Supporting preservice teachers to become informed teachers of reading through one-to-one tutoring in an English initial teacher education setting

ABSTRACT

Training preservice teachers as teachers of reading is a complex task, as is reading itself. Preservice teachers need to understand the theory that underpins practice; the cognitive skills and knowledge required to read and the contextual factors that impact beginner readers. This longitudinal, mixed-methods study evaluates the benefits for preservice teachers and for the children they tutor, of a collaborative approach between an English university, its city’s schools and Local Education Authority. Preservice teachers (n = 362) were trained in and then implemented the Boosting Reading at Primary intervention. The children’s (n = 724) pre- and post-intervention reading age data was analysed along with qualitative and quantitative data from a case study of one cohort of preservice teachers (n = 87). The study demonstrates the reading progress made by children in the project and the increased knowledge, skills, pedagogic practices and self-efficacy of the preservice teachers.

KEYWORDS:

• Reading
• teacher education
• primary education
• phonics
• one-to-one tutoring

Introduction

The teaching of reading has consistently been at the top of many national educational, political agendas and is a feature of international comparison and research. Reading is an understandable priority: it ‘is the basis for the acquisition of knowledge, for cultural engagement, for democracy, and for success in the workplace. Illiteracy costs the global economy more than $1 trillion (U.S. dollars) annually in direct costs alone’ (Castles, Rastle and Nation 2018, 5). This priority is reflected in English government policy. Ensuring that preservice teachers are equipped to teach reading is a feature of both the rhetoric of English government and its inspection and accountability regimes. Initial Teacher Education (ITE) providers in England have been under close scrutiny following the ‘Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading’ (2006), which framed the policy and practice direction of English schools. As the policy focus narrowed to the teaching of early reading (rather than the development of reading for all ages and stages) and the privileging of scientific research in reading grew, the aspect of reading that was most highlighted for scrutiny was the teaching of phonics. While there is an agreement amongst most researchers that phonics has an essential role to play in the teaching of reading (Rayner et al. 2001; Torgerson, Brooks, and Hall 2006; Ellis and Moss 2014), it is also recognised that phonics is only one essential element and on its own is not sufficient to create effective readers (Breadmore et al. 2019; Torgerson et al. 2019). However, with English ITE inspection frameworks focusing on how well the institution teaches phonics, the need to provide preservice teachers with a wider understanding of the complexity of the process of learning to read has not always been easy to achieve in the time available in undergraduate and post-graduate teacher training programmes (Hendry 2020). The Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) inspection framework for ITE focused not just on the providers’ curriculum for early reading and its impact on preservice teachers’ knowledge and understanding but also on how the preservice teacher used this learning to impact children’s learning (Ofsted Inspection Framework 2018). In the current ITE Ofsted framework (2020), it is again phonics that is highlighted as the area of scrutiny in relation to ITE curricular and preservice teacher practice. In addition, while there is extensive research in relation to understanding the reading process, there is not as much research about how this can be applied to classroom practice. Moss (2009) suggests that what is often contested in the reading debate is not the outcomes of ‘scientific’ research in relation to phonics and the reading process, but the way that policymakers appropriate the research in relation to prescribed pedagogic practices. Managing these agendas and ensuring teaching and learning are both evidence-based and ‘compliant’ with policy and accountability regimes has been a challenge for many English ITE providers. The research presented in this article focuses on the outcomes of a longitudinal, evaluative mixed methods study of one University’s collaboration with local schools and Local Education Authority (LEA) in order to develop effective preservice teacher education in the teaching of reading. Preservice teachers had an integrated programme of university-based learning, Local Authority training in the Boosting Reading at Primary (BRP), a one-to-one reading intervention programme, school-based implementation of BRP alongside support from the schools’ reading specialist Reading Recovery teachers. The research focuses on the impact of this integrated programme:

• On preservice teachers’ knowledge, skills and pedagogic practices, confidence and self-efficacy in relation to teaching reading, using both qualitative and quantitative data gathered from preservice teachers.

• On the quantitative reading level progress of the children that the preservice teachers worked with was measured using the standardised British Ability Score (BAS) test

Qualitative data was also gathered from the children but is not explored in this article.

Teaching reading – not a single skill but a complex construction

ITE providers are tasked with navigating the complex field of teaching reading and providing preservice teachers with a route to effective, research-informed practice. There are multiple perspectives of both how children learn to read and how this is then translated into effective practice. However, the debate about the teaching of reading in many English-speaking countries has focused on early reading and the role of phonics. As Castles, Rastle and Nation (2018) identify, this narrowing of the debate about reading has led to resistance on the part of some teachers and teacher educators, not because they are resistant to the teaching of phonics but because it appears that the complexity of the reading process is not acknowledged, addressed or explored. Educators are familiar with models and representations of the reading process from the ‘Simple View of Reading’ (Gough and Tunmer 1986) expanded in Scarborough’s ‘Reading Rope’ (2001) and the ‘Five Pillars of Reading’ model (National Reading Panel 2000) to name but a few. Beyond these cognitive skills and knowledge frames, Breadmore et al. (2019) bring together evidence on the proximal and distal factors impacting the learning of reading. Models that encompass the range of domains that are significant in the teaching of reading, such as Ellis and Smith’s (2017) ‘Three Knowledge Domains’ model; Clark and Teraveinen’s (2017) top-level tripartite conceptualisation of reading and Allington’s (2005) additional pillars (to the five identified by the National Reading Panel 2000), have also added to the richness of the evidence about the teaching of reading. These models provide a more multi-dimensional picture of becoming a reader and provide a wider overview of what the effective teacher of reading needs to understand. How and what is explored with the preservice teacher will determine both their understanding of the wider viewpoints of reading as well as enabling them to navigate a path to exactly what and how they will teach it. This study, therefore, locates itself within a socio-cognitive theoretical frame understanding reading as a highly complex activity involving cognitive-linguistic skills and knowledge ‘all of which are embedded within a social matrix (Prestorius and Lephalala 2011, 3).

Teaching preservice teachers to teach reading

Meeks et al. (2016) reviewed the literature on how well prepared preservice teachers were to teach early reading, reviewing studies in Australia, United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). They found that many studies showed that there was a mismatch between preservice teachers’ perceived ability to teach reading and their meta-linguistic knowledge, which they contest is a pre-requisite to teaching reading effectively. Meeks et al. (2016, 93) concluded that ‘research-based early literacy instruction is seldom included in many teacher education courses’ across English-speaking countries, including Canada. The National Council on Teacher Quality (Greenberg, McKee and Walsh 2014) in the U.S. reported that preservice teachers were not prepared to teach reading – more specifically that they were not aware of scientific research on the teaching of reading. Hanford (2018), in the U.S. report ‘Hard Words: Why Aren’t Kids Being Taught to Read?’ states that teacher preparation is ‘misguided’ and so fails to teach teachers to teach reading. In England, ITE providers have been the subject of criticism from Education ministers with one, Gibb (2017) stating that academics and educators were responsible for ‘the pernicious arguments that ignore the evidence in favour of phonics … .and are having a detrimental effect on the take up of phonics in some parts of the country’. In the 2015 review of ITE, Carter (2015) recommended that a short phonics-focused placement in school should be part of preservice teacher training providing the opportunity to learn through experience.

This focus on phonics instruction has in fact been a key focus for many English ITE providers. A recurrent feature of English ITE provision has included: making sure the teaching of phonics is of a high profile for preservice teachers (for both accountability and learning purposes); is assessed in relation to preservice teacher subject and pedagogic knowledge and monitored in relation to school placement observations of teaching (Clark et al. 2020). With limited time, particularly on many Post-Graduate teacher education programmes this has led to increasing the phonics component and reducing time on other elements of the teaching of reading programme (Clark et al. 2020). The challenge then for teacher educators is to create programmes of study that address phonics, as a ‘necessary and non-negotiable’ (Castles, Rastle and Nation 2018) element of reading and also provide preservice teachers with a wider understanding of the complexity of reading.

Wolfe (2015) highlighted the skill needed to effectively adapt and weave together the multi-dimensional layers of reading in order to meet the needs of the individual learner. She draws on Alexander’s (2005, 46) discussion of how the teacher must bring together ‘pedagogical form and content’. The 2016 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recognised that ‘Changes in our concept of reading since 2000 have led to an expanded definition of reading literacy, which recognises motivational and behavioural characteristics of reading alongside cognitive characteristics’. Preservice teachers need to be able to translate this into the different social contexts of the schools and classrooms in which they teach and the contexts of each of their pupils. The quality of the interactions between the teacher and learners can make the difference between the good and outstanding teacher (Flynn 2007) which supports the cultural responsiveness of the teacher (Assaf and Lopez 2015). Coe, Aloisi, Higgins and Elliot Major (2014) distil this interaction into key elements, including the ability to use a deep subject and pedagogical knowledge to identify how a child is thinking and so identify misconceptions. They identify the elements of effective instruction (reviewing, modelling, questioning, scaffolding and planning for deliberate practice with specific praise and prompt feedback) and make clear that the quality of the teacher and learner relationship is pivotal. Alexander (2001) might refer to this as dialogic rather than instructional teaching, but the pre-requisites of both are an understanding of the child as a learner, of the subject of reading itself and of an ability to reflect, review and adjust teaching ‘in the moment’.

Learning to teach reading cannot simply be a matter of ‘knowing’: learning to teach reading needs to be embedded in real teaching experiences where preservice teachers are able to explore the ‘how’ alongside the ‘why’. Lunenberg and Korthagen (2009) identify the need for preservice teachers to have both a detailed understanding of the theory and the opportunity to analyse this in practice. Milner (2018) stated that Ofsted sought to consider this in its new framework for inspection and so address what it saw as the ‘limited practice experience in teaching reading and phonics’ that preservice teachers had.

Applying knowledge of reading in practice: one to one tutoring of children

Haverback and Parault (2008) identified that preservice teachers needed not just the knowledge, skills and pedagogies of teaching reading but also personal teaching efficacy (Plourde 2002) – the ‘belief in one’s own capability to teach effectively’. Mastery experiences, as Bandura posited enable learners to have high levels of self-efficacy and Haverback and Parault (2008) suggest that one-to-one tutoring of a reader by a preservice teacher was one such ‘mastery experience’. Meeks and Kemp (2017) identified that ITE programmes that married explicit linguistic knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and the opportunity to apply this knowledge to practical experiences of teaching resulted in the most prepared and knowledgeable teachers. Perkins (2013) highlights that the complex business of teaching reading is knowledge that comes through experience and is worked out in action. Ellis (2007) argues that subject knowledge has to be applied through experience and this process then enables an understanding of the variations and contradictions that practice illuminates. Ellis and Smith (2017) identify three domains of knowledge that the teacher needs to address in order to support reading development. They recognise the significance to the cognitive skills and knowledge but identify the personal-social identity of the reader and their cultural and social capital as key to a teacher being able to approach the assessment and subsequent teaching appropriately. Without direct practical experience of working with a child, the preservice teacher is unable to navigate the complex process of addressing not only the cognitive skills and knowledge (including phonics) but also identifying and harnessing the other wider contexts that the child brings to the reading process.

Boosting reading at primary

This study involved training for preservice teachers in the one-to-one tutoring programme BRP. Brooks (2016) in the 5th edition of ‘What works for children and young people with literacy difficulties?’ identified the BRP programme as having ‘useful and substantial’ reading gains, although the effect size and statistical significance could not be able to be calculated with the data provided. BRP is a structured programme that involves a child reading three different texts, each with a different focus for reading and teaching, over a 20-minute session. The child reads a familiar text (one that has been read previously on a number of occasions) with a focus on reading fluency. The second text read is a text that has been previously introduced but is read independently by the child without the prompts of the one-to-one teacher. A running record (D’Agostino et al. 2021) is taken, making a detailed record of reading for analysis for this second text. The teacher uses this analysis to provide precise feedback, prompts and praise and identifies any patterns in the child’s errors to be addressed in teaching. This might include the re-teaching of a particular grapheme; a comprehension skill or a fluency focus for example. The third text read by the child is a new text. The text is introduced in some detail – including the pre-teaching of new or unusual vocabulary; common exception words and focus graphemes. The book introduction also draws on the child’s experiences, activating prior knowledge and enables the children to get an overview of the text and so to support the comprehension process.

Methodology and methods

This longitudinal, evaluative mixed methods study aimed to evaluate the possible benefits for preservice teachers and for the children they tutor, of a collaborative approach between an English university, its city’s schools and LEA. The research questions were:

1. Does the training and implementation of the BRP one-to-one tutoring programme, as part of preservice teacher training:

   • Develop preservice teacher confidence in teaching reading.

   • Improve preservice teacher self-efficacy as teachers of reading.

   • Develop preservice teachers’ knowledge and understanding of the cognitive skills and knowledge required to be a reader.

   • Develop preservice teacher pedagogic practice in teaching reading including addressing the distal factors that impact the child as a reader.

   • Enable preservice teachers to link theory with practice.

2. Does the training and implementation of the BRP one-to-one tutoring programme, as part of preservice teacher training:

   • Enable the children who are tutored to make reading progress.

The methodological approach taken was evaluation as it is ‘grounded in problems arising in the real world,’ and is a key ‘part of the development of practice’ (Abma and Widdershoven 2011, 669–670). Robson, (2011, 176) states that evaluation enables the researcher to ‘assess the effects and effectiveness of something’. This study considers the effects and effectiveness of the collaborative approach taken by the university, schools and the LEA using the BRP intervention.

Participants

The research was conducted in a large and diverse city in England. Schools were selected to participate in the study based on a set of criteria designed to provide preservice teachers experience of diverse, multicultural settings in parts of the city where they were likely to have little first-hand experience as the large, campus university is situated on the outskirts of the city. The schools were selected by the researcher in collaboration with the LEA, whose criteria for selection were:

1. A group of children in the school who had been identified as being in danger of not achieving age-related expectations by the end of Key Stage 1 (when children are aged 7) without some intervention.

2. A school community is unable to provide many parent reading volunteers.

3. Schools that had a teacher who was familiar with the BRP programme and so could support the preservice teachers when needed during the course of their one-to-one tutoring in school.

Schools were asked to select the children for tutoring in each of the four years of the study. Children were required to be working just below age-related expectations in Year 1 (aged 5 and 6) or Year 2 (aged 6 and 7) enabling preservice teachers to teach reading to children in the early stages of learning to read (in English schools children begin learning to read in the Reception Class, aged 4 and 5). Each preservice teacher tutored two children and schools were asked to ensure that, where possible, at least one of the children had English as an additional language (EAL) to enable preservice teachers to have experience of teaching children with EAL.

Four cohorts over four years, of second-year undergraduate preservice teachers were also participants in the study. Second-year undergraduate students were selected because they had already had a year of training as part of their ITE programme in the teaching of reading. Their first-year undergraduate programme involved learning about the theories that underpin the teaching of reading alongside training in the teaching of phonics, comprehension and reading for pleasure. They also had more generic teaching practice in school with a wider focus than just the teaching of reading. This learning provided an appropriate context for implementing the BRP intervention in their second year of training. Preservice teachers could focus more deeply on individual children as readers as well as develop their own skills and practice.

Ethics

Ethical approval to conduct the research was obtained in line with university policy and in compliance with the British Educational Research Association (2018) and institutional guidance. Informed consent was obtained from all of the participants. All names used are pseudonyms.

Methods

Reading progress data was gathered from the children who were tutored using BRP by preservice teachers in each of the four years the approach was implemented. The BAS assessment was used to provide an indicative reading age pre- and post-BRP intervention and was gathered by the reading specialist teachers in the participating schools. Data was gathered for participating children (n = 814) in each of the four years of the study. These were matched pre- and post-BAS test data for 724 children (305 female; 419 male). This provided a contextual backdrop to the preservice teacher data collected in the fourth year of the study but also supported the study’s validity. As Thomas (2017) states, some studies are suited to a larger scale quantitative approach combined or followed by a qualitative case study exploration. Creswell (1998) further suggests that numeric data can provide an initial description that enables the researcher to explore and provide a further contextual backdrop to the construction of the qualitative data. Therefore, the fourth cohort of preservice teachers (n = 87) were explored as a case study to probe more deeply preservice teacher learning alongside the children they were tutoring’s reading progress data. This case was used to illuminate (Thomas 2017) the numeric data and explore the learning and confidence of the preservice teachers and so reflect on the possible relationship between the children’s progress and preservice teachers’ learning. The case study involved the cohort completing a pre- and post-BRP-tutoring survey. This included a Likert-scale confidence measure in aspects of the teaching of reading including cognitive skills and knowledge; pedagogical practices and development of a child’s attitude and motivation to read. The survey also included qualitative responses about these areas. There were matched pre- and post-questionnaires for 74 out of the 87 preservice teachers. A focus group (n = 8) was selected from volunteer preservice teachers to include a range of ages and a mix of male and female. This group was interviewed before their BRP placement; observed conducting BRP with a child; interviewed following the BRP teaching and interviewed again once the 10 BRP sessions had been completed. The child each preservice teacher had been working with was also interviewed (the data is not presented in this article). The cohort also completed an assessed assignment based on their learning from the BRP tutoring and data from the preservice teacher grades were also gathered.

The preservice teachers were trained in BRP by LEA consultants and then worked one-to-one with two children in 10, 20-min sessions over 5 weeks. Each week preservice teachers had further sessions at the university with a focus on linking their practice to theory- and evidence-based research. This focused on key elements of the reading process including: phonics; comprehension; vocabulary instruction; fluency and also considered the wider contextual factors that might impact learners, e.g. EAL; gender; socio-economic status.

Analysis

The quantitative analysis was conducted in SPSS and the data from the interviews were transcribed and coded. Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) was used: a ‘deliberate and rigorous’ process that enabled the ‘identifying, analysing and reporting [of] patterns (themes) within data’. The observation data was gathered by recording the reading session (audio only) and following transcription, key themes were identified in relation to cognitive skills and knowledge and linked pedagogical skills and relationship development (with a focus on the cultural capital and personal reader identify). These were further analysed and grouped under the themes identified in the preservice teacher post-BRP interviews.

Results and discussion

The children’s quantitative data will be outlined initially, followed by a brief discussion of the findings. This will be followed by the results from the case study survey, with a focus on the preservice teacher confidence in different aspects of the teaching of reading as well preservice teacher responses about what they understand to be the most important factors to consider when teaching reading. This data will show how confidence levels increased and how responses both changed and developed when considering significant aspects of teaching reading. Meeks et al. (2016) state that preservice teachers’ confidence levels do not always match their actual knowledge of reading processes and practices and so the bringing together of the quantitative outcome data for the children and the confidence data for the preservice will be discussed – providing some validation for the confidence levels. Results and findings from the case study interviews are then explored under the themes identified in the thematic analysis process: understanding of complexity: the noticing teacher; recognising the interrelationship between the proximal and distal factors of becoming a reader; and linking theory and practice at the moment and personalising instruction.

Children’s quantitative data

The numeric data showed a BAS gain of 3.65 months (n = 724 matched pre- and post-BAS scores). When comparing this pre- and post-BAS data using the paired t-test, there is a highly significant shift (p < .001) and as expected, the pre- and post- measures are significantly correlated (p < .001). This finding was not gender-dependent and the BAS gain for each gender was not significantly statistically different (BAS gain for females = 3.74 months and males = 3.60 months). The BAS gains for particular groups of children were also explored. This included children where English was an additional language (EAL) (n = 327) (BAS gain for EAL = 3.29) children with a Black Asian or Minority ethnic heritage (BAME) (n = 318) (BAS gain for BAME = 3.46) and children in receipt of pupil premium (PP) (funding provided in England for children who are considered to be from a disadvantaged socio-economic background as measured by their receipt of free school meals) (n = 359) (BAS gain for PP = 3.73). All groups made statistically similar BAS gains.

It is evident from the data that preservice teachers made a significant impact on the progress of previously under-attaining children.

Case study, preservice teacher quantitative and qualitative survey data

Confidence

Before the preservice teachers (n = 74) began their BRP training and then programme implementation they completed a confidence survey in relation to different aspects of the reading process and wider contextual factors that might impact on learners.

The paired samples t-test showed improvements in confidence in each aspect of reading. Each area showed a statistically significant improvement (p < .001). Cohen’s d showed a large to a very large effect size. Preservice teacher confidence in using a running record (Stouffer 2021) – a formative assessment record, sometimes referred to as a miscue analysis – to inform the next steps in teaching, had the largest effect size (1.702) as might be expected, as before this BRP project the preservice teachers had little experience of both the process or practice or a running record. The effect sizes as measured by Cohen’s d of the BRP project on other aspects of confidence were also significant: confidence in the teaching of reading comprehension (effect size 1.515); understanding how to assess reading (effect size of 1.334); teaching of vocabulary (effect size 1.348); teaching of fluency (1.255); developing positive attitudes to reading (1.093); teaching letter-sound correspondences in phonics (0.760) and the teaching of blending or synthesising sounds in a word (0.801). Schools were asked to select children for BRP who were below age-related expectations for the project and this enabled preservice teachers to grow in confidence in relation to teaching reading to children who were not following what a school may consider to be the usual progress trajectory (effect size of 1.255). The preservice teachers also worked with at least one child who had EAL, again enabling the preservice teachers to gain confidence supporting an EAL child with reading (effect size 1.226).

Significant factors to consider when teaching reading

Preservice teachers (n = 74) were asked in a qualitative survey question, pre-BRP, which three skills, knowledge and/or attitudes they felt were the most important to develop children as readers. ‘Phonics’ was the most frequent response before the BRP placement and phonics was still seen as a significant factor following BRP although the responses post BRP were more nuanced in the way they were written and included both where the deliberate decoding of words (using phonics) was needed and where an automatic and fluent application of phonics enabled children to recognise words. ‘Comprehension’ was the most frequent response post BRP. Pre-BRP none of the preservice teachers mentioned fluency and vocabulary development in their three key skills/knowledge, despite having being taught in the first year of the university programme about their significance. Post-BRP fluency was identified by 19% of the preservice teachers and vocabulary was identified by 13.5%. Both pre and post BRP preservice teachers identified positive attitudes to reading as being significant but was identified pre-BRP by 74% of preservice teachers and by 100% post-BRP.

Considering the increased confidence levels of preservice teachers in the light of children’s progress in reading

Hoffam et al. (2019) found that only 8 out of the 62 studies it reviewed about teaching and mentoring in initial teacher preparation reported the learning outcomes of the children and this was a key part of this study in relation to the mutual benefits of the project: for the preservice teacher; the children they tutored and the schools and LEA in relation to the standards agenda which they are held accountable. The bringing together of the preservice teacher self-reported confidence data and children’s reading progress outcomes is therefore useful when considering if the preservice teacher confidence levels are reflected in children’s progress and so learning. While this study did not use a randomised control group, the robustness of the self-reported confidence data is supported by the children’s reading progress data. The findings of this study seem to concur with Haverback and Parault (2008), who showed there was a relationship between preservice teachers’ self-efficacy in relation to the teaching of reading and children’s achievement.

Case study interview data

To further interrogate the data from the case study survey, interviews with a focus group of preservice teachers (n = 8) data were analysed. The results will be explored under four themed headings identified in the analysis process: understanding of complexity: the noticing teacher; recognising the interrelationship between the proximal and distal factors of becoming a reader; and linking theory and practice at the moment and personalising instruction. It is evident that all of these areas are intrinsically interlinked – much like the complexity of reading – and many of the quotes from preservice teachers could, in fact, be located under more than one of these headings.

Understanding of complexity: the noticing teacher

The qualitative difference in the pre- and post-BRP data can be characterised by the response of Charlotte who pre-BRP elaborated on the aspects of teaching reading she thought were most significant for the reader:

Children need to understand the fundamentals of phonics. I mean reading English is so hard, everything makes a different sound and adjusting phonic knowledge for this. It’s cracking the code and just practice and practice

Post-BRP Charlotte answered this same question about the most important aspects of teaching reading and said,

Knowing the child I think is really important. Knowing what they like to read. Motivation and choice is key. I think comprehension is also just massive, you know, if they don’t understand what they are reading, what’s the point of reading? Whereas before I think I thought it was just phonics and getting to be able to decode the words – and that’s still important but now I think it’s definitely the understanding of what they are actually reading alongside this. To be able to enjoy it as well. So they get the enjoyment out of it and so want to read more and so improve as a reader.

Charlotte is demonstrating a greater understanding of the interwoven complexity of becoming a reader and so the balancing of what needs teaching and when. She demonstrates what Moore and Seeger (2009) noted about one-to-one tutoring; that it enabled preservice teachers to enhance their knowledge of the affective processes of teaching reading. She is beginning to demonstrate and understanding of the more complex relationship between the reader and the teacher of reading with the teacher of reading having to select the appropriate tools from the ‘reading toolkit’ while recognising that the tools are implemented in the context of the individual learner. The danger for many preservice teachers is that they see phonics, one of the cognitive toolkit skills, as a subject in its own right rather than a means to an end, as highlighted by Beard, Brooks, and Ampaw-Farr (2019). Ellis, Anderson and Rowe (2017) suggest what is needed is a ‘noticing’ teacher who is not only aware which of the cognitive skills are needed at any time but also aware of how best to approach the teaching in relation to understanding the child’s cultural and social context. Wigfield, Manson-Singh, Ho and Guthrie (2014) make clear that teachers need to be aware of and consider the impact of their approaches on both motivation and cognitive processes – the two being related. Many of the models of teaching reading that preservice teachers are familiar with such as The Simple View (Gough and Tunmer 1986) and the Five Reading Pillars (National Reading Panel 2000) present reading as a set of cognitive skills without recognising the distal factors in which these skills are necessarily embedded (Breadmore et al. 2019).

Recognising the interrelationship between the proximal and distal factors of becoming a reader

Olga similarly expands her understanding of the teaching of reading, but in this case, her focus is on her understanding of how her beliefs about attitudes are developed in relation to the proximal factors. Before the BRP project, she stated that the most important element of teaching reading was:

‘The wanting to read, wanting to pick up a book and wanting to enjoy it not because they feel like they have to or being told they have got to read them. Giving them a choice as well with what book.’

Following the BRP project she said:

For my children that I had, for them it was definitely teaching comprehension and fluency that I found most important. And comprehension I didn’t really realise how big a part it played because they couldn’t understand a word they’d decoded was wrong because they couldn’t understand what they were reading. They didn’t almost realise it had to make sense … even when they chose the book, they wanted that book but still didn’t seem to try and make sense. Before it was just as a general ‘if they could read the words they can read’, whereas now it’s actually reading for meaning and actually making sense to them so they can read for pleasure as well. Because I found that like my child wasn’t reading for pleasure at all before and as soon as she started understanding it, she was then reading more.

Here Olga is showing her a more nuanced understanding of the reading for pleasure agenda. The interdependency of the proximal and distal factors are more clearly expressed. Hoffman et al. (2019) noted that this reshaping of beliefs was a feature of a number of researched tutoring programmes. Emily offers a different view in her post-BRP interview but also demonstrates this shift in beliefs:

I think it’s developed since I met the children because at the beginning I was like, yep bad, they are a bad reader. But now I have seen as I said different perspectives and you see the eagerness of the child who on paper can’t read and the disinterest of the child that on paper, can read but doesn’t enjoy reading. So it was quite interesting to pick up the differences. Knowing what makes them tick – what gets them, what helps with interest? That makes me think I need to put belief in every single child even more so. You know, they need to feel like they are good readers to become a good reader.

Linking theory and practice ‘in the moment’

Laura had already expressed an element of the complexity of teaching reading in the pre- BRP project interview. She stated:

You have to get to grips with the tools to enable children to read. But equally you could have a child that’s really good at phonics but they are lacking that enthusiasm and lacking the drive to want to read. So I think it’s important to strike a balance between getting them to want to read and actually giving them the skills to enable them to read.

Following the placement, this was further developed:

So I think I probably … I still acknowledge that phonics instruction, so teaching phonics is a really important part but after teaching BRP I realised how important comprehension is as another element of teaching a child to read which I think before BRP I didn’t fully, like, recognise it. A lot of times I have seen phonics being taught first and then comprehension being developed kind as almost like a secondary element. Whereas going through BRP and looking at the research literature at the same time and seeing that it’s intertwined has really helped me to see how those processes interrelate.

Laura is able to reflect on her other school experiences beyond BRP and critically engage with what she has observed there. She demonstrates a new understanding of what Stuart, Stainthorp and Snowling (2008, 69) identified as the danger of viewing the Simple View as a linear process moving from decoding and then after this, to comprehension. They contend that its representation as a cross in the diagrammatic form of the Simple View was intended to show the ‘complete interdependence of the two dimensions in skilled reading and all the points on the way from beginner reader to skilled reader’.

It should also be remembered here that these preservice teachers were not only demonstrating this impact on their own learning but also were doing this in the context of how this learning had impacted the child they taught (in relation to the standardised BAS test). What is noteworthy here is that the preservice teacher Laura makes the point about using the research literature to support her teaching and understanding of her teaching choices. This explicit linking of theory and practice was a feature of the quantitative survey results as well. The preservice teachers’ confidence in their knowledge of the research that underpinned the teaching of reading showed an improvement post-BRP, with an effect size of 1.425. It is possible that the preservice teachers made a particular effort to link theory and practice as the BRP project was followed by an assessed assignment exploring the development of one of the children they had taught. The explicit use of theory to support practice which is then reflected on and explored in an assignment enables the often elusive goal of the theory-practice link (Hendry 2020). Colby and Stapleton’s (2006) study found that one to one tutoring alongside academic study alone enabled these theory-practice links, although the focus of that study was the teaching of writing.

In total, 80% of the preservice teachers attained over 60% for the assignment based on their BRP practice (one jointly graded by university tutors and practising teachers). However, it is noted that this was explored further in the statistical analysis of the data using the paired t-test and preservice teachers with high levels of confidence in each of the aspects of teaching reading did not have a statistically significant difference in assignment grade to those students with lower confidence levels.

Personalising instruction

Kim brings many of the earlier points together in her post BRP interview and offers some explanation for the growth in confidence, knowledge and pedagogical skill.

I feel more confident because I feel like I understand that there are more diagnostic tools for working out why a child is having problems with reading. I think I was a bit stupid before and was a bit like, oh yeah, they just don’t understand phonics or they don’t understand how to put words like together or they don’t understand, I don’t know, maybe I thought that was just it. But now I feel that there are loads of reasons why there might not be … where a child might find reading hard. Like understanding certain words, or using phrasing that helps them or trips them up, or they just don’t know certain sounds – because they haven’t been taught them yet, or they may stumble on the high frequency tricky words or they might just hate how hard reading is for them to start with. So I feel, after doing BRP I see that more now. Which is going to be really helpful for me. You can figure out the problems in the moment and then you can work to resolve it.

Davis, Key and Peterson (2017) noted how one-to-one tutoring enabled preservice teachers to provide more specific, personalised instruction for children and in the current study preservice teachers were encouraged to bring to university-based sessions their tutees running records. The analysis could then be scaffolded by tutors, preservice teachers could be encouraged to be speculative in their interpretation and to link their ideas to the research evidence they were reading alongside the BRP-tutoring process. Haverback and Parault (2008) conclude that these experiences enable the preservice teacher to test theories in practice and so as Linek et al. (1999) found, enable the preservice teacher to shift the focus from what they know to what the individual child needs to learn. Kim’s post-BRP interview is reflected in Hendry’s (2020, 60) outline of the effective teacher of reading: one who is ‘flexible and responsive, intervening and scaffolding children’s learning using spontaneous opportunities to support and extend their knowledge and skills’.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the layered benefits for one-to-one tutoring when embedded within an ITE programme including benefits for preservice teachers and the children they tutor. Children who are BRP tutored by preservice teachers make accelerated progress in reading. The preservice teachers demonstrate an increased confidence and self-efficacy in the cognitive skills and knowledge required for reading. It is possible that the progress in reading made by the children they taught enables the preservice teachers to have this improved self-efficacy – they can see the impact of their knowledge and skills on children’s reading progress. Preservice teachers are enabled to develop their pedagogic practices and personalise these to the needs they have identified in the children as readers. Preservice teachers suggest they are able to link the theory taught in their university-based training to the practice they implement as part of BRP. As Perkins (2013) outlined, the knowledge and skills required to teach reading are complex, and Meeks et al. (2016) claimed that teacher educators do not prepare preservice teachers effectively to manage this complexity. However, this study suggests that it is possible to prepare preservice teachers effectively where there is a collaboration between a university, its city’s schools and LEA and where the training, support and contexts each can offer through the BRP programme, prepares preservice teachers to be confident and skilled teachers of reading.

Implications for practice and future opportunities

As ITE programmes become increasingly over-loaded with government-required content, this study shows why it is important that ITE institutions make the case for one-to-one tutoring to be part of their programmes. For this one-to-one tutoring to be effective for the preservice teacher, notice should be given not just to the outcomes for the preservice teacher but also the outcomes for the children being tutored as these enable the preservice teacher to understand the impact of their teaching on learning and for the child to benefit from the process. This study inter-spaced the sessions in school with university-based sessions that provided a structure and framework for the reflection and analysis of the BRP individual tutoring sessions. This also enabled the explicit linking of theory and practice.

The research also gathered observation data of the tutoring and the analysis of this would further enrich the understanding of how students made the shifts in practice and thinking that were outlined in the interview data. This will be the basis of a future journal article alongside the data from interviews with the children who were tutored.

Data is currently being gathered one year from the tutoring placement and as preservice teachers begin their final block teaching practice to find out if the changes in confidence and knowledge are still evident.

Preservice teachers hear about this tutoring placement from others when they join the course and it is one element of the programme that they actively look forward to. During the tutoring placement, confidence grows from the tutees success and this success is embedded in and dependent on the evidence based knowledge of the preservice teacher: this study demonstrates the multiple benefits of this approach.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.