittag

(2000). Pre-service teacher learning through one-on-one tutoring: Reporting perceptions through e-mail. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 47-63.

31.

Helfrich

(2012). Incorporating tutoring experiences in teacher education: Benefits to pre-service teachers and suggestions for teacher educators. Journal of Reading Education, 37(3), 40-48.

32.

Hill

K. D.

(2017). A pre-service teacher’s use of a culturally relevant text with interracial themes. Teacher Education and Practice, 30, 487-500.

33.

Hitchens

C. W.

(2014). Preservice teachers’ use of learning environment resources during literacy tutoring. Journal of Reading Education, 40, 24-28.

34.

Hoffman

J. V.

DeJulio

Lammert

(2018). Transforming literacy teacher preparation: Practice makes possible (Literacy Leadership Brief). Newark, DE: International Literacy Association. Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-transforming-literacy-teacher-preparation.pdf

35.

Hoffman

J. V.

Mosley Wetzel

DeJulio

(2018). Multiple literacy tutoring experiences across a teacher preparation program: How can practice in hybrid spaces challenge the “practice makes practice” dilemma? Action in Teacher Education, 40, 58-76.

36.

Hoffman

J. V.

Roller

C. M.

(2001). The IRA excellence in reading teacher preparation commission’s report: Current practices in reading teacher education at the undergraduate level in the United States. In Roller

C. M.

(Ed.), Learning to teach reading: Setting the research agenda (pp. 32-79). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

37.

Hoffman

J. V.

Wetzel

M. M.

Peterson

(2016). Approximating literacy practices in tutorials: What is learned and what matters for teacher preparation. Literacy Research and Instruction, 55, 183-208.

38.

Howrey

(2016). Preparing pre-service teachers for TPCK in the reading content area: Insights from an action research study. Literacy Practice & Research, 41(2), 13-21.

39.

Jacobi

(1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 61, 505-532.

40.

Kelley

(2007). Negotiating pedagogy development: Learning to teach writing in a service-learning context. Action in Teacher Research, 29, 94-108.

41.

Kidd

J. K.

Sanchez

S. Y.

Thorp

E. K.

(2000). Integrating language and literacy through projects: An applied internship experience. Yearbook of the College Reading Association, 22, 206-225.

42.

Kindle

K. J.

Schmidt

C. M.

(2013). Developing preservice teachers: A self-study of instructors scaffolding. Reading Improvement, 50, 83-100.

43.

Lake

V. E.

Otaiba

S. A.

Guidry

(2010). Developing social skills training and literacy instruction pedagogy through service learning: An integrated model of teacher preparation. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31, 373-390.

44.

Laster

B. P.

(2013). A historical view of student learning and teacher development in reading clinics. In Ortlieb

Cheek

(Eds.), Advanced literacy practices: From the clinic to the classroom literacy research, practice and evaluation (pp. 3-20). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

45.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

46.

Lazar

A. M.

(2007). It’s not just about teaching kids to read: Helping preservice teachers acquire a mindset for teaching children in urban communities. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 411-443.

47.

Leader-Janssen

E. M.

Rankin-Erickson

J. L.

(2013). Preservice teachers’ content knowledge and self-efficacy for teaching reading. Literacy Research and Instruction, 52, 204-229.

48.

Lipsky

Schumm

J. S.

Doorn

Adelman

(2014). Preparing preservice teachers for data-based decision making in working with struggling readers: A collaborative effort. Journal of Reading Education, 40, 36-42.

49.

Lortie

(1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

50.

Lysaker

McCormick

Brunette

(2004). Hope, happiness, and reciprocity: A thematic analysis of preservice teachers’ relationships with their reading buddies. Reading Research and Instruction, 44(2), 21-45.

51.

Massey

D. D.

(2003). Preservice teachers as tutors: Influences on tutoring on whole-class literacy instruction. In Fairbanks

Worthy

Maloch

Hoffman

Schallert

(Eds.), 52nd yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 259-271). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.

52.

Massey

D. D.

Lewis

(2011). Learning from the “little guys”: What do middle and high school preservice teachers learn from tutoring elementary students? Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 120-132.

53.

McLoughlin

S. A.

Maslak

M. A.

(2003). Prospective teachers’ perceptions of development during fieldwork: Tutoring as a vehicle for professional growth. The Teacher Educator, 38, 267-284.

54.

Moore

R. A.

Seeger

(2009). Dear sincerely: Exploring literate identities with young children and preservice teachers through letter writing. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48, 185-205.

55.

Moore-Hart

(2002). Creating a pathway to multicultural education in urban communities: Real-life experiences for preservice teachers. Reading Horizons, 42, 139-173.

56.

Morgan

Timmons

Shaheen

(2006). Tutoring: A personal and professional space for preservice teachers to learn about literacy instruction. In Fairbanks

Worthy

Maloch

Hoffman

Schallert

(Eds.), 55th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 212-223). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.

57.

Mosley Wetzel

Martínez

Zoch

Chamberlain

Laudenheimer

. (2012). Becoming responsive literacy teachers in an adult literacy tutoring practicum. In Dunston

P. J.

Fullerton

S. K.

Bates

C. C.

Headley

Stecker

P. M.

(Eds.), 61st yearbook of the Literacy Research Association (pp. 163-179). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association Conference.

58.

Nierstheimer

S. L.

Hopkins

C. J.

Dillon

D. R.

Schmitt

M. C.

(2000). Preservice teachers’ shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners. Literacy Research and Instruction, 40(1), 1-16.

59.

Paquette

K. R.

Laverick

D. M.

(2017). Enhancing preservice teachers’ skillsets and professionalism through literacy tutoring experiences. Reading Improvement, 54(2), 56-66.

60.

Payne

K. A.

Hoffman

J. V.

DeJulio

(2017). Doing democracy through simulation, deliberation, and inquiry with elementary students. Social Studies Research and Practice, 12, 56-69.

61.

Pendergast

May

Bingham

Kurumada

K. S.

(2015). Acquiring responsive practices: Preservice teachers learn to conduct interactive read-alouds. Action in Teacher Education, 37, 65-81.

62.

J. M.

Magiera

Gradel

Simmons

(2013). Blog-based support for preservice teachers in an after school tutoring program. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 42, 69-84.

63.

Rohr

(2010). Preservice teachers and parents: Using a reading course to change perceptions and practice,. Educational Studies, 36, 35-45.

64.

Roser

N. L.

Hoffman

J. V.

Mosley Wetzel

Price-Dennis

Peterson

K. E.

Chamberlain

(2014). Pull up a chair and listen to them write: Preservice teachers learn from beginning writers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35, 150-167.

65.

Sailors

Keehn

Harmon

Hedrick

Fine

Eldridge

(2004). Features of early field experience at sites of excellence in reading teacher education programs. In Fairbanks

Worthy

Maloch

Hoffman

Schallert

(Eds.), 53rd yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 342-355). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.

66.

Scharlach

T. D.

(2008). These kids just aren’t motivated to read: The influence of preservice teachers’ beliefs on their expectations, instruction, and evaluation of struggling readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47, 158-173.

67.

Schutz

K. M.

Hoffman

J. V.

(2017). “I practice teaching”: Transforming our professional identities as literacy teachers through action research. The Reading Teacher, 71, 7-12.

68.

Smith

N. B.

(1965). American reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

69.

Spear-Swerling

(2009). A literacy tutoring experience for prospective special educators and struggling second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 431-443.

70.

Spear-Swerling

Brucker

P. O.

(2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading and spelling skills in children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 332-364.

71.

Styslinger

M. E.

Walker

Eberlin

E. L.

(2014). Teaching in “third space”: Understanding pre-service teachers’ reading with incarcerated teens. Journal of Reading Education, 39(2), 23-29.

72.

Timmons

B. J.

Morgan

D. N.

(2006). Preservice teachers’ interactions while tutoring primary grade children. In Foote

Falk-Ross

Szabo

Sampson

(Eds.), 29th yearbook of the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers (pp. 58-73). Louisville, KY: Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers.

73.

Timmons

B. J.

Morgan

D. N.

(2010). Preservice tutors and first-grade students: Instruction, interactions, and faculty feedback. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 15-30.

74.

Torraco

R. J.

(2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past to present and explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15, 404-428.

75.

Van Valkenburgh

Grierson

S. T

. (2000). Mentoring in the information age: A study of telementor functions between preservice teachers and middle school students. Yearbook of the College Reading Association, 22, 271-284.

76.

Wake

D. G.

Modla

V. B.

(2009). Language experience stories gone digital: Using digital stories with the LEA approach. In Szabo

Sampson

Foote

Falk-Rose

(Eds.), 31st yearbook of the Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers (pp. 253-274). Louisville, KY: Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers.

77.

Warren-Kring

B. Z.

Rutledge

V. C.

(2011). Adolescents’ comprehension and content area education students’ perceptions: Benefits from one-on-on tutoring. The Teacher Educator, 46, 244-261.

78.

Worthy

Patterson

(2001). “I can’t wait to see Carlos!”: Preservice teachers, situated learning, and personal relationships with students. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 303-344.

79.

Zeichner

(2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field-experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 89-99.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB