Exploring the Self-Reflection of America Reads Tutors By Sarah Yuen San Tham © 2020 M.S.Ed., University of Kansas, 2012 B. Ed., The University of Exeter, 1998 Submitted to the graduate degree program in the Department of Curriculum and Teaching and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Chair: Dr. Barbara A. Bradley Dr. Arlene Barry Dr. Bruce Frey Dr. Karen Jorgensen Dr. Kwangok Song Date Defended: March 17, 2020 The dissertation committee for Sarah Yuen San Tham certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Exploring the Self-Reflection of America Reads Tutors Chair: Barbara A. Bradley, Ph.D. Date Approved:  Abstract This study was a result of noticing that classroom teachers, especially in the elementary level often use minimally trained tutors to help striving readers improve on their literacy skills. While desirable, schools are not able to provide striving students with trained teachers for one-to-one literacy instruction. The question than arose as to what could minimally trained tutors do to help those students? Self-reflection, which is widely accepted as an element of quality teaching might be a possible solution. Case studies of three minimally trained tutors in the America Reads Program in elementary schools were conducted. This study explores the journeys that each America Reads tutor made when introduced to the Korthagen ALACT model of self-reflection as an intervention. This study looked at what tutors reflected on, when and how reflection was done, and the lessons each participant learned from their self-reflection. Findings indicate that the tutors’ experiences vary depending on the classroom, their tutoring responsibilities and their personal reflections, and that tutors who self-reflected became more aware about their actions and made better tutoring decisions. Findings have implications on how minimally trained tutors can be better supported in this program and in other similar programs.  Acknowledgments Graham Wallas, a renowned British social psychologist and educator, described proposed creative thinking as a series of states: preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. If that is true, this is my most significant creative piece of work. Therefore, I want to thank my advisor Dr. Barbara Bradley for seamlessly picking up from where Dr. Donita Shaw left off in providing me with guidance and her steady presence with this work. My committee members, Drs. Arlene Barry, Bruce Frey, Karen Jorgensen, and Kwangok Song have been just as invaluable in looking through and refining my work. I often found myself vacillating between what the ancient Roman distinguished time to be-negotium and otium. Negotium was time spent at work and duty, while otium was time for reflection, reading, writing, and self-examination. Often these two concepts overlapped, and I found myself floundering and adrift. However, God, family, and friends anchored me in the present. Thank you Weng Hang, Hannah, and Joel. My father, who passed on last year, and my mother, thank you. “It is done.” Like fireflies, owls, and puppies, each brings its own wonder and delight into the world. I hope that this work about self-reflection, besides informing, educating, and enriching the lives of those who read it, also brings its own wonder and delight. “Onward!”  Table of Contents Abstract iii Acknowledgements iv Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Tutoring 1 America Reads Tutoring Program 2 Statement of Problem 4 Purpose of the Study 5 Possible Contributions 6 Definitions and Terms 6 Theoretical Framework 7 Summary of Chapter 1 and Orientation to Subsequent Chapters 8 Chapter 2: Literature Review 9 Theoretical Background 9 Cognitive Development and Sociocultural Theories 9 Tutoring 12 Why Tutor? 13 Who Tutors? 14 Tutor Training 15 Literacy Strategies 15 What is America Reads? 17 Why America Reads? 18 Reflection 20 Types of Reflection 20 Why Reflect? 24 Model of Reflection-ALACT 25 Summary of Chapter 2 29 Chapter 3: Methodology and Methods 30 Overview of the Study 30 Research Design 31 Methods 31 Researcher's Background 33 Sample 34 Criteria for Selecting Tutors 35 Intervention 35 Procedure 35 Data Collection 41 Instruments and Procedures for Data Collection 41 Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (Grant, Franklin & Langford, 2002). 42 Interviews, Observations, Tutors’ Online Self-Reports 43 Data Analysis 46 Coding process 46 Establishing Credibility 48 Triangulation 49 Member Checking 49 Thick Descriptions 49 External Audits 50 Research Permission and Ethical Considerations 50 Summary of Chapter 3 51 Chapter 4: Findings 53 Context 53 Purpose of the Study 54 Data Collection 54 ALACT Self-reflection Model 55 Recruitment of Tutors 56 Participants 57 Surveys and Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (SRIS) Findings 57 Case Studies Findings 58 Vicky 58 Kelly 69 Rita 78 Summary of Chapter 4 86 Chapter 5: Discussion 87 Overview 87 What Do Tutors Reflect On? 88 Reflecting on Their Relationship with Students 89 Reflecting on Their Tutoring 90 Reflecting on Their Feelings 91 Reflecting on the ALACT Model 92 How and When Tutor Self-reflected 92 Lessons Tutors Learned from Self-reflection 96 Recommendations 97 Limitations 98 Conclusion 99 References 100 Appendices 120 Appendix A 120 Appendix B 124 Appendix C 125 Appendix D 126 Appendix E 128 Appendix F 132 Appendix G 133 Appendix H 135 Appendix I 136 Appendix J 138  Teaching is more than behavior is indeed “thoughtful work.” (Freeman, 1990). Chapter 1: Introduction To become a proficient reader, a student must learn to decode words easily and rapidly. However, this complex task becomes even more challenging for students with processing deficits and students who receive poor instruction. Consequently, students in the early grades need evidence-based reading instruction to establish strong word reading skills (Darling-Hammond, 2015; Lee & Burkam, 2002; Mokhtari, Neel, Kaiser, & Le, 2015). Due to mandates and a renewed commitment that all students learn the basic skills of reading in the early grades (Tomlinson, 2014; Wasik & Slavin, 1993), schools have a great responsibility to ensure that students are receiving appropriate instruction. To supplement core reading programs, schools often provide students with tutoring in small groups or one-to-one settings (Gilbert, Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, Bouton, Barquero, & Cho, 2013; Vukelich, Justice, & Han, 2014). In the following section, I present critical components of effective tutoring programs and information about tutors. Tutoring There are several essential components of an effective tutoring program (Allington, 1994; Wasik, 1998a). These components include (a) training and supervision by a reading specialist, (b) implementation of structured tutorial lessons, and (c) continuous assessment of the tutees to provide data to make informed instructional decisions. Although trained adult tutors do provide more effective intervention compared to untrained tutors (Belzer, 2006; Rimm-Kaufman, Kagan & Byers, 1998; Wasik, 1997), a major drawback of these programs is the high costs associated with them in terms of the training and supervision required. Consequently, schools have looked for other ways to support struggling readers via tutoring. For example, schools have used student tutors through peer tutoring, cross-age tutoring, and class-wide peer tutoring (Maheady, Malette & Harper, 2006) to support struggling readers. They have also used minimally trained tutors (Frey & Reigeluth, 1986). Minimally trained adult tutors are typically only expected to attend an introductory training session conducted by a person who may or may not be a reading specialist (Adler, 1999), and follow-up training sessions may not be required. Training for the minimally trained tutors typically focuses on administrative issues such as how to sign in and out of the school, how to dress appropriately, and the importance of regular attendance. Minimally trained tutors often receive guidebooks that suggest various tutoring strategies such as activities to use before, during and after reading a book with the student. Further, there is very little or no supervision for the minimally trained tutors throughout the time that they tutor students. They also do not undergo any specific practical training before actually tutoring their tutees. While Allington (1994) and Wasik (1998a) find that training and supervision contributes to tutor effectiveness, minimally trained adult tutors do have the potential to support struggling readers (Morris, 2006). America Reads can be a supplemental one-on-one tutoring program (Hiebert, 1994) or in small groups of two to six students (Worthy, Prater & Pennington, 2003) that can help striving readers. America Reads Tutoring Program Before describing American Read (AR), it is important to understand three converging forces that occurred in the mid-1990s that fueled the proliferation of tutoring programs, including AR. First, there was a mandate that all students achieve acceptable reading levels (Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2010). Second, the results of a 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report indicated that 40 percent of the nation’s fourth-graders were reading below basic level. Third, in response to the 1994 NAEP results, the federal government passed an ambitious plan to implement tutoring programs across the United States (U.S.) and supported this plan by a serious financial commitment. Specifically, the federal government allocated billions of dollars to place millions of tutors in schools through the America Reads (AR) program. AR, which began in 1997, has become one of the nation’s largest literacy programs to use paid tutors financed by federal funds. The AR program intended to put over one million adults in schools to tutor young students in reading within the first year of appropriation. President Clinton committed the country to the AR challenge by calling on universities and colleges to sponsor AR programs at their campuses. To encourage participation President Clinton also committed federal dollars to support the AR program. Institutions sponsoring AR programs were allowed to use 100% of their appropriated federal work-study (FWS) funds to pay for the tutors. As a further incentive, universities and colleges could also receive additional federal funding if at least 15% of its federal work-study funds were used for AR tutors. In 1998 Congress approved an overall increase in federal work-study funds for the 1999 - 2000 academic year to 870 million dollars. To assist in implementation of the program one-time subcontracts of $50,000 were granted for the primary purpose of improving tutor training to 61 institutions that sponsored AR programs across the country (AR, 2000, Cassidy, Ortlieb, Grote-Garcia, 2016; Lane, Hudson, McCray, Tragash & Zeig, 2011), and tutors continue to receive funding through the Federal Work Study Program. At present, AR provides undergraduate and graduate students with part-time employment to help meet their financial needs and give them work experience while helping their respective campus or surrounding community. Under the AR waiver, the federal government fully pays the wages of work-study students who serve as reading mentors or tutors to preschool and elementary school children (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). To date over 1,300 universities and colleges are engaged in this effort (AR, 2000). Statement of Problem Today’s educational environment is driven by a mandate that holds schools responsible for ensuring that all children achieve at acceptable reading levels as measured by achievement tests (Ediger, 2010). Further, Congress is still allocating billions of dollars to be used to place AR tutors in schools to work with struggling students. However, not much has improved since the 1994 NAEP report. The 2015 NAEP Reading results indicated that between 2013 and 2015, the percentage of grade 4 students scoring at or above Proficient in reading had not changed significantly. Only 36% were above proficient in their reading at Grade 4 and 34% at Grade 8 in 2015 (NAEP, 2015). Thus, there is a renewed interest in understanding how tutoring might be better implemented to support students. There is no doubt that when tutors are trained and supervised by reading specialists, they are more effective than minimally trained tutors (Ehri, Dreyer, Flugman, Gross, 2007; Elbaum, Vaughn, Tejero, & Moody, 2000; Hutchinson & Lamberts, 2015; Wasik, 1998a). However, due to cost, they tend to be prohibitive for school districts. Consequently, federally funded tutoring programs, like AR, are the most feasible option for many school districts. While providing more training and supervision for AR is advisable, there may be another option to support tutors. That is, research shows that effective tutoring programs encourage tutors to carry out personal reflections of their own and their tutees' actions (Hart & King, 2007; Lane, Hudson, McCray, Tragash, & Zeig, 2011). Danielson (2009) agrees that by fostering reflection, tutors are better equipped to know which best practices to carry out but also why to do it. Further, Krajewska and Kowalczuk-Waledziak (2014) argue that tutors who engage in self-reflection in order to develop diagnostic skills needed to determine a tutee’s strengths and weaknesses are particularly effective. Since, AR tutors are already required to write up reports based on their self-reflections of their tutoring, providing additional guidance may allow them to be more effective tutors. Nevertheless, how do AR tutors engage in meaningful self-reflection? Even though AR tutors are expected to engage in self-reflection, we do not know if or how they engage in self-reflection. For example, if tutors do engage in self-reflection, do they use a structured or systematic process or a more informal process? Does this matter? Thus, this study aims to explore and document how AR tutors engage in self-reflection because understanding this could help inform AR coordinators about how to prepare tutors better. Purpose of the Study Research indicates that volunteer tutors can be successful if they are well trained and have specific guidelines to follow (Center for Prevention, 2009; Invernizzi & Quellette, 2001; Juel, 1996; Wasik, 1998a), yet many striving readers continued to be tutored by minimally trained tutors (Hock, Pulvers, Deshler, & Schumaker, 2001). Given the increasing number of students experiencing reading difficulties, the increasing pressure on schools to ensure that all students learn to read at an acceptable level, and shrinking school budgets, it is unlikely that this situation will change soon. That is, despite the limited training AR tutors receive, they will continue to work with striving readers. While AR coordinators may not be able to provide the extensive training and supervision to tutors, they may be able to help tutors engage in more effective self-reflection, which, ultimately, might help them provide more effective instruction to struggling readers. However, research is needed to determine if minimal guidance in self-reflection can positively influence a tutor’s instructional planning and decision-making. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to address the question, “How do America Reads tutors engage in self-reflection?” Possible Contributions This study is significant because it will reveal if and how AR tutors, who are taught to engage in structured self-reflection, reflect on their instruction and decision-making and, if so, does it change how tutors support their striving readers. Results will also contribute to our understanding of the role of structured self-reflection as a component of the AR tutoring program and other programs like it. Further, results of this study may provide new information that could inform educational policy decisions about the allocation of resources (e.g., time to teach tutors how to engage in self-reflection) that improve the reading achievement of striving readers. Definitions and Terms Striving readers- For this study, they are students with limited literacy experience, usually below grade level, as identified by their teachers. Minimally trained tutors- Tutors who participate in an introductory training session and may use specific reading strategies, but they are not expected to employ any standard methods or use specific materials. They receive a minimum number of hours of training and do not necessarily receive any follow-up training or supervision once they begin tutoring. Tutoring- A tutor who provides some form of reading intervention to one or small groups of students for a set duration of time. Reading achievement- Reading achievement in this study is the score obtained from various informal and formal assessments such as Reading Street end-of-unit assessments, AIMSweb, and the standardized Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessments, which is based on age norms. Self-reflection- Some form of internal dialogue that takes place, facilitated by thinking or writing, that could be supplemented with external dialogues or discussions with others on particular issues, events, or persons involved during a tutoring session. Supervision- Activities involving tutors that are designed and facilitated by the supervisor responsible for the tutoring program to promote the goals of the program. Trained tutor- An adult tutor who has been trained to teach and has participated in a structured training that covers a considerable amount of time with close supervision and practical training, usually a certified or licensed teacher. Theoretical Framework A constructivist framework sets the foundation for this study, as it provides a lens to explore AR tutors’ self-reflection. From a constructivist point of view, a learner’s direct actions, reactions, and interaction with the lesson guide the tutor, and the tutor contributes to his or her construction and reconstruction of knowledge as well as the adaptive abilities resulting from tutor reflection (Resnick & Klopfer, 1989). Tutors learn from their experiences by constructing new representations of their meanings, which are then stored for later revision as new experiences are encountered. Reflective tutors monitor the effects of their actions as well as the cognitive processes employed in decision-making. Then, when faced with novel situations, these tutors attend to them, make hypotheses, and may even check on the “gut feeling” by examining the relationships of past experiences and directly or indirectly adapt their tutoring actions to benefit their respective tutees. Also, these tutors can consider actions, think of possible consequences before finally choosing and implementing a new course of action with their tutee, and then with much deliberation evaluate after the fact. The organized memories in tutor schemata help tutors construct a better comprehension of the tutoring world and allow them to have a growing resource of richly connected schemata to draw on when making decision (Anderson, 1984; Berliner, 1986). Therefore, the more tutors reflect and store their experiences and knowledge, the better they are equipped to make tutoring decisions for themselves and their tutees. Cohen and Manion (1994) described the constructivist approach to research as being based on understanding the world of human experiences. This study intends to do just that, to understand the AR tutors and their engagement in self-reflection. The interactions between a tutor and his or her subjects and their experiences continually shape the tutor’s learning. The tutors will negotiate their viewpoints and construct their understanding of their self-reflection through interviews, self-reports, and observations. The interaction of life conversations with the researchers, other tutors, and the coordinator is constructivist in its approach. Summary of Chapter 1 and Orientation to Subsequent Chapters In this chapter, I provided the background that underpins the current study, defined key terms, and explained the purpose and significance of this study. In Chapter 2, I will provide a literature review of the various components that inform this study, such as what research says about self-reflection, the AR program, and the specific self-reflection model that will be used in the study (i.e. Korthagen’s model). In Chapter 3, I describe the participants and the methods that will be used to collect and analyze data.  Chapter 2: Literature Review In this chapter, I discuss the literature related to tutoring. Specifically, I present theories related to tutoring and the background to tutoring. I describe the tutors, the importance of tutoring, as well as when tutoring can be successful. I also describe the America Reads (AR) program. Finally, I present the literature related to self-reflection, explain why tutors should engage in self-reflection, and describe models of self-reflection. Theoretical Background In this section, I discuss how theories of cognitive development and cooperative learning, as well as personal development, relate to tutoring. Cognitive Development and Sociocultural Theories One goal of education, including tutoring, is the development of students’ cognitive abilities. The basic assumptions of cognitive development, adopted by Piaget many years ago, are still valid and useful. Piaget (1971) believed that cognitive development occurs in stages, one after the other. However, the pace of transition from one stage to another differs depending on each individual's level of maturity, experiences and other social environmental factors. On the other hand, Vygotsky (1978) believed that social factors such as social interaction, and an individual's cooperation aimed at learning, understanding, and problem solving affected the cognitive development of an individual. Both Piaget and Vygotsky agree that cooperation and mutual respect between a teacher and the student are important to develop critical thinking, objectivism, and discursive reflection in a student. I believe this goes both ways not only for the tutee but for the tutor too. The AR tutors have opportunities to talk and share their thought and questions with the AR coordinator. Their actual developmental level as a tutor, as determined through their reflection and problem solving and the level of potential development as determined with the help of the AR coordinator, can be seen as Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. These tutors are cognitively working on their tutoring skills through active reflection of their work and thoughts on their tutoring and more. Therefore, when tutors discuss their tutoring challenges and ideas among themselves, and with their coordinator, potential for cognitive development is possible. That could facilitate and even accelerate the development of intellectual potential of the AR tutors themselves. Cooperative Learning Theories. Tutoring also has its roots in cooperative learning theories, such as in the theory of social interdependence, originally developed by Deutsch (1949). This theory points out the important role of peer interaction and relationships in socialization and learning. In the 1980s, Johnson and Johnson (1989, 2009) first presented and later extended the theory of social interdependence. They stated, “social interdependence exists when the outcomes of individuals are affected by each other’s actions” (p. 366). Their theory of social interdependence assumes that individuals’ cooperation in accomplishing goals is based on their internal motivation, driven by interactions directed at encouragement and mutual facilitation of the learning effort (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998). Positive interdependence between the tutor and students creates the need for mutual help, a sense of commitment in executing the tasks, and responsibility for their execution (Johnson et al., 1998). The AR tutors are also working closely with their peers each time they meet up for AR meetings and can share ideas about their tutoring experiences through their socialization with each other. They all have a common goal of helping their tutees, and the mutual encouragement amongst the AR tutors can facilitate learning and future decision-making. Personal Development Theories. Personal development theories also support tutoring. These theories indirectly support the benefits of experiential learning (Rogers, 1969) and a deep approach to learning (Chi, Siler, Jeong, Yamauchi, & Hausmann, 2001), and the development of ethical processes (Perry, 1981), self-regulatory processes (Zimmerman, 2002,) and self-actualization (Maslow, 1954). Rogers (1969) believed that an individual must personally experience learning for personal change and development to occur. He determined that personal development and experiential learning can take place when the individual can fully participate in learning. They have control over the content of learning, confront social and personal problems, and self-evaluate themselves. Student’s participation in tutoring is an opportunity to learn by experience and to discover one’s capabilities and one’s self. Therefore, Roger’s conception may apply quite well to tutoring. The benefits resulting from a deep learning approach, especially significant in tutoring, are presented in the deep-surface approach, and strategic learning theory (Entwistle, 1997; Gordon & Debus, 2002, Marton & Booth, 1997, Marton & Saljo, 1976). When individuals are oriented towards a deep learning approach, they focus on understanding and making changes in their knowledge and skills and connecting new material with the prior cognitive structures or background knowledge. Participation in tutoring provides AR tutors with an opportunity to engage in a deep approach to learning and it can be highly motivating as they develop a stronger knowledge base, skills, and experience that could influence and further support their tutees, and continue to develop their own personal and cognitive potential as both tutors and individuals in their own right. These theories provide a foundation for understanding AR tutors’ tutoring development, especially in the light of their self-reflection. The tutors will become more aware of their thinking when self-reflecting, be connected to monitoring their thoughts and actions as they tutor. Tutoring Tutoring, be it in a small group setting or a one-to-one setting, supplements classroom teaching, and is generally considered the most effective way of increasing students' achievement (Elbaum et al., 2000). The effectiveness of tutoring has been validated by empirical research, especially for students who are considered at risk for school failure or have been identified as having reading or learning disabilities (Kremer, Maynard, Polanin, Vaughn, & Sarteschi, 2015; Makhoul, Olshtain & Ibrahim, 2015; Wisker, Exley, Antoniou & Ridley, 2013). Classroom teachers identified adult-delivered tutoring as the ideal teaching practice, but due to time constraints, they reported that they were rarely able to implement small groups or even one-to-one instruction in their classrooms (Moody, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1997; Willard & Kulinna, 2012). Corroborating these teachers' reports is a study indicating that when one-to-one instruction is provided by the classroom teacher, within the general education classroom, it is usually implemented for less than one minute and serves largely to clarify information, answer questions, or check for understanding (Mclntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, & Lee, 1993) rather than to provide systematic, remedial instruction. Even in special education classrooms, tutoring especially in a one-to-one instruction setting may occur in only a limited way (Vaughn, Moody, & Schumm, 1998). Therefore, research points towards tutoring being an effective approach to helping students in reading. Volunteer tutors such as AR tutors can play a crucial part in providing that important part in instruction by providing tutoring to striving readers. Research has found that students who made the greatest gains academically participated in small group or individual tutoring settings with a college student (Elbaum et al., 2000). Why Tutor? Research demonstrates that volunteer tutoring programs can promote students’ reading performance (Cobb, 2001; Edmondson, 2002; Slavin, Lake, Davis, & Madden, 2011). For example, Cohen, Kulik, and Kulik (1982) conducted a seminal meta-analysis of 65 studies examining tutoring programs. The meta-analysis assessed the effects of tutoring on students’: 1) academic achievement, 2) attitudes toward the subject matter, and 3) self-concept. Students who were tutored did far better than their peers on assessments of academic achievement, and they had more positive attitudes toward the subjects in which they were tutored. Students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, in particular, benefitted from tutoring, as seen in the greater gains they showed in reading and mathematics. Besides, students who participated in tutoring had few incidences of absenteeism compared with their peers from similar backgrounds who did not participate in tutoring. More recently, Ritter, Barnett, Denny, and Albin (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of 21 studies, and they found that volunteer tutoring has a positive effect on reading achievement. Concerning literacy sub-skills, students who work with volunteer tutors are more likely to earn higher scores on assessments related to letters and words, oral fluency, and writing as compared to their peers who are not tutored. Ritter and colleagues also noted that students in structured tutoring programs showed larger positive effects with assessments on areas of letters, words, oral fluency and writing. Other studies reported by researchers such as Burns, Senesac, and Symington (2004), Fitzgerald (2001), Jacob, Smith, Willard and Rifkin (2014), and Johnson, Gupta, Rosen and Rosen (2013), have noted that volunteer tutoring programs with elementary-aged students produce affective and academic gains in reading performance. Wasik and Slavin (1993) investigated five tutoring programs that used certified teachers and paraprofessionals. Their findings suggested that tutoring is effective; however, they found that certified teachers serving as tutors have a larger influence on student learning than do paraprofessionals. Similarly, Success for All (Slavin & Madden, 2013) and Reading Recovery (Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Byrk, & Seltzer, 1991) reported that certified teachers increased tutees’ reading performance. While these studies indicated that trained professionals might be preferable to minimally trained tutors, using certified teachers can be too expensive for many school districts, especially those with high needs populations (Invernizzi, Juel, & Rosemary, 1997; Morris, 1999). Therefore, a program that uses minimally trained tutors such as those from the AR may help fill the gap. Who Tutors? Studies show that students do benefit when tutored by college students and community volunteers (Invernizzi, Rosemary, & Juel, 1997; Juel, 1996), and the use of minimally trained tutors in literacy programs has its benefits (Shanahan, 1998; Elbaum et al., 2000). For example, using minimally trained tutors tends to be more cost-effective (Ritter, Denny, Albin, Barnett & Blankenship, 2006), and these volunteers typically have more flexibility to accommodate students’ schedules (Aurini & Davies, 2004). However, there are downsides to using minimally trained tutors to help students. For example, some stakeholders argue that it is an injustice that the least experienced, least trained tutors are the ones who teach striving readers (Belzer, 2006). However, high needs populations do need additional support, and research suggests that tutoring is one option (Burns et al., 2004; Fitzgerald, 2001; Lane, Pullen, Hudson & Konold, 2009; Pullen, Lane, & Monaghan, 2004. Further, Moore-Hart and Karabenick (2000) pointed out that when tutoring takes place throughout the school year supports striving students’ literacy practices. Regardless of the advantages and disadvantages of minimally trained tutors, the reality, for now, is that many students will encounter such tutors. Where possible, schools employ tutoring programs that require tutors to complete some form of preservice training, and many provide some in-service supports as well. The literature suggests that effective tutoring programs need to meet five conditions (Clay, 1985; Elbaum et al., 2000; Invernizzi et al., 1997; Lingo, 2014; Wasik, 1998a; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). These conditions are: (a) training and supervision provided by a reading specialist, (b) implementation of specific literacy strategies, (c) maximizing the student’s zone of proximal development through use of appropriate materials and feedback, (d) on-going assessment of the learners, and (e) time for learning. Tutor Training Students need many opportunities to learn how to read (Allington, 1994; Wasik, 1998a). However, just providing additional time to practice reading is not enough; instead, students require good instruction. Allington (1994) and Wasik (1998a) found that tutoring programs are most effective when the coordinator or supervisor of the tutoring program is a reading specialist who ensures that the tutors are trained in how to use tutoring time to enhance the students’ reading. However, do tutors use the information that they are taught? Evaluating if AR tutors did what they were trained to do during the first year working with kindergarten and first grade students, Adler (1999) found that tutors did follow the lesson plans and use the materials that they were given, and they also individualized and improvised their lessons. However, conclusions about the effectiveness of the training could not be made because there was no comparison group of tutors who did not receive training. Literacy Strategies To support striving readers, tutors need to learn literacy strategies that focus on letter-sound relationships (Pinnell, 2000), rereading a familiar story (Pinnell, 1989), word analysis strategies (Invernizzi et al., 1997), and writing in itself (Graves, Juel, & Graves, 1998). Further, tutors need instruction on how to assess their tutee in part to determine their instructional reading level. Feedback. Tutors need feedback from supervisors, and tutors need to provide feedback to their tutees. Juel (1996) found that tutoring is more effective compared to whole group instruction because of a tutor’s ability to provide specific feedback to the tutee. MacIellan (2001) also suggested that improvement in learning occurs when tutees perceive feedback as enabling learning, and not just as a judgment on their level of achievement. Corroborating this view was the research study reported by Wojtas (1998), claiming that many tutees improved their work once they understood the purpose of feedback and assessment criteria. Materials. Effective programs help tutors identify and use the materials that align with the tutee’s instructional level. For example, by using running records of students’ oral reading strategies, tutors can match reading materials to the reading level of their tutees (DeFord, Pinnell, Lyons, & Young, 1988). Likewise, Wasik and Slavin (1993) found that when tutors use comprehensive instructional materials that match students’ needs, they have better outcomes. Assessment. Different tutoring programs have found that ongoing assessment of learners using a variety of assessment supports academic achievement (Wasik, 1998b). Specifically, tutors need to use the results of the assessment, especially informal assessments, to establish goals, provide instruction to support learners, monitor individual progress, develop appropriate instructional strategies, and provide materials at the correct level of difficulty (Morris, Shaw & Perney, 1990). Time as a Condition for Learning. Finally, the literature shows that the length of time students receive tutoring affects their academic achievement, including their reading achievement (Coie & Krehbiel, 1984). For example, Invernizzi and her colleagues (1997) found that the number of tutoring sessions in which students participated was positively related to student gains in alphabet knowledge, concept of word, phoneme-grapheme knowledge, and word recognition. Similarly, Fitzgerald (2001), Shanahan and Barr (1995), and Wasik and Slavin (1993) when they found that the duration of time students received tutoring was an essential component of student success. Although research indicates that there are five necessary conditions for effective tutoring (i.e., trained tutors, implementation of specific literacy strategies, use of appropriate materials and feedback, ongoing assessment, sufficient tutoring time), not much literature is available about tutors’ self-reflection even though self-reflection is an important part of pre-service training for future teachers. In the case of the AR tutors, they may not receive substantial training and supervision yet are still required to tutor students. If self-reflection is important for teachers and prospective teachers (Schön, 1987), is it possible that self-reflection could be just as important to minimally trained tutors like the AR tutors? This area of study could balance out the lack of literacy strategy training AR tutors receive in general due to funding, personnel and time constraints. While training and on-going supervision are needed, self-reflection, if engaged in properly, would only need a set amount of time to train tutors in, and yet they would still be equipped to engage in throughout their tutoring duration independently. This study aims to explore how AR tutors engage in self-reflection, which may, in turn, affect the outcome of their tutoring sessions. What is America Reads? On 27 August 1996, President Clinton launched the America Reads (AR) initiative in Michigan, calling for the people of the United States to work together so that all students, by third grade, would to be able to read independently. This initiative later became incorporated into a "Call to Action for American Education in the 21st Century," introduced during Clinton's 1997 State of the Union Address. Clinton made ten recommendations for educational reform, and among them was the AR Challenge (Clinton, 1996, September 12). Why America Reads? According to President Clinton and Secretary of Education Richard Riley, AR was initiated because America's schoolchildren weren't performing well enough in reading. During President Clinton's 1997 State of the Union address, for example, he reported that the launching of the AR Challenge was because 40% of America's eight-year-old students could not read on their own. This statistic was first reported in the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress' (NAEP), "America's Report Card." The NAEP delineates three distinct levels of reading: basic, proficient, and advanced. The NAEP report indicated that 40% of American fourth-grade readers were not able to read a passage independently, lacking even the “basic” level expected of them. The AR battle plan was to send "troops" or AR tutors into the classrooms to help ensure that children were learning to read (Clinton, 1997, February 28). Many were federal work-study students from university campuses throughout the country. In 1997, nearly 800 universities and colleges throughout the nation had already pledged to commit work-study slots for college students to serve as tutors for elementary school children (White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 1997). By 1999, nearly 1,200 colleges and universities committed to placing work-study students as tutors in public schools. President Clinton’s 1999 budget proposal also included $140 million to establish programs matching university-based mentors with students in schools that had high dropout rates and high concentrations of poor students. Because of the AR Challenge, state leaders became increasingly interested in providing tutoring programs for elementary school children, and numerous local tutoring initiatives are now receiving increased support (U.S. Department of Education, 1996, 1997). At the start of the 1997 school year, tutors, mostly university students, began entering classrooms, educational centers, and various other locations in the U.S. They were generally expected to read aloud with small groups of students or sometimes one-to-one with struggling readers (U.S. Department of Education, 1997). The Federal Work Study did not limit the number of hours AR tutors could work but the hours had to be per those determined by respective universities (Federal Student Aid, undated). For example, the University of California allows its tutors to work up to a maximum of 20 hours per week (Associated Students, 2016). To prepare these work-study college students, the government recommended training sessions of a "reasonable and limited length of time" (McCollough, 1997, p.1). Tutors are required to attend a four-hour training session, (often subjectively determined by the participating universities) paid for with Federal Work Study funding. This training covers the importance of the AR program, logistical concerns such as pay sheets and background checks for tutors, and some literacy-related topics. With only one AR coordinator at most colleges and universities, it is not realistic to expect the coordinator to address developmental or social issues of children of diverse ages and abilities and the complexity of learning how to read. As a result, tutors are often sent off to their respective sites with very little training. While the AR program clearly does not provide the training or support based on the five components of an effective reading program (i.e., trained tutors, implementation of specific literacy strategies, use of appropriate materials and feedback, ongoing assessment, sufficient tutoring time), its tutors are still being used to help striving readers all over the country through the Federal Work Study program. While there has been research on the components of effective tutoring programs, this study will address the area of self-reflection, another evidence-based practice that has the potential to make tutoring more effective even as the tutors enter classrooms with minimal training. Reflection In this section, I review reflection in the literature. That includes the types of reflection, how to engage in reflection, and the benefits of reflection. Types of Reflection There are many models of reflective teaching, yet there is a notable absence of a single definition of reflection (Harrington, Quinn-Leering & Hodson, 1996). At the simplest level, Boud, Keogh, and Walker (1985) state that reflection is “a form of response of the learner to experience” (p. 18) and that “reflection in the context of learning is a generic term for those intellectual and affective activities in which individuals engage to explore their experiences in order to lead to new understandings and appreciations” (p. 19). Reflection has also been described as “the inspection and evaluation of one’s thoughts, feelings and behavior” (Grant, Franklin, & Langford, 2002, p. 821). Korthagen (2001) defines reflection as “the mental process of trying to structure or restructure an experience, a problem, or existing knowledge or insights” and therefore is a form of reflection that is “different from routine action” (p. 58). Korthagen and Vasalos (2005) promote reflection that requires “deep” thinking, which they refer to as “core reflection” (p.48) found in their Onion Model. Finally, reflective practice has been described as an iterative process involving “repeated cycles of examining practice, adjusting practice and reflecting upon it, before trying it again” (Grushka, McLeod &Reynolds, 2005, p. 239), rather than a one-time event. Teachers, pre-kindergarten through grade 12, often reflect on their teaching spontaneously and naturally (Eley, 2006), but Kahn and Walsh (2006) also identified action research, learning journals and portfolios as other ways teachers engage in reflection. In addition to informal and formal ways of reflecting, teachers also reflect on content, processes, and premise. Reflecting on instructional content involves thinking about ways to describe a particular problem in practice. A teacher reflecting on content might ask, "What do I know?" Reflecting on process occurs when teachers are trying to determine a method of problem-solving. Thus, a teacher reflecting on process might ask, If I am to be an effective practitioner, how do I know my method of problem-solving works? Reflecting on process leads to deeper thinking about the factors or theories upon which the problem is predicated. Reflecting on-premise occurs when a teacher has to make a judgment on a certain situation. A teacher reflecting on-premise might ask the questions: Why does it matter that I attend to this problem? Does it matter that Julie understands this or not? Does it matter that I chose this problem to guide my continuing competence? Is there an alternative? In short, engaging in reflection is one way in which teachers work to improve their instructional practices and gain competence (Andersen & Moyers, 2002). John Dewey’s footprint is ever-present in education, especially in the area of self-reflection. He articulated his concept of self-reflection in his book How We Think (Dewey, 1933), as making meaning that moves the individual reflecting from one experience into the next with deeper understanding of its relationships and connections to other experiences and ideas. His idea of reflection is systematic, rigorous and disciplined and occurs in interaction with others often requiring attitudes that value the individual’s personal and intellectual growth (Rodgers, 2002). Schön’s (1983) is another scholar who has informed our understanding of reflection, and he coined the term “reflection-in-action.” Steeped in Deweyan philosophy, Schön’ stated: When someone reflects-in-action, he becomes a researcher in the practice context. … He does not keep means and ends separate but defines them interactively as he frames a problematic situation. He does not separate thinking from doing…. Because experimenting is a kind of action, implementation is built into… inquiry (pp. 68-69) Although Schön was a Deweyan scholar, Schön gave a fresh look and updated expression to Dewey’s (1933) How We Think. Unlike Dewey’s reflection, which was often explored by mostly philosophers rather than practitioners (Rodgers, 2002), Schön developed an argument for reflection and reflective practice, one that resonated particularly well with the teaching profession. Schön proposed reflection-in-action as an alternative to the dominant epistemology of technical rationalism. In technical rationalism, teachers approach problem-based information learned in their college training, while in reflection-in-action, teachers view a problem of practice as a unique case, drawing on relevant prior experiences and attending to emergent situations. The process is dynamic in nature, and a teacher’s reflective conversation would take place where “the unique and uncertain situation can be understood through the intent to change it and changed through the attempt to understand it” (Schön 1983, p. 132). In the process of reflection, the teacher realizes that thinking and doing are always related in some way and situations can change yet he or she must try to remain open and flexible to the changes. Schön’s concept of reflection-in-action is a teaching approach that pays keen attention to the insider-view of experience and can is used in professional development. To Schön, problem framing, implementation, and improvisation is an educational art form. An underlying idea of his is that “the student cannot be taught what he[/she] needs to know, but he[/she] can be coached” (Schön 1987, p. 17). The teacher is continually grappling with an irreconcilable “paradox of learning a…new competence” and “can educate himself only by beginning to do what he does not yet understand” (Schön 1991, p. 93). Similarly, the AR program allows the tutors involved to be in the real-world situation of grappling with ideas, personal beliefs and change while allowing them to practice or learn to reflect consistently and effectively. Zeichner and Liston (1987), building on Van Manen's (1977) work, identified three categories of reflection: technical, practical and critical. Technical reflection is “concerned mainly with means rather than ends” and a “technical application of educational knowledge” (p. 226). This type of reflection is focused on timing, equipment, and resources (Grushka et al. 2005), and on maintaining order and achieving pre-determined outcomes (Killen, 2007). Practical reflection has a “focus on an interpretive understanding both of the nature and quality of educational experiences” (van Manen 1977, p. 226-227), on connections between principles and practice (Killen 2007) and student engagement (Grushka et al. 2005). Critical reflection involves ‘the question of the worth of knowledge...a constant critique of domination, of institutions, and repressive forms of authority’ (van Manen 1977, p. 227). This type of reflection is about extending awareness beyond the classroom to moral and social issues (Killen 2007). Korthagen (1985) argued that a key element of reflection is making one’s concrete experience explicit, looking at the experience from one’s frame of interpretation, and adapting this frame to improve one’s performance. Korthagen and his colleagues also suggested a deeper aspect of self-reflection that was not emphasized by other philosophers and researchers, and they see the aim of self-reflection as helping teachers reach a higher level of professional performance. Korthagen’s (1985) ALACT model of self-reflection is systematic and structured and can guide tutors to develop their knowledge and skills further and engage in more effective tutoring. Tutors reflect in a manner that can address the beliefs, identity, mission, moral, political or emotional dimensions of tutoring (Korthagen, Kessels, Koster, Lagerwerf & Wubbels, 2001). Why Reflect? Reflection is recognized as a key component of teaching and a strategy for learning through practice (Brandt, 2008). It is generally viewed as a process of deliberately and critically thinking about a classroom situation. That subsequently leads to insights and changes to one’s approach to practice (Reed & Bergemann, 2005). Scholars suggest that reflection can enhance critical thinking (Brookfield, 1995), and increase self-awareness and communication skills (Loughran, 2002). For example, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (2010) calls for “descriptive,” “analytic,” and “reflective” thought to prompt teachers’ writing about practice. Self-reflection should move individuals to start thinking in a more substantial, more grounded, more sophisticated manner. Although reflection can have a positive effect on tutors and their tutoring process, it is a complex process (Schön, 1991). Scholars also contend that reflection is a skill that needs to be learned and practiced regularly (Yip, 2006). Although tutors generally believe they know how to reflect on practice and do so regularly, there seems to be a gap in studies that look into whether tutors recognize the effect that reflection has on their tutoring decisions. The use of a structured process such as the ALACT model to reflect on teaching practices may help tutors to reach insights into self and practice and support the implementation of positive changes in their instructional practice (Johns, 2006). Like teachers, tutors need to be reflective practitioners too. I hope that they be thoughtful persons who analyze situation, set goals, plan and monitor actions, and evaluate results through their professional thinking. They would be able to consider immediate and long-term social and ethical implications of their reflected decision. While technical knowledge of teaching strategies is important, it may not be enough. Self-reflection may allow tutors to develop a more precise language to clarify their thinking and possibly provide more effective instructional support to their tutees. As Calderhead and Gates (1993) stated many years ago, the essence of reflection is that it enables professionals “to analyze, discuss, evaluate, and change their practice” (p. 2). Indeed, in the work of practitioners, reflection is always linked to practice and helps a tutor develop new insights that help to improve one’s behavior in practice or behavior. When teaching and learning involve self-reflection, it involves action, looking back on the action, developing an awareness of essential aspects of that action, and creating alternative methods of action (Korthagen, 1985). Further, this process can benefit both the tutor and the tutee. Thus, the current study aims to explore how Read America tutors engage in self-reflection after receiving training on whom to engage in structure self-refection. This study is important because it will add to our understanding of how minimally trained tutors might engage in reflection to provide more effective tutoring. Model of Reflection-ALACT The focus of this study is to understand how AR tutors engage in reflection based on Korthagen’s (1985) ALACT model. The ALACT model is built on the assumption that by nature, teachers reflect on their experiences, but that systematic reflection may lead to more effective instructional practices. While teachers in school may be limited in the type of self-reflection that they carry out due to workload and time constraints, tutors may be limited in the type of self-reflection they carry out because of their lack of training with self-reflection. While unstructured self-reflection might be effective in the short-term, there is a danger that tutors’ growth may eventually stagnate so that the accompanying strategies become ‘run of the mill’ solutions (Schön, 1987). The tutor is no longer in the habit of examining these strategies, let alone the analyses he or she once made of the problems they are intended to address. Thus, structured reflection is important in supporting the “development of a growth competence” (Korthagen, Kessels, Koster, Lagerwerf, & Wubbels, 2001, p.47). The ALACT model (Appendix C), which aims at structuring reflection, is named after the first letters of the five phases: Action, Looking back at the action, Awareness of essential aspects, Creating alternative methods of action, and Trial. Action means the tutor realizes that something is not right in his or her teaching at a point in time. The step of Looking back is fulfilled when the action is relived and looked at in retrospect. Reconsidering one’s action and judging the consequences is part of the Awareness of essential aspects step. Following the awareness, the tutor thinks about Creating alternatives that would have been appropriate in that situation and puts that alternative into practice afterward. Since the Trial phase is another action to be reflected on after that, trial and action are considered one phase and make for a self-coherent reflection circle. The ALACT model has been used with pre-service teachers in the Netherlands with an emphasis, in the first year of the program, on how the tutors learn and communicate with each other, who they are as individuals and what their goals are. The students received training and guidance individually but were also allowed to collaborate and share ideas. In the second year of the program, tutors worked with an individual student, rather than a large group of students in a classroom. In the third and fourth years, these tutors worked with whole classes and were supported by supervising teachers who were trained to use the ALACT model in a classroom situation. The ALACT model favors a gradual release of responsibility where new teachers take responsibility for their learning because many new teachers prefer to take instructions and be told what to do. That is more of a passive attitude that both Combs (1974) and Rogers (1969) noticed. The resistance to other ways of learning can obstruct growth, and therefore by gradually releasing teachers, there is a higher chance of promoting self-directed learning, which essential to the ALACT structure. The new teacher is, therefore, not alone in her teaching; there is always someone who will initially offer more structure, give assignments, indicate possible choices and feedback to the tutor. Gradually more and more decisions will be left to the tutor, and eventually the teachers will have full control of their teaching, yet still have the safety and trust to go for help when and where needed. While other views on reflection focus on rational analysis, the ALACT model focuses on thinking, feeling, wanting, and acting. The model looks similar to Kolb’s model (Kolb & Fry, 1975), which describes experiential learning as a cyclical process of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. However, the ALACT model stresses more on the development of an awareness of less rational sources of teacher behavior rather than the conceptualization. Since the middle of the 1980s there is more awareness among researchers of these less rational sources of teacher behavior (Clark, 1986). Phase 3 of the ALACT model, awareness of essential aspects aims to help tutors develop awareness of these less rational factors. For example, in the case of an AR tutor who believes “in his gut” his tutee will be able to make his connections to something taught. The tutor proceeds to make the connections for the tutee even if it is contrary to his ideal of foregrounding students’ voices and experiences. While the tutor may believe that learning should be student-centered, he felt he had to ‘teach’ his tutee rather than enable him to take responsibility for his learning. The tutor’s belief is less rational, and the ALACT model may help the tutor to examine any underlying beliefs through deeper self-reflection. In other words, the model aims at a holistic approach to teaching and a model of reflection that may help tutors not only reflect on the technical aspects of their tutoring (e.g., reading strategies, managing behavior strategies) but also delve more deeply into their feelings and needs. There are several similarities between the Netherlands study (Korthagen, 1985) and the present study. First, the pre-service teachers from the Netherlands provided, and the American Read tutors will provide one-to-one tutoring. Second, the pre-service teachers did, and AR tutors will receive support from a university supervisor and participate in meetings. Third, the pre-service teachers did, and AR tutors will record lessons and engage in structured reflection of those sessions. Further, structured reflection will be based the ALACT model. Finally, like the pre-service teachers and their students, the AR tutors and tutees could benefit from structured reflection as they self-reflect individually and when they work in pairs to discuss and share their thoughts of self-reflection. However, due to time constraints this model will be adapted for this study with the AR tutors. During the one-to-one period, the student teachers form pairs. Of the eight one-to-one lessons, four are discussed by the student teachers within these pairs, and four lessons are discussed by the pair and the teacher educator, which in the AR context it the researcher. The teacher educator can suggest small theory-based ideas that the processes the student teachers are going through. These ideas can be derived from a variety of theoretical backgrounds. After both types of discussion, each tutor writes a report that brings together the most important conclusions. Summary of Chapter 2 In this chapter, I presented theories that support tutoring, discussed the importance of tutoring, described different types of tutors, and presented components of effective tutoring programs. I also described the America Reads program. Finally, I described and presented models of reflection.  Chapter 3: Methodology and Methods In this chapter, I present the research design and methods, provide background information about myself as the researcher, describe the recruitment of participants, as well as the methods and procedures of data collection and data analysis. I discuss measures taken to establish the trustworthiness and limitations of the study at the end of the chapter. Finally, I present the timeline for the study. Overview of the Study The purpose of the current study was to explore how America Reads (AR) tutors engage in self-reflection. Self-reflection is important because it can enhance the meaning tutors make of situations they encounter and the actions they take based on their observations. Self-reflection also encourages insights that can lead to complex learning, as well as foster personal and professional growth. This study is important because no studies were found investigating how AR tutors engage in self-reflection. To answer the research question, “How do America Reads tutors engage in self-reflection?” I collected data from college students employed as AR tutors at a major university from September 2017 to May 2018, which is one academic year (two semesters). I provided two rounds of training to all AR tutors in the program on how to engage in structured self-reflection. Each session was about two hours. I then recruited five tutors to collect in-depth data about how they engaged in self-reflection. I collected quantitative data from a Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (SRIS; Grant, Franklin & Langford, 2002), as well as other demographic information. I also collected qualitative data from interviews, general tutoring information (part of the demographic survey), observations, and personal self-reflections produced by the tutors. Research Design Methods This intervention study usedcase studies to investigate how AR tutors self-reflect and the changes, if any, they make during their tutoring. The intervention, which was in the form of the ALACT model self-reflection training, was provided as a tool for tutors to use as they self-reflected. Tutors were not familiar with structure self-reflection and the training provided them something to base of their self-reflection journeys. The goal of the study was not to solely determine the effectiveness of the ALACT model but to explore how AR tutors self-reflect. Therfore, the case studies provided the narrative to explain the tutors’ self-reflection. A case study is a type of ethnographic design (Creswell, 2002; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999) that explores a “bounded system” or a case over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information and rich in context (Creswell & Maitta, 2002; Merriam, 1988). Yin (1989) suggests that the term “case” refers to an event, an entity, an individual or even a unit of analysis. It is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context using multiple sources of evidence. Case studies are useful when one needs to understand some particular problem or situation in great-depth (Patton, 1987). Anderson (1993) also sees case studies as being concerned with how and why things happen, allowing the investigation of contextual realities and the differences between what planned events and what occurred. Thus, this method was particularly well suited for understanding how AR tutors engage in self-reflection, and it helped shed light on these tutors’ stories of self-reflection. However, this method is limited in that the results may not be generalizable to other situations; yet, through the use of “thick descriptions” (Geertz, 1973) and “fruitful explanations” (Miles & Huberman, 1994), I believe that those who read this study may make “naturalistic generalizations” (Stake & Trumbull, 1982), knowing “some of the things told, as if he or she had experienced them” (Stake, 1994, p. 240). Qualitative data (i.e., interviews, observations, and self-reports) were gathered to provide an in-depth understanding of how tutors engage in self-reflection. Gathering qualitative data, according to Nastasi and Schensul (2005), is an “ongoing, iterative, and participatory process” (p. 182). The analysis and interpretation of data began with initial data collection, informs subsequent data collection, and requires input from the participants. I used multiple sources of data to represent the viewpoints and perspective of the AR tutors, I searched for confirming and disconfirming evidence, and I continued the process of data collection until I was unable to discover anything further. Quantitative data was also gathered to provide the background descriptions of the tutors and to understand how tutors engage in self-reflection prior to the study (e.g., how they use it in their tutoring and other areas in more depth). This study had two phases: a baseline phase and an intervention/case study phase. The phases are briefly described below: Phase I: Baseline data gathered on all AR tutors (Self-Reflection and Insight Scale or SRIS, surveys and pre-intervention interviews) Phase II: Intervention provided to all AR tutors and then recruited five tutors to gather more comprehensive qualitative data (e.g., interviews) In Phase I, the baseline phase, the SRIS, which is a measure of self-reflection and insight, was administered to all AR tutors who agreed to participate in the study. Self-reflection refers to “the inspection and evaluation of one’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior” (Grant et al., 2002, p. 821), whereas insight refers to “the clarity of understanding of one’s thoughts, feelings and behavior” (p. 821). Both are viewed as metacognitive traits that are central to self-regulation, but they differ in whether they are primarily evaluative (self-reflection) versus mindful (insight). Both exploratory (Grant et al., 2002) and confirmatory (Roberts & Stark, 2008) factor analyses have provided support for the factor structure. These factor analyses found the SRIS comprised two separate factors labeled Self-Reflection (SRIS-SR) and Insight (SRIS-IN). “Need for self-reflection” and “engagement in self-reflection” loaded on the same factor. Test-retest reliability over seven weeks was .77 (SRIS-SR) and .78 (SRIS-IN) (Grant et al., 2002). I also interviewed tutors about self- reflections and gather database reports. During Phase II, I collected qualitative data to understand how AR tutors engaged in self-reflection. The qualitative data included observations, interviews, and self-reports that will be described later in this chapter. Qualitative data helped provide complex textual descriptions of how the AR tutors engaged in self-reflection. It offered in-depth personal perspective of the issue, such as beliefs, opinions, and even any contradictory behaviors. I analyzed data in terms of tutors’ attitudes toward their self-reflection and tutoring, the knowledge they gained about self-reflection, and their work as AR tutors. Researcher's Background When conducting a study that includes collecting extensive qualitative data, it was important that as a researcher, I was aware of any potential biases. Consequently, I provide my background information. I view learning from a constructivist perspective. That is, I believe students construct knowledge based on background knowledge, cultural frames of reference, experience, instructional influences, and reflective processes. Action, performance, or experience is central to my learning and teaching. Dewey (1938) [a cycle of impulse, observation, knowledge, judgment, and purpose], and Kolb (1984) [a cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation] are important in my work and academic life. I also agree with Grossman’s (1990) discussion that teaching is a principled practice, meaning that teachers have strategies in the classroom and that teachers “...need to understand the reasons behind their instructional choices, to be able to explain why they do what they do” (p. 121). Understandably, there are no absolute answers or concrete solutions to most of the dilemmas in teaching; however, like me, teachers must try to connect their choice of instructional activities to their understanding of the underlying purposes for the teaching of their content. My conceptual framework, based on my beliefs, applies the ideas of Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989), as well as those of Smith (1990), and is best summarized by components of knowing and believing; experience; and reflection, interacting with each other in a continual, cyclical process to create or determine our classroom practices. As Brown et al. (1989) note, "A concept, for example, will continually evolve with each new occasion of use because new situations, negotiations, and activities inevitably recast it in a new, more densely textured form" (p. 33). Likewise, I believe that tutoring practices will evolve as a tutor’s knowledge base is expanded through coursework, training, and conversations, tested in their tutoring sessions, and then examined and reflected on in terms of their principles and desired outcomes. Sample I used a convenience sample (Dillman, 2000) to recruit all tutors in an AR program. One aim is to understand AR tutors' current level of self-reflection based on the SRIS, an interview and a survey about their general self-reflection practices. Next, I employed purposeful sampling (Patton, 1990) that involved intentionally selecting individuals to understand a central phenomenon (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009; McMillan & Schumacher, 1994), in this case the self-reflection of AR tutors. I recruited five AR tutors. The idea was to purposefully select tutors, who provided me with “rich information” to understand how AR tutors engage in self-reflection (Patton, 1990, p. 169). Where sampling size is concerned, Erlandson, Harrison, Skipper, and Allen (1993) said quality is better than quantity, and the research is looking more for “information richness than information volume” (p. 84). Patton (1990) believes that using the directed power of a small purposive sample, and not attempting to overgeneralize from it can ally fears about inadequate sample size. Criteria for Selecting Tutors Based on data collected during the baseline phase, I recruited AR tutors by taking into consideration their placement in a classroom where he/she would be working consistently with a student in literacy-related instruction, and if he/she would have some freedom in deciding how to tutor the student. That is, in order to obtain rich information for analysis, AR tutors needed to have some control over their tutoring sessions compared to other AR tutors who had placements in classrooms where they primarily helped students with worksheets or rote-learning of sight words. Although I was not able to select male tutors, I tried to ensure that the tutors I selected varied in terms of ethnic backgrounds, the grades they were going to tutor in, and the majors they were pursuing in their studies at college. Each AR tutor was assigned a number to ensure confidentiality. AR case-study participants received pseudonyms. All AR tutors understood that they were under no obligation to participate in the study and that they could discontinue participation without having to provide any explanation as per the consent form (see Appendix A). I explained that their participation in the project was completely confidential and that information collected would be used for research purposes only. They understood that the information collected would be published in a doctoral dissertation, research journals, or other professional publications. Intervention Procedure The structured self-reflection training sessions were carried out once a week, over two weeks. Each session was about 2 hours, for a total of 4 hours of training. The training, which is described later in more detail, involved a PowerPoint presentation, discussion groups, pair work, real-life case scenarios (videos and written situations), and worksheets. Case study participants also received follow-up guidance and supervision as they used the structured self-reflection models during the biweekly AR meeting. The intervention was based on Korthagen and Vasalos’s (2005) ALACT model presented in Appendix B was designed to help pre-service teachers engage in self-reflection. As explained in the literature review, the five phases of the ALACT cycle were: Action- when the tutor realizes that something is not right in his or her teaching at a point in time and is aware that action needs to be taken Looking back on the action- when the action is re-lived and looked at in retrospect Aspects of essential awareness- when the tutor reconsiders one’s action and judges the consequences Creating alternative methods of action- when the tutor thinks about alternatives that would have been appropriate in that situation and Trial- when the tutor puts that alternative into practice afterward Based on the work of Korthagen and his colleagues, the intervention for the current study was designed to help tutors reflect on their mental and physical decisions, as well as their emotional feelings related to their tutoring sessions. Also, tutors learned to reflect before, during and after each tutoring session in a systematic way. The data collected from the interview with them helped me determine whether this was occurring. According to Korthagen, this provides balance to self-reflection (Korthagen et al., 2005). Phase 3 of the ALACT model, the essential awareness level, is explicitly aimed at developing awareness of these less rational factors. In other words, the model aims at a holistic approach to supporting teachers and teaching. That also explains why interventions from a mentor or supervisor on the level of feelings, such as trying to concretize feelings, are so important. At the same time, greater attention to other areas of reflection other than just the rational sources guiding teachers’ actions, creates the need for a careful analysis of the possible contents of reflection. I believed that if the AR tutors were encouraged to examine their feelings and needs more deeply, that may help them to touch upon personal issues related to their self-concepts, their upbringing, and their deepest motives for being a tutor, which could ultimately affect their tutoring decisions. For example, the connections the tutors made when reflecting more deeply might also help them to have stronger impressions to help them better understand their self-reflection. Further, just as Korthagen and his colleagues believe deeper self-reflection can have long-lasting benefits for pre-service teachers as they begin their professional careers, I also believed that the same is possible for the AR tutors. In the intervention training, I based my guidance and questions and prompts and cue responses on the ALACT as seen in Figure 3 (Appendix D). The purpose of the training was to guide tutors through each step of the reflective cycle with emphasis on the third stage. In this stage, I helped the tutors to become more aware of specific incidents that occurred during a tutoring session. For example, if emotions are escalating, the tutor and his/her students were feeling frustrated and annoyed, and that was leading to an unproductive session, the self-reflection stages could help a tutor put emotions and behaviors into perspective. Consequently, if I empathized with the tutor and even the student, introduced small theoretical elements and offer concrete suggestions, it would help the tutor to begin seeing the situation from another perspective, and to take a step back and begin the next phase of developing alternatives. The tutor might choose to accept an alternative perspective and come up with a different approach (phase 4) and try it (phase 5). The tutor could become more empathic towards and try to understand the student by listening to him/her more effectively and thereby creating a new working environment that is more positive for other academic tasks to take place. In the process of training, I offered mock situations of what tutors might face or allow tutors to offer up their scenarios. This type of teaching and learning activities are called “discrepancy analysis” exercises. By discussing positive and negative experiences from tutoring and through guided reflection, they re-experienced situations at the levels of their thinking, feeling, wanting and doing. Finally, tutors reflected on the question of what the essential difference was between positive and negative tutoring situations, and they formulated those thoughts they had in one or a few words, writing them down on paper. These words often had a personally significant meaning. Next, the tutors got into pairs and helped each other to finish one of the following sentences, which was aimed at developing awareness of themselves on the deeper levels: I am a person who needs… I am a person who views … with importance. I am a person who works hard … I emphasized the importance of empathy and the concretization of feelings and guided tutors to use these ideas during their reflection. In fact, by their choice of sentence, tutors had to conceptualize what they saw an ideal tutoring session and discussed what qualities they believed were needed to achieve those ideal situations. As I worked with the tutors through the phases in the structured reflection model, I helped them to focus on aspects of the tutoring environment, student behaviors, beliefs held about a challenging situation, and competencies needed to resolve that situation. However, in their reflection, when tutors faced challenges in teaching reading, analyzing and interpreting assessment data, accessing materials, or other related tutoring issues, I still provided support for them. That is because, as much as I hoped that Korthagen’s model of self-reflection would help tutors to look at more in-depth reflection of their inner beliefs, perceptions, and even emotions about their tutoring, the process of self-reflection is a personal one, and they could address it accordingly. Next, through group discussion, the tutors learned how to recognize the qualities in each other, as tutors. Generally, this needed some modeling and guidance. When talking about professional ideals and core qualities, all kinds of limiting beliefs and images come to the surface, and the tutors practiced the promotion of those qualities in achieving the ideal situation they were looking for. Tutors discovered that what we were aiming at was actually quite a natural process, finding the right manner of adjusting one’s own qualities to the environmental requirements was one of the most fundamental human processes. Unfortunately, in the classroom we had become somewhat alienated from this process, because of the emphasis on external behavior norms. It was hoped that the structured reflection would help to regenerate that natural process. It was expected that phase 2 and 3 of the reflection cycle would require more time as it delved into tutors’ beliefs and opinions that were often deep-rooted. Tutors needed to work through their self-reflection to look for ideal situations they wanted to see in their tutoring sessions, what qualities they were looking for in themselves to achieve those ideal situations and what limiting aspects of themselves they saw in themselves that needed to be overcome. The essential thing was for the tutor to take a step backward and to become aware of the fact that he/she had a choice whether or not to allow these factors to determine his/her behavior. Along this line Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) call for “positive psychology” (p.7), which is that positive traits in individuals can mediate between external events and the quality of experience, not just treating or fixing the problem, instead to “nurture what is best” (Korthagen et al. 2005, p.56). Some questions Korthagen et al. (2005, p. 50) suggest using in Phase 2 to help tutor concretize are: General What was the context? What did you want? What did you do? What were you thinking? How did you feel? What did the pupils want? What did the pupils do? What were the pupils thinking? How did the pupils feel? Deeper (core) What is the ideal situation—the situation which the teacher wants to bring about? What are the limiting factors preventing the achievement of that ideal? What limiting behavior am I displaying (e.g. avoiding confrontations) What limiting feelings am I feeling (e.g. I feel helpless) What limiting images am I seeing (e.g. This student is a mess) What limiting belief do I have (e.g. This is not part of my job description) What do you think is keeping you back here? By providing AR tutors with an awareness of structured self-reflection using the ALACT model, they learned that certain patterns of thinking and acting were counterproductive, and they gained an insight into more constructive patterns of thinking and acting that may influence their tutoring decisions and future behavior. The tutors, by being aware of their frustrations and limiting patterns, were empowered to be aware of new possibilities. That was the kind of deeper reflection. This self-reflection intervention was aimed at building on tutors’ strengths, and the positive feelings often triggered when people feel in touch with positive meanings. Through this, they got into a state of optimal functioning that Csikszentmihalyi (1990) calls flow, a state that promotes rapid learning. This view of self-reflection aimed at ‘going deeper’ by exploring the richness of one’s inner potential and by focusing on the positive feelings connected with this inner potential and inspiration. Such strong positive feelings are often triggered when the learning process only focuses on deep levels of reflection rather than surface levels of reflection. For deep levels of reflection to occur, tutors needed opportunities to reflect in an open and relaxed atmosphere that is non-judgmental. Consequently, before training, I spent some time getting to know the tutors and connecting with them on an informal level. Table 1 (Appendix E) provides a timeline for data collection in the study Data Collection Instruments and Procedures for Data Collection Demographic Survey. The purpose of the demographic survey was to obtain general information about the tutors in the AR program, to identify tutors who might meet the initial requirements for the study, and to determine which tutors would be recruited to be participants in the case studies. There was also be a section gathering data on tutors’ general self-reflection practices. The information gathered helped me determine the similarities and differences between AR tutors. The demographic characteristics collected included gender, age, academic degree, employment, previous degree earned, family status, year of enrollment, years of experience, and the classroom/tutoring assignment details. This information provided a contextual background of AR tutors as a whole group and as individuals. The demographic survey (Appendix F) had 40 questions. The questions in the survey were a mix of Likert-type questions and short, open-ended questions. These questions asked about basic demographic information and tutors’ general and specific tutoring experience. The survey was given to all tutors in the AR program by the coordinator of the program at their first AR meeting. The survey tool took approximately fifteen to twenty minutes to complete. I was the only person to view identifying information, and I used the information to determine which participant to include in the intervention and for the case study phases of the present study. Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (Grant, Franklin & Langford, 2002). Grant and his colleagues (2002) developed a reliable and valid Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (SRIS; Appendix G). The SRIS provided a general picture of whether tutors reflect, how they reflect, and the frequency of their reflection. The survey took approximately fifteen minutes to complete, and tutors received it during the first AR meeting. There was a total of twenty Likert-type statements such as It is important to me to be able to understand how my thoughts arise, I don't often think about my thoughts, and I usually have a very clear idea about why I've behaved in a certain way. The self-reflection factor had 12 items that assess a tendency to think about and evaluate thoughts, actions, and feelings; examples included I frequently examine my feelings, and It is important for me to evaluate the things that I do. This factor has two highly correlated facets – the need for self-reflection and engagement in self-reflection (Grant et al., 2002). The insight factor had eight items that assess the clarity of experience and self-knowledge; examples include I usually know why I feel the way I do, and I’m usually aware of my thoughts. Tutors evaluated themselves on these items on a 7-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). This scale allowed me to determine if tutors were engaging in self-reflection, whether they saw a need for self-reflection and their insights. The scoring process was simple, summed scores were used and there was no scaling or scale transformation required other than basic reverse scoring of four of the twenty items. Interviews, Observations, Tutors’ Online Self-Reports Qualitative data included interviews, observations, and other documents, such as tutors’ online self-reports, which the Federal Work Study program required, and coordinator notes from observations of the tutors. These sources of qualitative data showed tutors’ engagement in their self-reflection. Analysis included a cross-case comparison of themes among the tutors. Interviews. All AR tutors were interviewed individually at the beginning of the study before the intervention training. The initial interview sessions were about thirty minutes. One purpose of the initial interview (Appendix H) was to gather more nuanced background information about each tutor that went beyond basic information gathered in the demographic survey they completed. Interviews were carried out to clarify tutors’ perspectives about the training, their choices of activities, whether imposed by the classroom teacher or otherwise that they used with the students, and their perspectives on self-reflection (Bogdan & Bilken, 2007). Besides, the interviews provided an opportunity for me to ask questions about the tutors’ educational background and training related to tutoring/teacher, and to understand how this might influence the instructional work that goes on between a tutor and a tutee. It helped me understand the tutors' relationship with their respective tutees, as well as the tutoring environments. Three additional interview times were carried out with three selected case study participants to gather more in-depth information during the rest of the academic year. These subsequent in-depth interview sessions did not last more than half an hour. Follow-up interviews post-intervention (Appendix H) additionally provided additional information about the tutors’ self-reflection journeys (e.g., how they construct meaning from their self-reflection, the level of self-efficacy they feel in carrying out self-reflection). The questions also facilitated the tutors' awareness and understanding of their self-reflection. I began each interview with open-ended questions to allow tutors' ideas to guide the questioning process. For example, I started with questions such as, How do you feel about your tutoring experience? That allowed the tutor to respond according to his or her situation. A tutor might decide to take the approach of focusing on the program and a specific strategy he or she has found useful. Another tutor might take a different approach to the open-ended question and talk about how he or she felt in terms of working with his or her respective classroom teacher. The open-ended questions allowed tutors to have a say on where they wanted the conversation to go. Other specific questions such as Are you enjoying the AR program opportunities? or What kinds of things about the program stand out in your mind? helped get tutors to think of other areas they may not have considered previously. The four post-intervention interviews allowed me to gauge better and read the tutors' actual expressions/body language. The interview was audio-recorded and transcribed to ensure an accurate account of the conversations and avoid losing data since not everything could be written down during the interview. An interview protocol (Appendix I) was used before the actual interview so that the tutors had a clear idea of the interview session and the expectations of the session. Interview protocols are a set of questions, and also a procedural guide for directing me through the interview process (Jacob & Ferguson, 2012). When conducting the interviews, I used an interview protocol based on Taylor and Bogdan’s (1984) recommendation that include (a) conveying clearly the motives and intentions of the interview and the inquiry purpose, (b) discussing the protection of confidentiality, (c) explaining that tutors having final say over the data content, (d) presenting incentives involved in the study, and (d) describing logistics of the various interview sessions in the future. Also, the participants received the interview questions before the scheduled meeting and were informed that the interview would be tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Respondents had an opportunity to review and, if necessary, correct the contents of the interview after it was transcribed. Finally, the protocol and interview questions were pilot tested on three tutors from the same target population but not included in the study. A follow-up with the tutors was conducted to obtain information on the clarity of the interview questions and their relevance to the study aim. Observations of Tutoring Sessions. In addition to the audio recordings, I documented the tutoring session through field observations. Approximately four times in the academic year, I conducted field observations of the five case study participants. I recorded my observations on an observation sheet that was similar to what the AR coordinator used for her observations (Appendix J). I analyzed the observation notes to get a complete picture of the tutoring context. A framework protocol for my observations is shown in Appendix K. The AR program coordinator’s notes and my tutor training observations notes were used to complement the data from the sources mentioned above. Tutors’ Online Self-reports. The tutors’ online self-reports were used to add richness to the data collected. The tutors’ online self-reports allowed me to gather more information about their tutoring sessions and analyze how their self-reflection connected to their tutoring. The online self-reports were useful tools in gathering data on the tutor’s journeys of self-reflection. The self-reports often contained information or issues they were struggling with within their tutoring sessions, which provided further insight into supporting these tutors in how they self-reflected. It was helpful that the online self-reports were part of the Federal Work Study program requirements and did not require additional work from the tutors. Data Analysis In this study, the instrumental multiple cases (Stake, 1995) served the purpose of “illuminating a particular issue” (Creswell, 2002, p. 485), by describing how AR tutors engage in and their thoughts about self-reflection. Data collection and analysis proceeded simultaneously (Merriam, 1998). Data obtained through the interviews and documents (e.g., online self-reports and observation notes) was coded and analyzed using the app, Dedoose. Coding process Thematic analysis of qualitative data involved sorting, coding, and searching of the data for themes and patterns of response and behavior as a way of identifying findings and assertions. It was essential for me to become familiar with the data and immerse myself in the data so that I could develop code and themes (Rallis & Rossman, 2003). To assure the credibility of the data, I addressed the five standards that Miles and Huberman (1994) explicate. First, I made the coding process explicit as I proceeded through the research process, transcribing and analyzing data as quickly as possible and retaining a record of this process so that others might utilize similar procedures in subsequent studies of discussions of case studies. After each analysis I made my assumptions explicit in my field journal and assessed how they influenced my analyses. Second, I compared my observations to other sources of information, summarizing tentative findings and shared this information with tutors for member-checking purposes. The third was to ensure rigorous documentation of my approach by compiling a codebook for better consistency, the presentation of my research participants, data-gathering, and data analysis process by documenting every action taken and being meticulous with notes, and transcribing audio recordings. Fourth, I kept my coding and analysis closely tied to my theoretical schema for the study. Finally, to ensure credibility of the data, I tried to present my findings in a way that the reader would recognize the phenomenon described in this study, understand its significance, and how the finding would influence future research. Transcripts of the interviews, in addition to my notes, online reports, and coordinator notes were analyzed to uncover overall themes to how AR tutors engage in self-reflection. Categories were named by attempting to give the most descriptive label possible to similar kinds of data. Based on this constant comparative (Boeije, 2002; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) method of data analysis, I noted down emerging findings and discussed them so that a clearer picture of what the tutors were doing and how the tutoring context was related to their self-reflection could emerge. In summary, the steps in qualitative analysis included: (a) preliminary exploration of the data by reading through the transcripts and writing memos; (b) coding the data by segmenting and labeling the text; (c) using codes to develop themes by aggregating similar codes together; (d) connecting and interrelating themes; and (e) constructing a narrative (Creswell, 2002). Data analysis involved developing a detailed description of each of the three case study participants. During the analysis, I situated the case within its context, so the case description and themes were related to the specific activities and situations involved in the case (Creswell & Maitta, 2002). This analysis is rich in the context or setting in which the case presents itself (Merriam, 1998). Based on this analysis, I provided a detailed narration of the case, using either an elaborate perspective about some incidents, chronology, or major events followed by an up-close description. The analysis was performed at two levels: within each case and across the cases (Stake, 1995). Analysis of this data can be a holistic analysis of the entire case or an embedded analysis of a specific aspect of the cases (Yin, 1989). In this study, first, each case of the selected tutors was analyzed for themes. Then, all the cases were analyzed for themes that were either common or different. That showed the extent to which any factors had similar or different effects on the study participants as related to the tutors’ self-reflection. In the final phase, I interpreted the meaning of the cases and reported the “lessons learned” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Establishing Credibility Some researchers have criticized case studies stating that they lack scientific rigor and reliability, and they do not address the issues of generalizability (Johnson, 1984). However, the criteria for judging qualitative and quantitative research are different. In qualitative studies, the researcher seeks believability, based on coherence, insight, and instrumental utility (Eisner, 1991) and trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) through a process of verification rather than through traditional validity and reliability measures. To determine the credibility of the information and whether it matches reality (Merriam, 1988), four primary techniques will be used: (1) triangulation, which is to converge the different sources of information such as interviews, documents, and other artifacts); (2) member checking by getting feedback from the tutors on the accuracy of the identified categories and themes; (3) providing rich, thick description to convey the findings; and (4) external auditing of asking a person outside the project to conduct a thorough review of the study and report back (Clark, Miller, Creswell, McVea, McEntarffer, Harter& Mickelson, 2002; Creswell, 2002). Furthermore, thick description facilitated by systematic documentation of research procedures, activities, decisions, and steps in the process of data collection, analysis and interpretation (Nastasi & Schensul, 2005). I explicated procedures as an ongoing process in order to accurately depict the research process post hoc. Triangulation Triangulation was accomplished through the use of multiple data sources. Specifically, I looked within and across transcriptions of the interviews, observation notes, coordinator notes, and tutors’ online self-reports to understand the phenomenon of self-reflection and to validate findings. Member Checking Tutors received summaries of their interviews and read for the accuracy of content and interpretation. In analyzing interview notes and other documentation, similar member checks were carried out to ensure that the interpretations made were in line with the tutors’ thoughts and opinions. It also provided the tutors with an opportunity to clarify or even volunteer additional information. Thick Descriptions Thick descriptions made from the interviews and other sources of qualitative data can provide the case studies with enough detail to enable others to evaluate the extent of the conclusions made from the study and whether it could be even transferable to other similar settings, context, and individuals. This technique that provides detailed descriptions and interpretations of situations observed by me helps to provide clarity and context to the observations and interpretations that I make. The thick descriptions provide insights based on my knowledge and understanding of the tutors, and the contexts they are in. External Audits With the rigorous documentation of the data collected from this study, it is possible to engage an individual not related to this study to look at the credibility of this study from a methodological standpoint through the review of data, the analysis made, and the interpretations carried out. A clear research process that is documented rigorously can help this effort. In this study, I recruited a work colleague who had no knowledge of this area of study and a professor in a literacy field but with limited background of self-reflection. Each of them looked over the information about a third into the study period. That helped me refine my observation notes when clarity was needed and provided guidance when interviewing the case study participants. At the end of the study, initial reports from interviews and self-reports were provided to the professor, which provided me feedback as to what areas I needed to clarify with the case study participants. Research Permission and Ethical Considerations Ethical issues are addressed at each phase in the study. In compliance with the regulations of the Institutional Review Board (IRB), the permission for conducting the research was obtained. The Request for Review Form was filed, providing information about the principal investigator, the project title and type, source of funding, type of review requested, number and type of subjects. The application for research permission contained the description of the project and its significance, methods, and procedures, participants, and research status. This project was accorded an expedited-middle status, since the interviews with the participants were audio-recorded, was conducted in a normal social setting, and its topic did not fall in the sensitive category. Furthermore, the subject population was over nineteen. An informed consent form (Appendix A), mentioned previously, was developed. The form stated that the participants were guaranteed certain rights, agreed to be involved in the study, and acknowledged that their rights were protected. Participants were assigned a numerical code for the questionnaire to ensure anonymity and confidentiality. While conducting the individual interviews with the selected respondents, they were assigned pseudonym names for use in their description and reporting the results. All study data, including the electronic survey files, interview tapes, and transcripts, were kept in locked metal file cabinets in the researcher’s office and will be destroyed after a reasonable period, which is five years as recommended by the Institutional Review Board. Participants understood that summary data would be disseminated to the professional community, but in no way would it be possible to trace responses to individuals. Summary of Chapter 3 This chapter provided information about the research design and methods. I described the participants and how the study was carried out, as well as what types of data collected and how they were analyzed. I also discussed measures taken to establish credibility and explained how the study adhered to ethical research requirements. Chapter 4: Findings In this chapter, I provide the background of the specific America Reads program associated with this study, briefly re-introduce the purpose of this study, the data collected, and the ALACT self-reflection model used in the training of the tutors. I also provide information about the recruitment process of the tutors by describing the tutors and the findings from this study. Context The America Reads (AR) program at a major university in the Midwest portion of the United States is open to undergraduate or graduate students who are eligible for and have accepted, Federal Work Study at the institution. Prospective tutors had to qualify for Federal Work Study, have personal transportation to and from schools, be willing to work at least 5 hours a week, be available for bi-weekly meetings, and complete two one-hour training seminars regarding reading and writing development. A faculty member supervised the program with the help of a graduate student coordinator. They both conducted 30-minute phone interviews with interview prospective tutors, and provided training and orientation sessions to the tutors selected for the AR program. The number of tutors who were able to participate varied from semester to semester due to personal and academic time commitments, changes in guidelines and other legal requirements required by the Federal Work Study program. The tutors also attended required update meetings for an hour every two weeks. That allowed tutors to participate in ongoing content training, discuss their tutoring experiences, offer encouragement, ask for guidance from the supervisor, coordinator, and their peers, as well as be filled in on any changes to calendared activities. The faculty advisor and program coordinator also carried out specific training activities related to literacy, as well as sessions on addressing the diverse students the tutors would potentially meet in the classroom. Occasionally, guest speakers offered added information that might be helpful to the tutors; for example, activities on using picture books in the classroom. The supervisor and coordinators also carried out consistent observations of the tutors in their respective tutoring classrooms. The objective of the observations was to provide helpful feedback on what the tutors did well, what they could improve on, and check-in with the tutors what their future goals are. Observation sessions were recorded using an informal-type observation form based on the Cognitive Coaching work of Costa and Garmston (1992). The form was available to mentor teachers (in the schools) and university instructors to use as part of the literacy methods undergraduate courses. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the present study was to explore how America Reads tutors engage in self-reflection. I used the following guiding questions to answer the research question, “How do America Reads tutors engage in self-reflection?” 1. What do tutors reflect on? 2. When and how do tutors self-reflect? 3. What do tutors learn from their self-reflection? Data Collection In Phase I, I used a survey to gather quantitative data to get a better picture of the tutors’ backgrounds. The survey was given at the start of the study and at the end of the study. The tutors also completed a self-reflection inventory, which provided information on themselves and what they felt about self-reflection. This allowed me to identify potential tutors to ask to participate in the case studies. Due to the limited number of initial pool of tutors, I ended up asking everyone. In Phase II, the tutors who agreed to participate, completed the inventory at the start and end of the study. I also collected qualitative data (i.e., interviews, observations, and self-reports) to understand of how tutors engaged in self-reflection. I interviewed the tutors before the start of the study and again at the end of the study. I observed the tutors in their respective classroom multiple times during the study period, and tutors provided me with their self-reports. They also received training on self-reflection. Data were analyzed using a constant comparative approach and triangulation to identify common themes. Findings are presented, followed by three case studies of three tutors. I was cautious and mindful about making assumptions based on data, especially since I was looking at the data inductively. I tried to transcribe the interviews as quickly as possible so that I could share them with the tutors. The quick turnaround of transcribing was to ensure that the information was as accurate as possible and added credibility and trustworthiness to my study. ALACT Self-reflection Model The self-reflection training that I provided was based on Korthagen’s (1985) ALACT model of self-reflection. The ALACT model, which aims at structuring reflection, is named after the first letters of the five phases: Action, Looking back at the action, Awareness of essential aspects, Creating alternative methods of action, and Trial. The use of a structured process such as the ALACT model to reflect on teaching practices may help tutors to reach insights into self and practice and support the implementation of positive changes in their instructional practice. Like teachers, tutors need to be reflective practitioners too, who can analyze a situation, set goals, plan and monitor actions, and evaluate results through their professional thinking. While technical knowledge of teaching strategies is essential, it may not be enough. Self-reflection may allow tutors to develop a more precise language to clarify their thinking and possibly provide more effective instructional support to their tutees. Recruitment of Tutors In the Fall of 2016, 12 tutors agreed to participate in the study; however, the retention rate was low. Scheduling was a challenging aspect; I was only able to collect a limited amount of data in the first quarter of the study. For example, appointments were set up for interviews and classroom observations, but many tutors postponed or canceled those appointments for various reasons, such as field trips or testing, or no reasons provided. Further, some tutors did not respond to emails, texts, or calls for appointments. A reason could be that the tutors were hesitant to back out of the study and inform me about it. In the end, I extended my data collection period so that I could recruit more tutors and retrain these new tutors in the new school year. However, in the Spring of 2017, complications arose with Human Resource issues at the university, and there were major delays in enrolling students in the system to become officially appointed AR tutors. That delayed my recruitment process. After the university sent out official appointment letters, I was able to recruit and provide training for all tutors. At this point, there were a total of six tutors, who agreed to participate in the study. Unfortunately, attrition was high due to various reasons such as one tutor was graduating at the end of the year and, one transferred out of state. In the end, I had three tutors and, of these tutors, two were tutoring kindergarten children, which did not provide as much information as I would have liked. Consequently, I opted to recruit more tutors in the upper elementary grades, and one more tutor joined the study at the end of Fall 2017. I was not able to gather as much information from this new tutor as I was only able to schedule the pre-interview, training, and observations much later in the Spring of 2018. So, by the end of the data collection period, I had three tutors for the case studies. Two tutors worked with kindergarten students, one tutor in 4th grade. Participants Three tutors participated in this study, Vicky, Kelly, and Rita. Surveys and Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (SRIS) Findings Simple descriptive analysis was carried from the survey and SRIS data. That provided me with information on the tutors’ experience with tutoring. Two tutors agreed that they were very knowledgeable (5 on a Likert scale) about tutoring and that they had a love for it. All of them had an average knowledge (3 on a Likert scale) of giving clear explanations, offering immediate feedback, building a strong rapport with their students. All of the tutors were not very confident (2 on the Likert scale) about helping students verbalize steps in problem solving, facilitating the use of learning strategies, breaking down problem areas into small segments, having students work independently and managing behaviors related issues. When asked to indicate their willingness to try new teaching and learning methods, and demonstrating a supportive, non-judgmental and patient attitude towards the students, every tutor agreed that they were very keen on that (5 on a Likert scale). In general, the tutors were quite confident about their tutoring experiences. Data from the SRIS provided information on the tutors’ self-reflection. Everyone agreed that they usually self-reflected only on a surface level and often self-reflected only when something had gone wrong. They all agreed that even though they self-reflected, it was often confusing to them and that they did not really think about how they were feeling about the situation they were self-reflecting on. Related to that, the tutors all disagreed that they usually knew why they were feeling a certain way. One tutor indicated that self-reflection was very important to her due to her college major. She often examined why she acted in a certain way. The SRIS data indicated that tutors were self-reflective but were not very good at it. Case Studies Findings Vicky Background. Vicky was a psychology major with a minor in pre-nursing. She was in her second year in college and she enjoyed working with children. She had one semester of tutoring experience with the America Reads (AR) program and worked mostly with kindergartener students helping them with letter sounds and sight words activities. Before joining this study, Vicky had about three months of experience being an AR tutor. She helped the class teacher with reading and writing activities. Since she had several years of experience as a summer camp counselor, she joined the AR program because she believed that she would enjoy working with children and helping those in need. She was especially keen to help students who were easily distracted or “whose heads are in the clouds” (personal survey, October 12, 2017). The only that training she had received related to tutoring is what the AR program has offered, as well as her training she received to be a camp counselor during the summer holidays. Based on the pre-training survey about Vicky’s general tutoring experience, Vicky considered herself to be reasonably knowledgeable about helping students gain self-confidence and developing a strong rapport with them. She was also confident about providing immediate feedback, providing positive self-reinforcement, and helping students problem solve. However, Vicky was less sure about providing clear explanations and facilitating the use of learning strategies. She was also a little hesitant about identifying a student’s problems and breaking down the problems into smaller segments. During this study, Vicky was placed in a kindergarten classroom of twenty-two students. In addition to the classroom teacher, there was often a paraprofessional, who supported a student with special needs. Vicky hoped that developing a strong rapport with the students would help her in her tutoring role. She knew that using positive reinforcement and demonstrating a supportive and non-judgmental attitude could help her better tutor students. She was a little hesitant about her ability to use literacy strategies, give clear explanations, or help students to verbalize steps in problem-solving. Vicky worked mostly with small groups of students. These groups could change from day to day, depending on their seating assignments from the classroom teacher. Vicky’s work with the students was mostly managerial, just making sure that the students were on task and someone whom they could go to if they were struggling with any of the activities assigned to them. If any tutoring per se was involved, it included activities associated with sight words and reading words by identifying and sounding out the words. Vicky sometimes helped students read sight words from little sight-reading booklets that the teacher had made for the class. She would sit beside them, encourage them to point to the words as they read aloud. If any student found a word challenging to read, Vicky would help them with that. However, the students she did these activities were always changing depending on who the teacher assigned to the small group, which as often based on students’ current need Vicky’s Self-Reflection. Vicky indicated that she did think about her thoughts and frequently took time to reflect on them. However, she really did not self-reflect more than general thoughts about an event (Self-reflection inventory, October 17, 2017). She indicated an interest in analyzing her behavior or actions and trying to understand what her feeling meant during her own self-reflection. To her, evaluating the things she did was important. Vicki usually did most of her self-reflection “in her head” (Interview, November 22, 2017). For example, she indicated that she usually self-reflected on her college classes and issues with friends. She compared self-reflection to one of her classes she was taking that semester. It was about being mindful or “being present in the moment.” So, she tried to reflect more and think about “this is how I feel, this is what’s going on, this is what I’m thinking about” (Interview, November 22, 2017). She gave examples of how she is often “flooded with roommate problems, homework and landlord” or when she was “out to dinner with [her] boyfriend’s parents” so that it was helpful to take time back and “think about all that.” Thus, Vicky seems to be self-reflective in her personal life. Vicky also indicated she was comfortable self-reflecting on her work and did so after her tutoring sessions by taking down quick notes and thinking about what she had done in class when she drove home (Interview, November 22, 2017). However, she didn’t reflect on students that often. When asked about the reasons why she did not reflect as much about her students, she talked about there being so many students and so many things going on and that there was no time to ask, “What’s going on?’ She also mentioned that she found it challenging to “not reflect about the same things each time” (Survey, October 12, 2017). She explained that due to time constraints, at least where tutoring was concerned, she only self-reflected so that she could compete the self-report required by the Federal Work Study Program. Nonetheless, Vicky was keen to receive the self-reflection training if only to get a better idea “how to do it right” (Interview, November 22, 2017). Vicky also described her concern to do it right in her personal survey (October 12, 2017) of her belief that a tutor needed to have a structure in terms of what was expected of her (Interview, November 22, 2017). Vicky liked structure so that she could work towards what needed to be done and make sure the session was beneficial to her work with her students. It indicated that Vicky would appreciate having the structure of the ALACT model of self-reflection when she self-reflected. As much as she preferred structure, Vicky was animated when talking about how it was also important for a tutor like herself to be adaptable. In the interview prior to training, she talked about how important it was to be adaptable that sometimes “we just gotta go with the flow” (November 22, 2017). After the training, Vicky’s first reaction was, “that is a lot of work!” (Post-training feedback, November 29, 2017). However, she was excited to try engaging in self-reflection in which she would have specific areas to focus on. She was cautious and talked about being realistic. She said she “might not have as much time” as she would like to work at self-reflection (post-training feedback, November 29, 2017). I reminded her that this study was not about “right or wrong” but her personal journey as an AR tutor engaging in self-reflection. I asked Vicky what some personal self-reflection goals she had for herself. She anticipated self-reflecting on how she was doing when tutoring, and that she would concentrate mostly on academic matters of her students and development. She was conscious of using ALACT to guide her future self-reflection. Vicky did not need to engage in as much self-reflection of academic matters as she initially thought she might need to do. It was probably because her students were in kindergarten, and while academics was part of the school, there were other important aspects of kindergarten. For example, from my observation of Vicky in the classroom, story-time was important because it allowed students to participate directly by asking and answering questions. The read-aloud session at story time was an important tool the classroom teacher used, but Vicky was not involved with that directly. Students also worked at stations to strengthen their fine motor skills and coordination, and work on social skills as they interacted with peers in small groups. Most of the work Vicky did as a tutor was to manage behaviors, make sure students were on-task, and help the students organize their work. That said, students worked on letter-sounds correspondences, writing letters, word spacing, simple sentence construction, and reading sight words. Also, there was a lot of repetition to reinforce learning. In these areas, Vicky typically worked with students in small group settings. When self-reflecting, Vicky knew that when working with her students in these literacy activities, she was not teaching them per se but “guiding, reinforcing and reminding” them of what their classroom teacher had taught (Interview, November 22, 2017). In her self-reflection, Vicky realized that she needed to be more aware of how to help students “make connections” between what they were doing during the small group activity and what literacy content they were supposed to be learning (Self-report, April 20, 2017). Vicky initially went with her “gut” on how to help students make the connections but realized that her knowledge was limited. That was an ideal situation where she was able to use the ALACT in her self-reflection and test out new ideas for reinforcing her students’ learning. For example, when Vicky worked with the students on new sight words, she asked them to “read or spell them” with her. In her self-reflection, she thought how helpful it was for her to think about the way “these words were used and the ways to work on them.” The next time she did sight words with them, she presented it with the usual sounding of the words, spelling them and then asking them to “give examples” when they would use the sight words. She also began to remind them to “look on the back wall for the words” if they came across similar sight words (Self-report, November 16, 2017; Classroom observation, October 12, 2018). She found that students were more “enthusiastic” about re-using the sight words and were able to spell much better. Beside self-reflecting on the “usual problems” (Self report, February 27, 2018), one challenge that Vicky initially had when self-reflecting was the feeling that “there was so much going on at all times” and there was not enough time to address every aspect of teaching (Classroom observation, November 3, 2017). Consequently, self-reflection for her “felt superficial.” She also found it challenging to know when to “draw the line” between helping students and encouraging them to be more independent. Vicky was frustrated when students showed disrespect. Many times, Vicky was not sure whether the students were intentional in their disrespect, acting out due to their own frustration, having difficulties due to their limited English language proficiency, or simply ignoring student expectations (Classroom observation, November 3, 2017). After one observation, Vicky, her classroom teacher, and I discussed how she could better help students. When it came to students’ behavior, she was advised to take a more “authoritative role.” The classroom teacher assured her that she was the adult in the classroom too and when a student said “Mr. X (classroom teacher) didn’t say we had to (do this)” she could step up in being firm about her role. Vicky in her self-reflection thought about how conflicted she felt between wanting to have a positive relationship with the students and still be “the boss.” Vicky tried a new approach by informing the misbehaving a student that she was the “teacher in this learning station, and if I say you have to write your name on the worksheet, please do so.” While the student was not happy, she complied. Vicky thinks that it might be the student “testing her.” She also recalled that in one of the America Reads update meetings, she was able to share with other tutors and the coordinator and supervisor about how to address misbehavior. She recalled something that stuck in her mind about how “silence going a long way.” Vicky started using more directed silence at specific students throughout the semester, and I was able to observe her doing that often in the classroom. I was impressed with one incident when she informed a student, “I have a lot of students to help in this station, so if you are not ready to work then I am going to have to move on to someone else who needs help.” When asked about why and how she came up with that approach, Vicky mentioned that in her self-reflection she noticed that the “behavioral students sometimes act up more” when she was directly working with them because they probably “liked the attention and the more they act out, the more I will have to ask them to stop.” These examples show how Vicky was starting to consolidate the lessons she was learning from her self-reflection. I also noticed that instead of immediately offering a comment or helping a student struggling with an activity, Vicky was becoming more adept at “pausing” and analyzing the situation before commenting or helping a student. Vicky was taking time to observe, wait, and make an informed decision. Also, I noticed that students were beginning to solve their own problems and with that, becoming more confident learners. I asked Vicky whether she noticed this change with the students. She paused and thought about it but mentioned that she was self-reflecting on all the isolated incidents that she has not taken the time to “self-reflect on the bigger picture” (Classroom observation, October 17, 2017). Vicky was setting boundaries and not helping every student who said, “I don’t know how to do this.” Instead, she was helping students figure out how to do tasks for themselves by walking them through steps to achieve a particular objective. For example, in an activity where students had to match a word with a picture, Vicky first made sure that her students were able to identify the pictures, and then she showed them how to sound out a word; soon, students were able to do it for themselves. Constant encouragement was needed for these students to understand how well they were doing and to motivate them to “keep going” on their own (Classroom observation, February 12, 2018). Towards the end of the study, Vicky self-reported that she was still self-reflecting about the same amount of time but was more “careful with her self-reflections” (Personal interview, May 18, 2018). She noticed that because of her participation in the study, she was self-reflecting more often about her classroom experiences. She explained that she was more purposeful and conscious about the various parts of her self-reflection as a whole. She spent a lot of time on the Action, Looking back at the action, Awareness of essential aspects of the ALACT parts. She mentioned that having something tangible to self-reflect on allowed her to be specific with what she was thinking. She had no problems with identifying specific actions or events that took place during her tutoring sessions. She was able to look back at her notes and think about those actions she had identified and learn to be aware of the student whose action she was self-reflecting. She knew the student and the things that were going on with the student and was able to have a proper context of the action. For example, there was student who had frequent “melt-downs” when someone walked or stepped into his square (seating area). Vicky knew the history of the student and was aware of the “triggers” that would set him off. Using the ALACT model, she created alternative methods of action and tried it out. In this case, she thought about reassigning seating areas to eliminate the “triggers.” Vicky discussed her idea with the classroom teacher, received his approval, and tried the new approach. After a few trials with various placement options, the student’s outbursts reduced. The times when outbursts occurred were when he initiated contact with other students and had not “keep his hands to himself.” Vicky was pleased when “trying out” ideas brought her some measure of success (Interview, May 18, 2018). Vicky mentioned that her self-reflection was mostly about the “usual problems” of students misbehaving and going off-task (Self-report, February 27, 2018). I reminded Vicky that self-reflection is not just about negative behaviors or events that had not gone well, but it is about all aspects of teaching, including positive behaviors and events. There is so much that can be learned by also reflecting on what works well. Reflecting on the reasons why things went well is just as important as reflecting on why things didn’t go well. Every tutor can be equipped with tools that can help them in the future. Often this is achieved through experience. Self-reflecting on good things is an effective way of figuring out what works, under what circumstances, and whether that can be replicated in the future. Vicky thought this to be a new way of looking at tutoring as she most often only thought about situations that went poorly or what could be improved. The ALACT model of self-reflection allows for an individual to self-reflect on how something went well, how it could be re-used with the same student or another student in a similar situation and so forth. A month later, when I observed Vicky again in her classroom, I asked her what she was happy about thus far in the school year and whether she had self-reflected on that. Vicky talked about her success with students when she carried out picture-word matching activities with her small group of students. She talked about helping students “figure out that the letter “g” sometimes has different sounds, like in “green” and “gem.” In her reflection, Vicky noticed that she always helped the students figure out those letters by telling them. After self-reflecting, she encouraged them to determine the sound the letter “g” represented by looking at the pictures and saying their names out loud. After asking them to pay attention to the “g” sound when they identified and said the pictures aloud, she asked them to repeat the words and go back to the letter “g.” When they come across the picture with a different “g” sound (soft g) or a picture they were not familiar with (e.g., gem), she would say the word and ask them to pay attention to how the “g” sounded. Vicky asked them to repeat after her and again, to pay attention to the “g” sound. She had one student identify a hard “g” sound and another the soft “g” sound and sound them side by side. The other letter she has tried in the same way is for the letter “O” (Classroom observation, March 27, 2018.) Another area that Vicky self-reflected on was in improving her interactions with her students. A lot of her self-reflection was on how she could work better with them, and that involved being more “interactable” with her young students (Self-report, January 12, 2018). She believed that she was “simplifying” herself too much to “get to their level” but upon self-reflection, she realized that she did not have to do that. She explained that in simplifying her talk she was almost “treating them like babies and toddlers” when they were not (Self-report, January 12, 2018). It took some practice, but she was able to reach a balance and have more appropriate conversations with them. That was a good example of self-reflection on her actions. Vicky self-reflected on a specific situation, she asked herself what she thought about it, what she felt about it, what she found strange about it, what she was uncomfortable with it. She was able to see how she talked to her students and how it could be better. She was able to self-reflect and ask herself why she was doing that and became more self-aware of herself. Her kindergarteners “were not babies” and she could change the way she interacted with them and the language she used with them to further improve her interactions with them. She made a conscious decision to be aware of how she talked to them, and there was a significant change in how she interacted with them. “Those kids know” was one of her comments indicating that she could feel the difference of how her conversations with them became much richer by just how she changed her language and approach of interaction with them (Self-report, January 12, 2018). Without engaging in such self-reflection, it may not have been possible for Vicky to step back and see herself in action. In her self-reflection, Vicky thought that she would have appreciated more literacy strategies before entering the classroom. She believed that it would have helped her self-reflection more as she would “better know what to do and try out with them [her students]” (Vicky, observation discussions, March 27, 2018). With such young students, she had trouble “getting into the groove” of literacy activities. In her self-reflection, she mostly “went with her guts” initially, but as the frequency of observations increased, she was happy to “receive feedback” on her actions, possible actions, and past actions through her self-reflection (Interview, May 18, 2018). Her self-reflection helped her think about observing her classroom teacher too. For example, during story time, when asked after the lesson about anything she could have done better, she talked about how she “wouldn’t have given the kids so many clues” and “let them think” as she believed that often students just needed more “waiting time to get things going.” However, she realized that there wasn’t enough time in the school day to wait because students had other work to do (Classroom observation, February 12, 2018). Consciously thinking about the session, helped her self-reflect better and see what were and were not good instructional practices. At the beginning of the study, Vicky set general goals for herself as a tutor and in her self-reflection, and she hoped that self-reflection would help her become a better tutor. She faced various challenges concerning her students in terms of her interactions with them and her literacy responsibilities with her students. Vicky was quite accurate about what she believed to be the characteristics of a good tutor. However, she also discovered new characteristics or skills that she found herself applying in her sessions and was able to develop those. For example, she talked about “letting go” as a tutor and simply letting her students “discover for themselves” and that often students would have “aha moments” if she was just willing to “wait” and “not wanting to be in control all the time” (Interview, May 18, 2018). Self-reflection allowed Vicky to make better connections with her students and adapt to the situations in the classrooms as they happen. It also made her more alert to the things that happened in the classroom, and she was able to make quicker and more informed decisions when needed. Kelly Background. Kelly was an anthropology major and had no experience or training in tutoring before joining the America Reads program. She was in her first year of college and joined the program because she enjoyed working with children and had worked with similar age groups as a camp counselor. Her experience as a camp counselor made tutoring seem like a “good fit” (Survey, August 18, 2017). She had no preference for what grade she tutored in. She also mentioned that she wanted to help students to “learn things” and “figure out” the things that they have learned (Interview, October 24, 2017). To her, that meant that students would be able to “learn skills that help them work out” problems on their own. Adding to this, Kelly mentioned that is was important to have students do work independently and that she was willing to learn and try new teaching and learning strategies to help them do so. She was keen to get guidance on how to do this. Kelly indicated in her survey that she would like to be able to ask better “open-ended questions.” Probing further on what she meant, she said that asking the “right questions” could help her “guide” her students through their learning, but she “was not sure how that would look like if she had younger kiddos.” One of the strengths she reported about herself in the survey was that she was “patient and flexible” and that “when one idea [was] not working, use another” (Survey, August 18, 2017). Kelly was placed in a kindergarten class, and although she generally worked in small groups with students on various literacy activities, she was able to work more specifically with one or two international students, who no knowledge of the English language. Besides assisting students with task-oriented activities such as cutting, organizing, and drawing, she helped them learn classroom “rules” and explained literacy activities as she had some basic knowledge of Arabic, which was helpful with one of the students. She also “read with them” one-on-one, and they read to her too on random books they picked up from the classroom library during “free time.” Kelly’s Self-reflection. When gathering background information, Kelly indicated in her August 18, 2017 survey, that she was not familiar with structured self-reflection, tending to self-reflect “on the fly” and usually about how her day went and nothing beyond that. From the same survey, she added that she anticipated self-reflecting about “how the students interact with lessons and other things.” On what she did with her self-reflection, Kelly explained that she would “keep them in her mind for the next time [she] entered the classroom.” She was not able to explain further what she would do with her self-reflection when she did enter the classroom. One self-reflection challenge Kelly reported in her survey was on “finding what to reflect on.” In the same survey, Kelly agreed that it was important to evaluate the things she did and knowing why she felt a certain way. Although in her survey she mentioned doing her self-reflection “on the fly,” Kelly strongly agreed that she could “do better” and hoped that the self-reflection training would “put her on the right path.” I reminded her that the training would provide a clearer framework and the “prompts” she said she would like to have so that she could have more “purpose when self-reflecting.” The self-reflection inventory that Kelly completed on August 18, 2017, supported her thoughts about self-reflection in her survey. She agreed that she did not often think about her thoughts, and if she did, she was sometimes confused about what to reflect on. In her interview responses Kelly talked about “wanting to know the reason why” something happens, and in my classroom observation of her, I noticed that she similarly wanted to help her students by explaining “the reason why” to them (October 24, 2017). I asked her whether she noticed that, and she said: “It made sense to me.” She explained that that was how she thought about things when she did not understand them, and she wanted to help the students in the same way by explaining the reason why certain things happen. She was not sure about how effective it was, and I mentioned that she should self-reflect on that. When asked how she was doing in not explaining so much to the student and allowing the student to be more independent, Kelly mentioned that she noticed the students “zoning out” when she explained the reasons why. That indicated that she had self-reflected when she mentioned that she thinks “[my students] are too young” and they didn’t “really care” about her explanation. The self-reflection training seemed to have helped her think about her work as she decided to instead help them by “keeping it simple” (Observation notes, January 14, 2018). For example, when a student was trying to figure out a character for a diorama scene, instead of explaining the pros and cons of each character and the logic of how the characters should be positioned, Kelly decided to tell them to place only two characters in a particular scene, one in another and all of them in another scene. She noticed that the students “didn’t need to know why,” they seemed happy just following her instructions, and the dioramas turned out well. Due to the age of her students, “the amount of explanation I wanted to give was not needed.” When asked about another example of how her self-reflection helped her, Kelly talked about how she would again like to explain things but that “showing them” worked better. When she was asked to by her student to draw something for her, Kelly used just to comply as it was “easier” (Observation notes, January 14, 2018). However, after a few months of self-reflection and thinking about how much she was helping her students, she realized that just as she had to work hard on her self-reflection, her students needed to “work hard at learning” too. She began to consciously move away from doing things for her students when they asked her. An example of this was when a student asked Kelly to draw a star; she drew it on a separate piece of paper and then asked her student to copy her movements to make her own star. Though “blotchy,” the student was quite pleased with being able to draw the star on her own. In an interview, Kelly mentioned wanting to “resolve conflicts” (October 24, 2017). On further questioning, she explained that she does not like having conflicting thoughts in her mind. Kelly demonstrated the tendency to avoid conflict when reflecting about the events in her tutoring. She approached a “conflict” or challenge in the same way by trying to “resolve” them. For example, in her communication with a Middle eastern student, Kelly noticed the student was not interested in classroom activities. Kelly had some basic Arabic knowledge, so she attempted to reach out to the student using the common language. That was helpful to some extent and Kelly reflected that Arabic created a “common bond” between her and her student, allowing for more open interactions. Kelly was able to “resolve” the conflict of a non-engaged student by using what she refers to as her “language ability.” I observed too that the improved relationship between Kelly and the student made it possible for both of them to read together (Observation notes, January 14, 2018). Another incident where Kelly thought she needed to resolve a conflict was when the same student refused to choose any book in the classroom library to read during free time. This student preferred to loiter around and distract the other students working at their various group stations. Kelly, in her self-reflection, approached this as a problem that needed to be solved. She self-reflected by “putting herself in the student’s shoes” and thought that the student might not know how to read in English in the first place and “was not motivated” to do so (Self-report, November 29, 2017). To resolve this problem, Kelly looked for a few books that she thought might interest the student (i.e. books regarding festivals, books on animals). She asked the student to sit with her and Kelly started by doing the reading. She would point to and read the words, often stopping and pointing again at certain words while she re-read sentences again. Kelly did that multiple times and then would read the entire sentence again, pausing before the words she had been emphasized and waited for her student to “read the word.” Afterwards, she would go to the next page, so the same things and then come back to the previous page, again pausing at the emphasized word. Her student was learning to Read word after enough re-reading and prompting by Kelly. To Kelly, it was a “way to go” moment. The problem was not fully solved because the student was still not reading on her own, but every time Kelly was able to sit and help her, the student was “reading in a way” (Self-report, January 26, 2018). Kelly commented that self-reflecting takes time, and she doesn’t always do it. However, she was happy that when she did reflect, there were positive outcomes. Further, through our post-observation discussion and my feedback, together with the self-reflection structure, Kelly identified “more things to write about” in her required bi-weekly self-reports. Moreover, she didn’t find those self-reports as “taxing” as she was already self-reflecting a little at a time throughout the week as part of the study (Interview, May 23, 2018). Interestingly, Kelly mentioned things she “regretted doing” as part of her self-reflection (Interview, May 23, 2018). Kelly explained that when she agreed to participate in this study, she wanted to benefit from self-reflection for herself personally and “of course to help in my tutoring.” She regretted not allowing the “process to work itself out.” When questioned on what she meant, she responded that she was looking for “quick results.” She believed that if she had followed the structure of the self-reflection and did the work, she would “see results” fast. In “self-reflecting on [my] self-reflection, I realized that there was no quick fix” (Interview, May 23, 2018). She concluded that she needed to apply herself in the action of self-reflection repeatedly to “get the hang of it.” I asked whether she noticed any difference after applying and re-applying herself in the process of self-reflection and she was honest in saying that “most times” she found a solution or thought of an action that she could take, but there were just as many times when she came back “blank.” She gave the example of a student’s behavior. The student would “zone out” or ignore her and continue doing whatever she wanted to do. Even though the behavior was not disruptive in any way, the student was just not engaged and when Kelly’s attempts to ask her questions or redirect her behaviors were ineffective. After many attempts, Kelly had to “let it go” as even the class teacher did the same as there were too many students to manage and teach. Kelly, in her self-reflection tried looking at the setting, the time of day, the type of activity, and many other aspects of when or why the student was not engage but she was not able to come up with any “reason for her behavior.” After coming to terms that even after re-applying her self-reflection and working at it over and over, she was not going to find a “solution” that would help the student. Kelly concluded that “maybe it was something about the student I didn’t know of.” There was a clear progression of growth based on my interactions with Kelly and her self-reports. Kelly was more aware of what she was doing, “I knew it was the same thing again and caught myself,” when referring to one of her actions (i.e. correcting her student before they had time to recover) during group work or when reading with her Middle Eastern student (Self-report, January 26, 2018). She was more patient with herself and allowing herself the time to self-reflect and to come up with solution over time since it was not a “quick results” exercise. She noticed that she was also more deliberate in helping her student because each time she reflected, it was “building on the next round of self-reflection” and what she knew about a particular student or situation. One example was when her student was having problems with the sounds of letters and was not able to read the word “cat.” Kelly noticed that “The kid was coming up with random sounds or words” (Self-report April 4, 2018). It was not the first time, and Kelly knew through her self-reflection that the student was not able to identify certain sounds. Consequently, Kelly went through each letter in the alphabet systematically to determine what the student was “missing.” Kelly then tried playing games, pointing out words and sounding them, redirecting the student to things around him, until she found something that the student enjoyed. Kelly then intensified and repeated the activity over and over with the student (Interview, December 22, 2017). Kelly reported that by the end of the year, the student was able to master three out of the seven-letter sounds, which to Kelly was a “pretty big deal.” Outwardly, I noticed that while Kelly was still quiet, she was more engaged. When I pointed this out, she said she had not realized it (Observation notes, March 13, 2018). I confirmed that in the past, she was doing what she needed to do, but in the latter part of the year, she was more confident, making more eye contact and engaging students with more smiles, and her voice was much lighter. When probed further, she said it was “probably because [I] was more conscious of the things [I] was doing because I was self-reflecting more.” She also added that it was because she felt “more comfortable with the students” and “knew them more” it helped (Observation notes, March 13, 2018). Kelly also mentioned that throughout the year, because of her self-reflection she was more aware of activities that were done by her classroom teacher that was gradual and helped her students build upon what they knew. She clarified that in the past, without self-reflection, she was not able to see “a bigger picture” and “make connections” of all the things her class teacher was doing for students (Observation notes, April 17. 2018). For example, she saw the activities as isolated activities on their own, but upon self-reflection over a prolonged period, she was able to see, for example, that several activities were all working to help students learn a specific word. When asked for specific examples, she mentioned about the sight word “have.” It was introduced by the teacher indirectly and directly. The students heard it used in the read-aloud story they listened to, they saw on the wall, they wrote it out, traced it out, they made a booklet with the words learned words in a short “story,” cut the word, and pasted it across various station activities. Kelly reinforced this learning by reminding the students of the work they did. “All that just for one word!” was her comment (Observation notes, April 17, 2018). The activities were not all on the same day but over a few weeks and then brought up again a few weeks later. Similarly, Kelly shared how self-reflection helped her learn to be more attentive when she was in the classroom stations. She explained that sometimes, despite all the reinforcement activities that the classroom teacher was doing with the students, some students still did not “get it” (Self-report, March 9, 2018). She was more aware that initially, without the hindsight from self-reflection, she just saw a struggling student as simply “not getting it.” However, with more self-reflection, she was able to “see the bigger picture” of a student’s struggles against all the reinforcement activities and think of “other ways to help [her].” Kelly gave an example of when a student who, despite instructions, explanations and examples provided by the classroom teacher, was not able to complete a task. Over two weeks and the student was still “not moving forward with the project.” Kelly explained that self-reflection helped her think about the student, the input already provided, and the project as “a whole.” She was able to “figure out” that the student was struggling not because she did not understand the instructions but rather because she did not understand “why the three little pigs needed to build a house” and why “her group’s fishes had to do the same thing.” Kelly realized then that her tutoring involved not just helping her students with literacy activities but also just navigating learning as a whole. At other times, Kelly corrected students in their tasks. When a student or students did various literacy activities (i.e. matching words to pictures, filling-in-the-blanks sight words, writing words), she noticed that she would tell them to make the appropriate corrections. With self-reflection and what she learned from AR activities and talking with others, she concluded that getting the students to correct themselves was more meaningful to their learning. When she saw that a student had made an error, she would ask them “Are you sure?”, “Do all your letters look, right?” “Why don’t you look at the word again?” “Try sounding the word to me.” This allowed the student or students to “take ownership of their answers.” In her self-reflection, Kelly usually took note of which students tended to be more “error-prone” and what “worked best for them.” “Some students,” she remarked, “just wanted attention” as they were always telling her that they “did not know” (Observation notes, January 14, 2018). Kelly believed she was a little “unprepared” for the classroom she was placed in. She was appreciative of her classroom teacher, who allowed her to read with students. However, she often did not know “what to do” when reading with the students and recognized that she “needed to do more.” She also indicated that she would have liked different these experiences with the students. For example, she mentioned that self-reflection would not been “broken up” if she had been assigned to specific students to work on “specific things” (Observation notes, April 17, 2018). As a whole, Kelly believed that she has learned a lot about “what happens in the classroom” and that the self-reflection she had carried out was “helpful” in “putting some order to her thoughts.” When asked what she meant, she said that “I could see where I was coming from and where I was hoping to go.” She explained that self-reflection allowed her to “organize [her] actions and activities” she would do in the classroom, “kinda like a preparation” for when she was in the classroom. Rita Background. Rita joined the America Reads program in her freshman year, as a pre-elementary education major. While she had no experience with AR, Rita joined the program because she wanted to “become a teacher, and this program allowed [her] to work with kids and make a difference in their lives” (Survey, February 4, 2018). During the time she was in this study, she worked mostly with first and fourth grade students. Rita reported that she usually worked on spelling and comprehension activities with students. She was very keen to participate in this study as she strongly believed that self-reflection was “especially important” to her in her future career as a teacher (Survey, February 4, 2018). She believed that as a potential tutor, she would be “good at it” as she was “knowledgeable about reading and writing.” She also mentioned in the same survey that she was confident about giving students immediate feedback and clear explanations. She considered herself to be a “non-judgmental and supportive” person. Rita indicated that she did self-reflect on her own, but “not in any specific way, I just think about what I want to think about” and “then try to become better because I think about the bad things that happen” (Survey, February 4, 2018). Rita clearly stated that she hoped to learn how to self-reflect “properly” so that she could “try and make changes for the students” (Survey, February 4, 2018). With respect to potential challenges of self-reflection, Rita mentioned that she sometimes “thinks too much on the bad things” and not “knowing how to solve them. In her survey, she also thought that “maybe talking to others and being honest” will make it “easier to self-reflect.” Rita’s Self-reflection. Initially, Rita self-reflected by just thinking about what she wanted to think about and was often focused on the “bad things” (Survey, February 4, 2018). She predicted that it would be the same when she began tutoring. She hoped that the self-reflection training would “better guide” her self-reflection. In an interview, Rita shared similar thoughts about self-reflection and how “hard [she] could be on herself” (February 28, 2018). She wanted the training to be “an opportunity to become better.” When asked what she meant, Rita clarified that she had a long way to go, being a freshman, and she wanted to “be prepared in all ways” so she could be a “good teacher” (Interview, February 28, 2018). Her responses from the Personal Survey (February 24, 2018) indicated similar thoughts of wanting to use her reflection to “try and make a change and help the kids.” After receiving the self-reflection training, Rita indicated that it could be helpful. She was especially “impressed with how deep self-reflection could be” (Interview, March 28, 2018). She also mentioned that she was still “afraid” that she would not be good at self-reflection, but I assured her that she should give herself a chance and see where her experiences lead her. Rita was open to the idea of having more in-depth self-reflection as according to her, “I got nothing to lose.” During one of the mid-semester classroom observations, I asked her again on what she thought about her earlier statement of having “nothing to lose” with self-reflection (Observation notes, March 28, 2018). She believed her initial reaction of having nothing to lose had changed as she was getting more meaning out of her self-reflection and that she was confident that she was learning a lot and using the ALACT model was helpful in “guiding” and “making concrete” her thoughts. She was able to “focus on specific areas based on the specific steps.” When I sought clarification, she explained that with the ALACT model, she was able to “focus and progress accordingly.” For example, with the Action step, she focused on only one action or event that she was concerned about and she stated, “It helped me be less all-over-the-place” (Observation Notes, March 28, 2018). She explained that once she had “zoomed in” on the action, the model then gave her direction to the next step, Looking Back, then being Aware of the essential aspects and so forth. She decided that she was more “productive” in her self-reflection, and more decisive and surer of her actions as she was “more focused” on what she was self-reflecting on. She explained, “I think self-reflecting is easier when you aren’t stressed and have a clear idea of what to think” (Interview, Mary 28, 2018). Another aspect of the ALACT model that Rita liked was that she was “less critical” of herself (Self-report, March 15, 2018). Rita realized that because she was so “invested in her academics,” she was often overly critical of herself because she believed that she “needed always to be the best.” However, her self-reflection allowed her to not only think about the events or actions she was focusing on but looking at the essential aspects surrounding the event or action, allowed her to “see that not everything was about [me] and not everything was [my] fault” (Self-report, March 15, 2019). Continuing, she said, “I am less hard on myself now” and that seemed to sum up her feelings then. Rita carried out literacy activities with her students, usually with individuals one-to-one or with a pair of students working on the same literacy activity. Mostly, Rita worked on spelling lists, comprehension activities, and vocabulary work. Sometimes, her classroom teacher asked her to stay at a specific reading station and help out as needed. For example, one reading station in a fourth-grade classroom was about trying to “figure out what the author’s intention was” and Rita guided students through the activity. However, Rita often reported that she “had no clue how to help a struggling student.” She merely “went with the flow” often asking the students to re-read paragraphs and pointing out a certain paragraph that the answer is in and asking students to locate what in that paragraph could help the students arrive at the exact intention of the author (Self-report, January 24, 2018). When she later self-reflected on that, she realized that she was helping them “pretty well” as she “was not giving them exact answers but pointing them in the right direction.” She believed that she was helping students “think about contextual clues” that would help them arrive at certain conclusions and answers, “kind of like guessing the meaning of words,” which she was a concept that Rita was familiar with. When I pointed that out, Rita looked pleased with herself that she had “borrowed one idea and used it in another context” (Interview, February 28, 2018). One aspect of self-reflection that Rita appreciated was the opportunity to “eventually come to a balance” of what she could do with a particular student who “had meltdowns” (Self-report, March 9, 2018). When Rita had started in her fourth-grade classroom, she had been assigned to help a student with spelling. She worked with her student and found that this student often had “meltdowns” each time she struggled to spell words correctly. The student would begin “whining about hard it was” and eventually go on a downward trend of “being loud” and “complaining” to sometimes crying. The student would then refuse to work on the spelling task. This incident was the first incident that Rita tried the ALACT model on. She started off thinking about the similar events and was more conscious of the activities she did with the student, she became aware of the signs the student gave meant she was heading toward a meltdown. Rita considered all aspects surrounding the incident. She talked to the classroom teacher, initiated conversations with the student “outside of spelling time” and “observed the student when she was working on other things” (Self-report, March 8, 2018). Rita then “put in a plan” to try a few things with the student to “delay the eventual meltdowns.” For example, she tried rewards, and that worked for a while. Rita then tried “encouragement and reward and firmness.” When asked for further explanation, Rita mentioned about drawing the line with a “firm stare, silence and tapping the table” (Self-report, March 8, 2018). “That didn’t work out for too long either,” Rita said. Over the next few weeks, she kept trying different things. She “struck gold” when she decided to give her student “a break” every time the student completed “three words.” Her student was allowed to “do her own thing” and then “come back to the next three words.” Rita would get the words from the classroom teacher and then split up the words into separate pieces of paper with “only three words on each sheet.” Rita thought that in her self-reflection, that the visual part of “breaking down” the length of the list to smaller lists helped a lot. Her students still had meltdowns, but they had become less frequent. Rita was “pretty pleased” with how things went but admitted that if she had not self-reflected and kept going through the ALACT cycle, again and again, she might not have arrived at a “plan that worked” (Self-report, March 8, 2018). This “method” was helpful when she encountered similar problem of students’ attitudes when they were at the “handwriting” stations. Students often did not want to practice their handwriting or “outright refuse to do it” (Self-report April 12, 2018). By “borrowing the idea” from her series of self-reflection with her student, who often had meltdowns with spelling, Rita was able to “reuse the method” and help the other group of students with their handwriting.” Rita added to this by asking them to “copy dialogues from comics in the classroom” as she had realized in her reflection that the students enjoyed graphic novels during free reading. “I was super excited and couldn’t wait to try out that idea at the next handwriting station session!” (Self-report, April 12, 2018). “When it worked, I was so pumped!” Another aspect of Rita “eventually come to a balance” (Self-report, March 9, 2018) with self-reflecting was tied in with what she believed about being “less hard on herself” (Self-report, March 15, 2018). Rita had always been critical and hard on herself with respect to school, her family, and just life in general (Interview, February 28, 2018). However, over the study period, she had become less critical about herself when she was consciously self-reflecting. She was able to view herself “from a distance,” and over time had seen improvements to her thinking and opinion about herself, which she identified as “encouraging.” For example, she often felt “discouraged because some of the kids were being disrespectful” (Self-report, February 21, 2018). She had talked with her classroom teacher and tried building trust by spending more time with these students, and she self-reflected “a ton about what else I could do.” In her self-reflection, over a few months, she came to realize that “it wasn’t [me].” Once she realized that, she felt “lighter” (Self-report, April 12, 2018). Rita was not comfortable reflecting on her feelings, so this study was challenging for her. Rita said, “I can go on and on self-reflecting on everything, but man, it was hard when I had to think about what I was feeling. I was kind of like wanting to separate the teaching professional part and the me part” (Self-report, April 12, 2018). “I feel like being a teacher is accepting who I am and just letting the feelings come through and see how that helps me teach, you know?” seemed to indicate the self-reflection helped Rita accept that her feelings were an important part of her tutoring. When asked how self-reflection influenced other aspects of her literacy tutoring, Rita talked about her experiences helping students with different parts of the story. She found that most students understood and mastered what an exposition, rising action, climax, falling action and conclusion was. When asked how she knew they had mastered it, she mentioned that they were able to complete the worksheet for the story they were reading. I thought it was a good opportunity for Rita to check for herself whether that was true. The next time I met with Rita, she mentioned that she was surprised as although some students completed the worksheet on their own, other students had copied from friends, were guessing, or just asked their friends for answers. When probed further of how she had come to this conclusion, she said she went back a few days later and asked them. Most were “clueless” (Observation notes, March 28, 2018). She continued explaining that she “of course self-reflected on that.” In her self-reflection, Rita thought about how she learned in school, “I remembered, in school, we spent a lot of time learning and practicing this, and we always learned it like it was a mountain.” Rita decided to use that in the trial phase of her ALACT model. She decided to try it out with two students first, “to do a trial run” (Observation notes, March 28, 2018). Rita drew the mountain and explained each part of the mountain (terms referring to a story plot i.e., exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and conclusion) linking the different terms to the movie, The Emoji Movie, which the students were familiar with. She explained each term and where each term was on the mountain diagram. She worked with students by giving them examples from the movie and explaining which term described that part of the movie. Rita believed that providing this connection was helpful because students understood the terms and offered other examples in the movie that the “terms could fit and explain” (Observation notes, March 28, 2018). Rita self-reflected and fine-tuned her explanations, and then she tried the new explanation with the other five students she was sure did not fully understand the parts of the plot. Except for one student, Rita was pleased with the results. She also told the classroom teacher about the one student who had not fully understood the lesson. Finally, Rita reported that “Overall it was a good day being a tutor!” (Self-report, April 12, 2018). One challenge that Rita had with self-reflection was that she “often did not know the whole story about a student,” she was tutoring (Self-report, April 25, 2018). She explained that she had a student who was always causing problems in the class and had a really bad attitude. He was often sent out to see the principal or the school counselor. “I try and let him know that some days are hard, but it’s all about your attitude, and if you start every day smiling and telling yourself that you can change things, it will help a lot. You need to celebrate the little success you have and keep trying,” was one piece of encouragement Rita had given to the students. However, Rita reported that he would often say he hated his life and continued to use unacceptable language. I had suggested earlier in the semester that Rita talk to the counselor and teacher, but Rita had insufficient time to approach the counselor about the student, and “the classroom teacher already had her hands full” (Self-report, April 25, 2018). Rita believed that when it came to her self-reflection, not knowing all the “essential aspects” from the ALACT model was not helping to her to support this student. I flipped the question and asked her to consider whether this would be something she would encounter when she became a teacher. Rita reported that she still believed that self-reflection was not as helpful when she did not know everything about a student she was trying to help, but she realized that in reality, she may not always have a complete picture of a situation. However, she reported that her self-reflection allowed her to think more about a situation and her feelings and “felt sorry for other teachers as they were busier and had less time to do such self-reflection so often” (Self-report, May 9, 2018). She reiterated that she still believed self-reflection was important, but she will really “have to think about it more in light of a teacher’s schedule.” Rita knew that she had made a lot of progress with her students throughout her school year and she helped students understand and improve their reading skills. In fact, she stated, “I feel like I have made an impact in their life, and they have certainly made an impact in mine” (Self -report, May 9, 2018). Rita also mentioned that she had wished she had spent more time self-reflecting on her “victories” (Interview, May 9, 2018), She further stated, “I would have realized that I made a huge impact on those kids, not just with reading stuff but as a whole. We had some good days and some bad days, but we learned, and we grew.” Rita definitely believed that “reflection calls for growth and allows [me] to learn and help my students” (Interview, May 9, 2018) but she would have liked to have more “training to be a tutor” as she believed that would have helped her students more but realized that time constraints did not allow for the program to have more frequent meetings. “I was probably the only one more invested in this as education was my actual major” (Interview, May 9, 2018). The feedback and talking through her lessons, actions in the classroom, and her actual self-reflection “helped give [me] answers to some of my questions and helped me think about handling some situations differently. The ALACT model helps me not give up on my students as [I] could go over the whole cycle again and again with new ways” (Interview, May 9, 2018). Rita summed up the whole experience saying, “this has helped me realize teaching is what I want to do, and I feel more confident having gone through this experience as a freshman.” Summary of Chapter 4 The overall findings allowed me to get a glimpse of how tutors were self-reflecting. They all found it challenging but were often successful in using the ALACT model to look at the event they were self-reflecting on and think deeper about the situation, the student, and the environment. Their self-reflection offered a window into what they self-reflected on, how and when they reflected, and the lessons they learned from the process.  Chapter 5: Discussion Overview The goal of this study was to discover how minimally trained tutors, under America Reads (AR) program, engaged in self-reflection after receiving training in the ALACT model of self-reflection, and if their self-reflection impacted the tutors’ instructional planning and decision making. The study findings provided insights on effective tutor self-reflection. This could influence tutor instructions to striving readers. The findings also provided AR coordinators information that would help them design targeted and effectual strategies, of preparing better tutors. The study participants were recruited from a Mid-western college. All except one of the tutors majored in different fields of studies at the point of recruitment. One of them was a psychology major, with a minor in pre-nursing in her second year in college. The other was pursuing a degree in anthropology and was in her first year in college. The third was an education major, in her first year of study. The first two taught kindergarteners and the third, fourth graders. I used three guiding questions that were addressed through interviews and classroom observations. The guiding questions focused on what the tutors reflected on, when and how reflection was done, and the lessons each participant learned from their self-reflection. Further, since the America Reads tutors had limited knowledge of how to teach literacy, I believed that self-reflection might support their instruction, which would be beneficial to the striving reader’s the tutored. The AR tutors were trained on self-reflection, using Korthagen’s (1985) ALACT model of self-reflection. From the data collected, incorporating a structured self-reflection model into the tutors' tutoring repertoire was essential and effective in developing tutors’ confidence and ability to make decisions that would help their students learn and behave better. Structured reflection enhanced the overall effectiveness of the tutors’ tutoring process and established supportive relationships between the tutors and their striving learners. The tutors were able to think of more effective ways of helping their students practice literacy skills. The tutors reflected on their prior assumptions and hence set apart what seemed good for them in their specific situations. Besides creating a positive learning environment for the students, the structured self-reflection served as a steppingstone for enriching each tutor’s professional identity. For instance, they became more confident, and self-conscious in terms of regulating their feelings during the course of their service. The self-reflection training instilled meaning in their self-reflection and that in turn provided better tutoring decisions and increased their ability to improve their actions when tutoring. Tutors thought of how their relationships with the students, the students’ backgrounds, the students’ attention span and various other elements when making decisions on how to teach a content, manage a behavior or extend time-on-tasks. In this chapter, I focused on my research question, “How do America Reads tutors engage in self-reflection?” I explored what tutors reflected on, how and when they reflected, and the lessons they learned from the process. What Do Tutors Reflect On? By analyzing the participants’ responses on self-reflection and classroom observations data, I identified several issues that tutors self-reflected on before and then after the training. It is worth noting that before the training, all participants had limited knowledge on the essence of structured self-reflection in general and while tutoring. For example, Vicky said she did most of her self-reflection “in her head” and it usually involved reflecting on her college classes and her friends. Kelly could reflect on nothing beyond how her day had gone, while Rita’s self-reflection was based on bad things that had happened. Interestingly they all looked forward to receiving training how to engage in self-reflection so that they could become better at it and, hopefully, impact positive change to the tutees' academics. After they received training, the participants reflected on a number of issues including what they had learned about tutoring their students, their relationships with students, their feelings toward what they were facing such as when things that went wrong, and on the new behaviors they had initiated to better their tutoring. Reflecting on Their Relationship with Students The three tutors self-reflected on their relationships with their students. Although the tutors believed that creating a positive relationship would help the students be more responsive to them, the process was not as straight forward as they had thought. When faced with behavior problems that affected the students’ concentration, they found it a challenge to draw a fine line between being friendly and approachable yet still show authority. For example, Vicky believed strongly that creating a good rapport with her students was critical in her role as a tutor. She was more interested in improving her interactions with the students than actual tutoring strategies, so that she could work build rapport first. Vicky consciously decided to change the way she talked to her students after self-reflecting, so that she could enhance their interactions. Similarly, Rita was often discouraged when some student showed disrespect, a matter that prompted her to also build trust by spending more time with them, and self-reflecting on how better she could improve their relationships. When one student misbehaved in Vicky’s class, she was torn between being friendly and taking control of the situation. She self-reflected on the matter and found a better way of handling it. Rita also encountered a similar situation with a student who had “meltdowns” when struggling to spell words correctly. She, therefore, reflected on the best way to help the student by creating a good rapport and offering incentives and instilling authority in the process by adopting a firm stare, silence and tapping the table, but they did not bear fruits at first. However, through persistent self-reflection and constant adherence to The ALACT circle, her plan worked. Reflecting on Their Tutoring All three tutors used the ALACT model to self-reflect on their tutoring. For example, Rita used self-reflection to think of the best way she could help a student who experienced “meltdowns” when struggling to spell some words, by identifying the circumstances surrounded by it, recognizing the signs that meltdowns were about to occur, and hence strategizing accordingly on how best she could help the student. That notwithstanding, Rita used the structured self-reflection approach and borrowed ideas from her previous student who had meltdowns to help a group of students who had trouble with their handwriting. Self-reflection also enabled her to fine-tune her explanations, so that she could present them in a more understandable form to the student. Similarly, Kelly’s self-reflection helped her improve her tutoring skills by knowing what her students really needed, and not burdening them with unnecessary explanations. She also observed that going along with whatever the students wanted did not help them that much, in this case-providing them with direct answers. Kelly self-reflected on a strategy that would be beneficial to them. She worked at boosting her student’s confidence by asking questions that would help her student come to an answer or solution on their own. Admittedly it was not always successful, but Kelly saw that her student was able to be more proactive in their learning. Through self-reflection, she became more attentive to student’s needs, something that enabled her to identify the reason why a certain student was not grasping concepts despite the classroom teacher’s attempt to help her understand and assist her accordingly. Vicky observed and reflected on a story time session conducted by her class teacher, and she made a conscious decision on the good and bad instructional practices, that would later influence her tutoring. Moreover, Vicky became more alert to the classroom environment, established better connections with the students, and promptly made sound decisions. Reflecting on Their Feelings Though not often, and unless reminded, the tutors reflected on their feelings emanating from their experiences as tutors. Participants reflected on their feelings because they all reported frustration, in one way or another, that they had not been adequately prepared to teach literacy strategies to support their students. For example, Kelly had a deep feeling that she needed to do more in terms of literacy instruction when she found herself not knowing how to teach during her tutoring sessions. Vicky felt disturbed by the fact that there was limited time to address all the issues that surrounded her. Her frustrations increased when students showed disrespect, a matter that could leave her wondering why they did so. Participants, however, agreed that self-reflection helped them find a balance between their negative feelings, as it provided them with an opportunity to analyze issues keenly before making an informed decision. For instance, Kelly was able to find a strategy to resolve conflicts, by looking at issues from a student’s perspective. Kelly’s self-reflection made her become more conscious of the things she was doing, and she felt more comfortable with them. Self-reflecting helped Rita to manage her feelings, by getting the better understanding of how her surrounding influenced certain events and actions. She came to realize that it was not all her fault when challenging things happened. In her remarks, she observed that being a tutor or a teacher meant having an ability to accept who she was. This allowed feelings to come through freely. She felt sorry for other teachers who were working on a tight schedule that they did not even get time to self-reflect. The three tutors felt incredibly happy when they saw a positive change emanating from the strategies they had set forth. After consistently utilizing the ALACT model, Rita was particularly pleased after observing her student’s improvement. She was also excited after her handwriting improvement plan proved viable. Vicky was pleased that some good actions helped her produce some good outcomes such as getting her students to be more independent and rely less on her to give them answers, because of her self-reflection. Reflecting on the ALACT Model The tutors agreed that the model was time-consuming as there was often trial and error and a little bit of luck for all the planets to align. However, they acknowledged the fact that it provided them with a clear framework to base their practice on. Vicky’s initially held the perception that the structure entailed a lot of work, but appreciated the fact that through the structure, she was able to identify specific areas to focus on systematically. Rita found the structure helpful in helping her focus on improving one aspect she felt was lacking, thereby allowing her to worry about one thing and not a multitude of things she had no time to focus on. How and When Tutor Self-reflected Since tutors’ instruction can influence the students’ lives, participants were compelled to think systematically on how they could make their tutoring practices more effective, and support the students, who were struggling with literacy activities. Three basic elements of self-reflection, therefore, came into play. These three elements involved something that triggered an event, the self-reflection, and the development of a new perspective. Prior to the self-reflection training, reflection occurred either spontaneously or superficially. Unplanned self-reflection lacked focus and did not allow tutors to consciously pause and think about what was happening and possibly reinvent their teaching strategies so that they could match their objectives and transform the students in a better way. With the self-reflection training, students consciously found time to self-reflect on a triggering event. The initial phase could also be triggered by either positive or negative incidences that were observed in class and compelled tutors to have a plan of tackling the negativities and reinforcing the positive attributes. For example, instead of just going with the flow of students always wanting answers from her, which to Kelly was a triggering event as she noticed it happened a lot and the students did not seem to work out their questions on their own. Vicky also used less of her “gut” knowledge of helping students remember literacy strategies or literacy content such as sounds of letters. Both used the ALACT model to explore new ideas which they then tried out with their students and integrated into their practice. Another example, all three encountered behavior related incidences that made it necessary for them to self-reflect about. Vicky took the time to analyze situations before she could help her students manage their actions. She thought of a strategy that could enable her to put to rest the misbehavior witnessed among students, and still maintain a positive relationship with them. In Kelly’s class, she came across a student who was so distractive and could loiter around disturbing others who were engaging in meaningful activities and devised a plan to change the situation. Rita also used the ALACT model to reflect on an incident she witnessed in class, involving a student who encountered reading challenges and would even break down to tears during the process. She was pleased to see her plan working when the student improved on his behavior and in turn was able to spend more time on task with literacy activities. She did the same when addressing students’ negative attitudes in handwriting stations. The tutors self-reflected interactively, retroactively and prospectively, to analyze their practice and the circumstances they encountered, in order to develop a new perspective. Interactive self-reflection, also known as reflection-in-action, involved the tutors scrutinizing their teaching approaches, and making the necessary adjustments in terms of how they delivered their instructions, depending on the student’s responses. Since all the tutors limited teaching experience when they joined the AR program, it was difficult for them to engage reflection-in-action as they taught. Interactive self-reflection requires a tutor to be skilled in teaching, in order to make keen observation and analysis of students’ behaviors and respond accordingly. Vicky particularly observed that being more skilled before embarking on the tutoring role would have helped her to know what to reflect about and try new strategies. However, despite their limited knowledge and skills, some tutors were able to employ interactive self-reflection in certain classroom sessions. For example, Kelly would instruct her students to make necessary corrections during their literacy activities, a move that she found to be meaningful to the students. Apart from correcting the students, she often reflected on what she could do more when she did not know what to do when reading with the students. The tutors also utilized retroactive self-reflection, otherwise referred to as reflection-on-action, to look back at their teaching sessions and try to find answers to why certain things happened the way they did. It involved finding lessons from previous experiences, by delving into their memory and retrieving what they could remember. The ALACT model according to Korthagen (1985) argued that a key element of reflection is making one’s concrete experience explicit, looking at the experience from one’s frame of interpretation, and adapting this frame to improve one’s performance. This is what the tutors were doing. They were reflecting retroactively by identifying certain elements or situations that they previously missed. In the process, they became more self-aware and understood their students even better, providing a common platform for solving conflicts and increasing cooperation. Upon reflecting on literacy activities, Vicky was able to help her students establish a connection to what they were doing, and what they needed to do. During one of the AR update meetings, Vicky recalled her encounter with a misbehaving student and sought advice on how she could approach such a case. After her tutoring sessions, she reviewed her notes and identified specific incidents that had transpired and the students involved, so that she could understand both the event and the students better. There was even an incident of self-reflection that occurred after observing how her class teacher handled a story time session, she identified gaps and provided personal suggestions on how she would have implemented activities differently. Likewise, both Kelly and Rita reflected on their previous sessions and were pleased when they realized that they had indeed helped their students become more independent learners by directing them the right way, rather than giving them exact answers. Finally, the tutors reflected prospectively on what they could do to improve their overall teaching skills. Their classroom experiences instilled valuable lessons that would enable them to interact and assist struggling readers. For example, Vicky understood what constituted a good tutor, and therefore placed herself on a trajectory to become better, by setting general self-reflection goals. Kelly recognized the need for a tutor to prepare adequately for his/her class so that the practice could be effective. Further, she discovered that a tutor’s efforts could be complemented if the students were also inspired to work hard in class. She acknowledged the order that the structured self-reflection brought to her thoughts but highlighted the importance of assigning tutors specific roles and specific students so that it gets simpler for them to discharge their duties. Rita hoped that the self-reflection training would help her become a good tutor. However, she observed how her class teacher operated on a tight schedule, to the extent that she could not have time for self-reflection. Consequently, she emphasized the need to restructure the model, in light of the teachers’ schedule. Going forward, she also suggested the need for one to be trained more on tutoring, before deployment. Lessons Tutors Learned from Self-reflection Tutors in this study learned about their tutoring practices and other lessons about their personal qualities through self-reflection. They gained a deeper understanding on how they could approach certain situations, such as classroom conflicts, devise new tutoring strategies, and determine their effectiveness by observing students’ literacy growth. Further, tutors learned how to create positive bonds with their students, in order to make the learning environment friendlier and to support students’ emotional well-being. Additionally, the tutors learned to be more organized in their practice, enabling them to effectively plan instruction for the students. They keenly scrutinized and identified essential aspects of a specific situation, then conceived a plan, which was tried and tested for its efficiency, and as necessary, made adjustments. It is to be noted that the tutors also noted that despite making progress with their students, they would also like training on tutoring. Vicky initially described the ALACT self-reflection model as “a lot of work” but reflecting on what she had learned during the training, she appreciated the value of using the model and consciously resolved to concentrate her self-reflection on her students’ literacy matters and their development. Kelly observed that she primarily believed that quick results would be seen if the self-reflection structure is adhered to and everything is done appropriately. However, she admitted that it was not that simple and that one had to get into action of self-reflection consistently for it to be meaningful. Kelly also became more enlightened on the importance and interdependence of every activity done by the class teachers to the student’s learning process, something that removed her prior assumption that such activities were conducted in isolation. She learned that the learning process would be more effective and meaningful by helpings students engage in self-correction. Further, self-reflection had given her an opportunity to genuinely understand what takes place in the classroom, and how to organize her thoughts. Upon implementing the ALACT model, Rita learned that it could be applied with ease when one is in his/her right form of mind in order to have a clear idea of what to think. She stated precisely that self-reflection demands growth, for one to be in a position to learn and help the students. From her experiences with the students and her self-reflection, she was able to help answers to some questions, and learn how to handle situations differently. Rita mentioned that the self-reflection made her think about what she had learned from her student’s actions and helped her think of what she could do for her better. She also realized that her passion was on teaching and was grateful for how the whole experience had transformed her. Recommendations This study indicates that tutors’ experiences and recollections of their self-reflection journeys are consistent with the theoretical concepts discussed at the beginning of the study—self-reflection improves personal and professional awareness and professional growth, promotes the construction of new meanings and solutions based on learning from their classroom experiences. Providing tutors in similar tutoring programs the tools of self-reflection can help tutors deepen the quality of their self-understanding and promote better tutoring decisions. Further, the Korthagen Self-reflection model, while promoting deeper self-awareness, seemed to be more of self-reflection that concentrated on deficits. It is recommended that the model be introduced with stronger emphases on promoting the strengths of the tutors so that they are able to recognize strengths rather than concentrating on deficit-based activities or actions. Admittedly tutors were able to be aware of some of their own bias when interacting and helping students with behavior and literacy challenges. While their self-reflection process helped them modify and change their initial perspectives of their actions, tutors also need be reminded that it is possible to do the same while looking for strengths. They can still achieve positive and unbiased thinking using the model as it offers a systematic approach with possibilities to practice acquired knowledge and skills, also other skills needed to develop. The findings from this study also indicate a need to focus more on developing tutors’ self-reflection skills, promoting self-reflection systematically throughout the tutoring program. The ALACT model offers a framework for self-reflection but can be even more beneficial if tutors were given the opportunity to use other self-reflection techniques such as audio recordings or reflective journals to further facilitate self-reflection on personal and classroom experiences. Admittedly, journals or written reflections can be effective in facilitating self-reflection, these activities are labor intensive for tutors. However, that option should be offered as different tutors are inclined to certain techniques more than another. Also, there is always a skilled professional that is responsible for these minimally trained tutors and increasing opportunities for group discussions and one-on-one conversation, in tandem with using the ALACT model can also promote deeper self-reflection. These reflections should focus not merely on technical skills, but on the ethical and social implications (which the ALACT model promotes) within which they are developed. Tutors can then consider individual and collective implications, and seek to facilitate improvements in practice and the social dynamics in which they are tutoring in. Limitations This study was marked by several limitation such as having a small number of participants due to tutor withdrawal and low tutor retention from the original pool of tutors. Consequently, the low number of participants limited the amount of information that I could collect. More participants would have allowed me to collect more information to analyze both quantitatively and qualitatively and possibly arrive at different outcomes. There could have been more tutor training on the structured reflection model, that was ongoing with the observation period. The self-reflection training used made-up examples for role-playing and discussions. Additionally, the tutors had limited tutoring skills related to literacy, which made it challenging to self-reflect on their instruction. Further, some of the tutors were placed in classrooms that often did not offer much opportunities to provide literacy tutoring. Often, their classroom activities involved managing behaviors and monitoring of classroom literacy stations. Similar to other qualitative studies, the findings from this study only apply to this specific study contexts and cannot be generalized beyond this group of tutors. Another limitation is the use of only one data collection method. Despite these limitations, this study offers possibilities of how minimally trained tutors could develop self-reflection skills that can strengthen their practice in the classrooms they are assigned. Conclusion The findings of the study suggest that minimally trained tutors need to be supported in order to be better equipped to support classroom teachers in literacy activities. Given that minimally trained tutors have very little training but are expected to use professional judgment in their work, there is a need for a greater understanding of how self-reflection can empower them to facilitate and achieve positive change in themselves and their students. Additionally, the tutoring program needs to be reviewed in order to promote self-reflective practice.  References Adler, M. A. (1999). The AR Challenge: An analysis of college students' tutoring. Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, University of Michigan. Allington, R. L. (1994). The schools we have. The schools we need. Reading Teacher, 48, 14-14. Anderson, G. (1993). Fundamentals of educational research. Falmer Press, London, pp: 152-160. Associated Students. (2016). AR. University of California. Retrieved from https://americaRead.as.ucsb.edu/get-involved/ Aurini, J., & Davies, S. (2004). The transformation of private tutoring: Education in a franchise form. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29(3), 419-438. Bartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective teaching. Second Language Teacher Education, 202-214. Beatty, B. R. (2000). Teachers leading their own professional growth: Self-directed reflection and collaboration and changes in perception of self and work in secondary school teachers. Journal of In-Service Education, 26(1), 73-97. Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463-482. Belzer, A. (2006). What are they doing in there? Case studies of volunteer tutors and adult literacy learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(7), 560-572. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods. New York: Pearson Education Inc. Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36(4), 391-409. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Page. Brandt, C. (2008). Integrating feedback and reflection in teacher preparation. English Language Teaching Journal, 62(1), 37-46. Brookfield, S. (1995). The getting of wisdom: What critically reflective teaching is and why it’s important. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher, 1-28. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Brown, K. J., Morris, D., & Fields, M. (2005). Intervention after grade 1: Serving increased numbers of struggling readers effectively. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(1), 61-94. Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2010). The why behind RTI. Educational Leadership, 68 (2), 10-16. Retrieved from http://www.greatschoolspartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/The-Why-Behind-RTI.pdf Burns, M. K., Senesac, B. V., & Symington, T. (2003). The effectiveness of the hosts program in improving the reading achievement of children at‐risk for reading failure. Literacy Research and Instruction, 43(2), 87-103. Calderhead, J., & Gates, P. (1993). Conceptualizing reflection in teacher education. Conceptualizing Reflection in Teacher Education. London: Falmer Press. Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127. Cassidy, J., Ortlieb, E., & Grote-Garcia, S. (2016). Beyond the common core: Examining 20 years of literacy priorities and their impact on struggling readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 55(2), 91-104. Center for Prevention Research and Development. (2009). Background research: Tutoring programs. Champaign, IL: Center for Prevention Research and Development, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois. Chi, M. T., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25(4), 471-533. Clark, V. L. P., Miller, D. L., Creswell, J. W., McVea, K., McEntarffer, R., Harter, L. M., & Mickelson, W. T. (2002). In conversation: high school students talk to students about tobacco use and prevention strategies. Qualitative Health Research, 12(9), 1264-1283. Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cobb, J. B. (2001). The effects of an early intervention program with preservice teachers as tutor on the reading achievement of primary grade at-risk children. Reading Horizons, 41(3), 155. Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 237-248. Cohen, L. & Manion, L., 1994. Research methods in education 4th ed., London: Routledge. Coie, J. D., & Krehbiel, G. (1984). Effects of academic tutoring on the social status of low-achieving, socially rejected children. Child Development, 1465-1478. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Five qualitative traditions of inquiry. In Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River. Creswell, J. W., & Maietta, R. C. (2002). Qualitative research. Handbook of research design and social measurement, 6, 143-184. Danielson, L. M. (2009). Fostering Reflection. Educational leadership: How teachers learn, 66(5), 1-5. Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. Teachers College Press. DeFord, D. E., Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., & Young, P. (1988). Reading Recovery: Vol. IX, report of the follow-up studies. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. Deutsch, M. (1949). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group process. Human Relations, 2(3), 199-231. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process. Lexington, MA: Heath, 35, 64. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley. Echevarria, J., Richards‐Tutor, C., Chinn, V. P., & Ratleff, P. A. (2011). Did they get it? The role of fidelity in teaching English learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(6), 425-434. Ediger, M. (2010). Quality school education (Vol. 4). Discovery Publishing House. Edmondson, J. (2002). Asking different questions: Critical analyses and reading research. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 113-119. Ehri, L. C., Dreyer, L. G., Flugman, B., & Gross, A. (2007). Reading Rescue: An effective tutoring intervention model for language-minority students who are struggling readers in first grade. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 414-448. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Prentice Hall. Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Tejero Hughes, M., & Watson Moody, S. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605. Eley, M. G. (2006). Teachers’ conceptions of teaching, and the making of specific decisions in planning to teach. Higher Education, 51(2), 191-214. Entwistle, N. (1997). Reconstituting approaches to learning: A response to Webb. Higher Education, 33(2), 213-218. Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights from the study of expert performance. Teaching and learning: The essential readings, 4-37. Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: A Guide to Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Federal Student Aid (undated). Operating a Federal Work-Study Program. Retrieved from https://ifap.ed.gov/sfahandbooks/attachments/0708FSAHbkVol6Ch2finalAug2.pdf Fitzgerald, J. (2001). Can minimally trained college student volunteers help young at‐risk children to read better? Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 28-46. Freese, A. R. (2006). Reframing one's teaching: Discovering our teacher selves through reflection and inquiry. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 100-119. Frey, L. A., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1986). Instructional models for tutoring: A review. Journal of Instructional Development, 9(1), 2-8. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle and high school. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 22-28. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (Vol. 5019). Basic books. Gilbert, J. K., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Barquero, L. A., & Cho, E. (2013). Efficacy of a First‐Grade Responsiveness‐to‐Intervention Prevention Model for Struggling Readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 135-154. Glaser, B. S., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 483-511. Grant, A. M., Franklin, J., & Langford, P. (2002). The Self-Reflection and Insight Scale: A new measure of private self-consciousness. Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 821–836. Graves, M. F., Juel, C., & Graves, B. B. (1998). Teaching reading in the 21st century. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University. Grushka, K., McLeod, J. H., & Reynolds, R. (2005). Reflecting upon reflection: Theory and practice in one Australian university teacher education program. Reflective Practice, 6(2), 239-246. Harrington, H. L., Quinn-Leering, K., & Hodson, L. (1996). Written case analyses and critical reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25-37. Hart, S. M., & King, J. R. (2007). Service learning and literacy tutoring: Academic impact on pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 323-338. Hiebert, E. H. (1994). Reading Recovery in the United States: What difference does it make to an age cohort? Educational Researcher, 23(9), 15-25. Hock, M.F., Pulvers, K.A., Deshler, D.D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2001). The effects of an after-school tutoring program on the academic performance of at-risk students with LD. Remedial and Special Education, 22(3), 172-186. Holliman, A. J., & Hurry, J. (2013). The effects of Reading Recovery on children’s literacy progress and special educational needs status: a three-year follow-up study. Educational Psychology, 33(6), 719-733. Hsiao, C. (2014). Analysis of panel data (No. 54). Cambridge University Press. Hutchison, A., & Lamberts, M. (2015, April). Reading Skills Have Improved! Results of an After-School Tutoring Program. Poster session presented at the 14th Annual Celebration for Undergraduate Research and Creative Performance of Hope College, Holland, Michigan. Invernizzi, M., & Quellette, M. (2001). Improving children’s reading ability through volunteer reading tutoring program: Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices, Educational Policy Studies Division. Invernizzi, M., Rosemary, C., Juel, C., & Richards, H. C. (1997). At-risk readers and community volunteers: A 3-year perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(3), 277-300. Jacob, S. A. & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing Interview Protocols and Conducting Interviews: Tips for Students New to the Field of Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Reports, 17(6), 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17/jacob.pdf Jacob, R., Smith, T. J., Willard, J., & Rifkin, R. (2014). Reading Partners: The Implementation and Effectiveness of a One-on-One Tutoring Program Delivered by Community Volunteers. Policy Brief. New York: MDRC. Johns, C. (2006). Engaging reflection in practice: A narrative approach. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Johnson, D. (1994). Research Methods in Educational Management. Longman Group, Essex. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social Interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-379. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1989). Cooperative learning. Interaction Book Company. Johnson, K. F., Gupta, A., Rosen, H., & Rosen, H. (2013). Improving Reading Comprehension through Holistic Intervening and Tutoring During After-School with High Risk Minority Elementary School Students. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 21(4), 431-443. Juel, C. (1996). What makes literacy tutoring effective? Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 268-289. Kahn, P., & Walsh, L. (2006). Developing your teaching: Ideas, insight and action. Routledge. Kahn, P., Young, R., Grace, S., Pilkington, R., Rush, L., Tomkinson, B., & Willis, I. (2008). Theory and legitimacy in professional education: A practitioner review of reflective processes within programmes for new academic staff. International Journal for Academic Development, 13(3), 161-173. Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: self‐understanding, vulnerability and reflection? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 257-272. Killen, R. (2007). Teaching strategies for outcomes-based education. Cape Town: Juta and Company Ltd. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential. Cooper CL, Theories of group process. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2012). Experiential learning theory. Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1215-1219). Springer US. Korthagen, F. A. (1985). Reflective teaching and preservice teacher education in the Netherlands. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(5), 11-15. Korthagen, F. (2001). A Reflection on Reflection. Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education, 51-68 in F. A. Korthagen, J. Kessels, B. Koster, B. Lagerwerf, & T. Wubbels, T. (Eds) (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Routledge. Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. P. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4-17. Korthagen, F. A., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Routledge. Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching, 11(1), 47-71. Krajewska, A., & Kowalczuk-Waledziak, M. (2014). Possibilities and Limitations of the Application of Academic Tutoring in Poland. Higher Education Studies, 4(3), 9. Kremer, K. P., Maynard, B. R., Polanin, J. R., Vaughn, M. G., & Sarteschi, C. M. (2015). Effects of after-school programs with at-risk youth on attendance and externalizing behaviors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(3), 616-636. Lane, H. B., Hudson, R. F., McCray, E. D., Tragash, J. R., & Zeig, J. L. (2011). Tutoring opened my eyes: Tutor experiences in the AR Challenge. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19(2), 199-218. Lane, H. B., Pullen, P. C., Hudson, R. F., & Konold, T. R. (2009). Identifying essential instructional components of literacy tutoring for struggling beginning readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(4), 277-297. Lapp, D., Fisher, D., Flood, J., & Frey, N. (2003). Dual role of the urban reading specialist. Journal of Staff Development, 24(2), 33. Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. (2004). The Effectiveness of Out-of-School-Time Strategies in Assisting Low-Achieving Students in Reading and Mathematics: A Research Synthesis. Washington, DC: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Designing and conducting ethnographic research (Vol. 1). Rowman Altamira. Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Economic Policy Institute, 1660 L Street, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20036. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and Quantity, 43(2), 265-275. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage. Lingo, A. S. (2014). Tutoring middle school students with disabilities by high school students: effects on oral reading fluency. Education and Treatment of Children, 37(1), 53-76. Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice in search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33-43. MacIellan, E. (2001). Assessment for learning: The differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 307-318. Marton, F. and Saljo, R. (1976). "On Qualitative Differences in Learning — 1: Outcome and Process" British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11 Maheady, L., Mallette, B., & Harper, G. F. (2006). Four class wide peer tutoring models: Similarities, differences, and implications for research and practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22(1), 65-89. Makhoul, B., Olshtain, E., & Ibrahim, R. (2015). Promoting Comprehension Skills among At-Risk First Graders: The Role of Motivation in One-to-One Tutoring Environment. Psychology, 6(4), 375. Marton, F., & Booth, S. A. (1997). Learning and awareness. Psychology Press. Maslow, A. H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1994). Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60(3), 249-261. McLeskey, J. M., Rosenberg, M. S., & Westling, D. L. (2012). Inclusion: Effective practices for all students. Pearson Higher Ed. McMillan, J. H & Schumacher, S. (1994). Research in education: A conceptual introduction. New York: Harper Collins. Menard, S. (2002). Longitudinal research (Vol. 76). Sage. Menard, S. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of longitudinal research: Design, measurement, and analysis. Elsevier. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage. Mokhtari, K., Neel, J. L., Kaiser, F., & Le, H. H. (2015). Assessing the Promise of a Supplemental Reading Intervention for At-Risk First Grade Students in a Public-School Setting. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(3), 281. Montague, M. (2008). Self-regulation strategies to improve mathematical problem solving for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(1), 37-44. Moody, S. W., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S. (1997). Instructional grouping for reading. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 347-356. Moore-Hart, M., & Karabenick, S. A. (2000, April). Becoming successful readers: A volunteer tutoring program for culturally diverse students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 443077) Morris, D. (1999). The Howard Street tutoring manual: Teaching at-risk reading in the primary grades. NY: Guilford Press. Morris, D. (2006). Using noncertified tutors to work with at-risk readers: An evidence-based model. Elementary School Journal, 106(4), 352-360. Morris, D., Shaw, B., & Perney, J. (1990). Helping low readers in grades 2 and 3: An after-school volunteer tutoring program. The Elementary School Journal, 92(2), 133-50 Nastasi, B. K., & Schensul, S. L. (2005). Contributions of qualitative research to the validity of intervention research. Journal of School Psychology, 43(3), 177-195. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2000). What every teacher should know (No. ED430969). Washington D.C.: NBPTS. National Assessment of Educational Progress (2015). 2015 Reading Results, The Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved on 26 April 2016 from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading?grade=4 Ottesen, E. (2007). Reflection in teacher education. Reflective Practice, 8(1), 31-46. Parrila, R., Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Nurmi, J. E., & Kirby, J. R. (2005). Development of individual differences in reading: Results from longitudinal studies in English and Finnish. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 299. Patton, M. (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Sage Publication, California, pp: 18-20. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. Perry, W., & Chickering, A. (1997). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. College Student Development and Academic Life, 4, 48-116. Piaget, J. (1971). The theory of stages in cognitive development. In D. R. Green, M. P. Ford, & G. B. Flamer (Eds.), Measurement and Piaget. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pinnell, G. S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping At-Risk Children Learn to Read. Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 161-83. Pinnell, G. S. (2000). Reading Recovery: An Analysis of a Research-Based Reading Intervention. Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America. Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., Deford, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 9-39. Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., & Monaghan, M. C. (2004). Effects of a volunteer tutoring model on the early literacy development of struggling first-grade students. Literacy Research and Instruction, 43(4), 21-40. Rallis, S. F., & Rossman, G. B. (2003). Mixed methods in evaluation contexts: A pragmatic framework. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 491-512. Reed, A. J., & Bergemann, V. E. (2005). A guide to observation, participation, and reflection in the classroom. McGraw-Hill. Rimm‐Kaufman, S. E., Kagan, J., & Byers, H. (1998). The effectiveness of adult volunteer tutoring on reading among “at risk” first grade children. Literacy Research and Instruction, 38(2), 143-152. Ritter, G., Barnett, J., Denny, G., & Albin, G. (2009). The effectiveness of volunteer tutoring programs for elementary and middle school students: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 3. Ritter, G., Albin, G., Barnett, J., Blankenship, V., & Denny, G. (2006). The effectiveness of volunteer tutoring programs: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2(7). Roberts, C. & Stark, P. (2008). Readiness for self-directed change in professional behaviours: Factorial validation of the Self-Reflection and Insight Scale. Medical Education, 42, 1054-1063. Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to learn. Merrill, Columbus, Ohio Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866. Runhaar, P., Sanders, K., & Yang, H. (2010). Stimulating teachers' reflection and feedback asking: An interplay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and transformational leadership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 1154-1161. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126). New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. A. (Ed.). (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Positive psychology: An introduction (pp. 279-298). Netherlands: Springer. Shanahan, T. (1998). On the effectiveness and limitations of tutoring in reading. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.). Review of Research in Education (pp. 217-234). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 958-996. Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Mathes, P., & Hodge, J. P. (1995). Effects of explicit teaching and peer tutoring on the reading achievement of learning-disabled and low-performing students in regular classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 387-408. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2013). Taking Success for All to Scale: A Program with a History of Raising Achievement of At-Risk Children Builds Local Capacity, Provides External Support, and Encourages Networking among Participating Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 51. Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1-26. Stake, R.E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & YS Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage. Stake, R. E., & Trumbull, D. J. (1982). Naturalistic Generalizations. Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science, 7(1-2), 1-12. Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meaning. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, 3-50. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). Differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. ASCD. Tunmer, W. E., Chapman, J. W., Greaney, K. T., Prochnow, J. E., & Arrow, A. W. (2013). Why the New Zealand National Literacy Strategy has failed and what can be done about it: Evidence from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2011 and Reading Recovery monitoring reports. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 18(2), 139-180. U.S. Department of Education (2014). Federal Work-Study (FWS) Program. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/fws/index.html Vadasy, P. (2011). Supplemental Reading Instruction by Para educators and Tutors. Handbook of Reading Interventions, 300-325. Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205-228. Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C. D., Barth, & Francis, D. J. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 3. Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64(2), 211-225. Vukelich, C., Justice, L. M., & Han, M. (2013). Impact of supplemental tutoring configurations for preschoolers at risk for reading difficulties. Child & Youth Care Forum, 42(1), 19-34. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34-41. Wasik, B. A. (1997). Volunteer tutoring programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(4), 282. Wasik, B. A. (1998a). Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 266-291. Wasik, B. A. (1998b). Using volunteers as reading tutors: Guidelines for successful practices. The Reading Teacher, 51(7), 562-570. Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 179-200. Wiggins, J. B., Grafsgaard, J. F., Mitchell, C. M., Boyer, K. E., Wiebe, E. N., & Lester, J. C. (2014). Exploring the relationship between self-efficacy and the effectiveness of tutorial interactions. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on AI-supported Education for Computer Science (AIEDCS) (pp. 31-40). Willard, A. L., & Kulinna, P. H. (2012). Summer Literacy Intervention for Homeless Children Living in Transitional Housing. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 17(1), 15-21. Wisker, G., Exley, K., Antoniou, M., & Ridley, P. (2013). Working one-to-one with students: supervising, coaching, mentoring, and personal tutoring. Routledge. Wojtas, O. (1998) Feedback? No, just give us the answers. Times Higher Education Supplement, September 25, 1998. Worthy, J., Prater, K., & Pennington, J. (2003). “It's a Program That Looks Great on Paper”: The Challenge of America Reads. Journal of Literacy Research, 35(3), 879-910. Yin, R., (1989). Case Study Research. Sage Publication, California, pp: 22-26. Yip, K. S. (2006). Self-reflection in reflective practice: A note of caution. British Journal of Social Work, 36(5), 777-788. Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 23-49. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.  Appendices Appendix A Adult Informed Consent Statement America Reads Tutors and Their Tutoring Decisions: Structured Self-Reflection or Not? INTRODUCTION The Department of Curriculum and Teaching at the University of Kansas supports the practice of protection for human subjects participating in research. The following information is provided for you to decide whether you wish to participate in the present study. You may refuse to sign this form and not participate in this study. You should be aware that even if you agree to participate, you are free to withdraw at any time. If you do withdraw from this study, it will not affect your relationship with this unit, the services it may provide to you, or the University of Kansas. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Tutoring is an important element of helping striving students improve in their reading. America Reads (AR) tutors are an important part of this tutoring process. This study will help to better understand AR tutors and their self-reflections and how it affects their tutoring decisions. This study could further inform literature on the tutoring process and the advantages of using a structured self-reflection model. Essentially this study will answer the question: “How do America Reads tutors reflect and does it influence their tutoring decisions?” PROCEDURES If you agree to participate in this study, you allow the researcher to: Collect demographic (e.g., age range, teaching experience, educational degree, self-reflection opinions) and initial qualitative information (e.g., a survey and interview questions) about me. If selected to participate in Phase II (case studies), To conduct informal pre- and post- interviews to learn about my self-reflection. The interview may be audio recorded. I may request that the recording be stopped at any time. Audio recordings will be transcribed. Only the researcher will have access to this data. Provide two training sessions (up to 2 hours each session) of a structured self-reflection model. Collect data up to classroom observations of four tutoring sessions in an academic year. Observation times will be prearranged. Collect information from online self-reports required by the Federal Work Study requirements, and AR coordinator observation notes. You are also reminded that 1. Permission granted on this date remains in effect for five years after the conclusion of the study, and all data collected from this study will be destroyed 5 years after the conclusion of this study. 2. Though highly unlikely, that through intent or accident someone other than the researcher may see my responses. 3. The findings from this study may be used at literacy conferences and district professional development sessions. Identities will remain confidential. RISKS I understand that this method of data collection is not expected to interfere with my job. No risks are anticipated for participating in this study. BENEFITS I understand the findings will provide me with an interesting insight to self-reflection, especially a structured self-reflection model that I may have not otherwise been aware of. Additionally, the findings could guide other tutors, teachers, and administrators to ways in which to better support the tutoring sessions of students in similar learning environments, as well as raise additional research questions. PAYMENT TO PARTICIPANTS None. PARTICIPANT CONFIDENTIALITY My name will not be associated in any publication or presentation with the information collected about me or with the research findings from this study. Instead, the researcher(s) will use a study number or a pseudonym rather than my name. My identifiable information will not be shared unless (a) it is required by law or university policy, or (b) I give written permission. By signing this form, I give permission for the use and disclosure of my information for purposes of this study at any time in the future. INSTITUTIONAL DISCLAIMER STATEMENT In the event of injury, the Kansas Tort Claims Act provides for compensation if it can be demonstrated that the injury was caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of a state employee acting within the scope of his/her employment. REFUSAL TO SIGN CONSENT AND AUTHORIZATION I am not required to sign this Consent and Authorization form and I may refuse to do so without affecting my right to any services I am receiving or may receive from the University of Kansas or to participate in any programs or events of the University of Kansas. However, if I refuse to sign, I cannot participate in this study. CANCELLING THIS CONSENT AND AUTHORIZATION I may withdraw your consent to participate in this study at any time. I also have the right to cancel my permission to use and disclose further information collected about me, in writing, at any time, by sending my written request to: Dr. Barbara Bradley, 1122 W. Campus Rd. Joseph R. Pearson Hall, Room 316, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-3101 If I cancel permission to use my information, the researchers will stop collecting additional information about me. However, the research team may use and disclose information that was gathered before they received my cancellation, as described above. QUESTIONS ABOUT PARTICIPATION Questions about procedures should be directed to the researcher(s) listed at the end of this consent form. PARTICIPANT CERTIFICATION: I have read this Consent and Authorization form. I have had the opportunity to ask, and I have received answers to, any questions I had regarding the study. I understand that if I have any additional questions about my rights as a research participant, I may call (785) 864-7429 or (785) 864-7385, write the Human Subjects Committee Lawrence Campus (HSCL), University of Kansas, 2385 Irving Hill Road, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7568, or email irb@ku.edu. Please check whether you agree or decline to give permission for data from the observations, recordings and audio recordings may be used for literacy conferences and professional development sessions at school districts. I agree for the data from this study to be used for educational purposes such as literacy conferences and district professional development sessions. I do not agree for the data from this study to be used for educational purposes such as literacy conferences and district professional development sessions.  I agree to take part in this study as a research participant. By my signature I affirm that I am at least 18 years old and that I have received a copy of this Consent and Authorization form. _______________________________ _____________________ Type/Print Participant's Name Date _______________________________ Participant's Signature Researcher Contact Information Sarah Tham, Doctoral Candidate Principal Investigator School of Education University of Kansas 208 Joseph R. Pearson Hall 1122 West Campus Rd. Lawrence, Kansas 66045-3101 785-218-7521 sarahtham@ku.edu Dr. Barbara Bradley Faculty Advisor Joseph R. Pearson Hall, Rm 316 1122 W. Campus Rd. University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045 785-864-9726 barbarab@ku.edu  Appendix B The ALACT model  Appendix C Model of Structured Self-reflection  Appendix D Detailed timeline for data collection Summer 2017 August Pilot demographic and pre-interview questions Fall 2017 September Administer survey and Self-Reflection and Insight Scales (SRI), conduct interviews. Intervention-third and fourth week of September (each session about 2 hours) with follow-up during regular AR meetings. First observation (after 15 hours of tutoring experience) Collect online self-reports (end of the month) October First interview (after 20 hours of tutoring experience) Second observation (after 30 hours of tutoring experience) Collect online self-reports (end of the month) November Second interview (after 40 hours of tutoring experience) Third observations (after 40 hours of tutoring experience) Collect online self-reports (end of the month) December Collect online self-reports (end of the month) Collect coordinator observation reports (end of the Fall 2017 semester) Spring 2018 January Collect online self-reports (end of the month) February Fourth/Final observation (after 60 hours of tutoring experience) Collect online self-reports (end of the month) March Fourth/Final interview (after 65 hours of tutoring experience) Collect online self-reports (end of the month) April Administer SRI scale Collect online self-reports (end of the month) Collect coordinator observation reports Completing any required/missing observations and interviews  Appendix E Survey More about you Please complete the following statements. My name: ________________________ Gender: _____________________________ My major: _________________________________________ Other major (if any): ___________________________________________ My minor (if any): _____________________________________________ America Reads (AR) years of experience (in months): ____________________________________ Grades I have tutored in: ___________________________________________________ Areas of study I have tutored in (e.g. spelling, fluency, comprehension, addition etc.) _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I joined the AR program because __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I anticipate that I will continue participating in the AR program until _____________________________________________________________________ Training Please list trainings (if any) you have attended to help you become a better tutor. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please indicate what other training you would like to receive. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  Section B: General Tutoring Experience Please evaluate yourself as a tutor. Poor Excellent 1 2 3 4 5 Knowledge of the subject matter Love of teaching and a desire to make your subject interesting to others Helping students gain self-confidence Identifying students' problem area(s) Developing strong rapport Giving immediate feedback Giving clear explanations Asking students to verbalize steps in problem solving Using positive reinforcement Practice active listening Asking open-ended questions Facilitating the use of learning strategies Demonstrating a supportive, non-judgmental attitude Breaking down problem areas into small segments Having students do work independently Being able to problem-solve on my own Managing behavior-related issues Managing my time Reflecting during my tutoring session Patient and flexible, i.e. when one idea is not working, use another Willingness to try new teaching and learning methods Pre-empting problems Do you reflect after your tutoring sessions? (circle) YES NO SOMETIMES How do you reflect? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ What do you usually reflect on? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ What do you do with your reflections? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ What do you find challenging about reflecting? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ What do you think will make reflecting much easier? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Follow-up questions (at end of each semester) Tutor Reflection & Self-Reflection Name: _______________________ Date: _____________ 1. On a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), how would you rank your performance as a tutor this semester? 1 2 3 4 5 Please explain: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. On a scale of 1 (extremely ineffective) to 5 (extremely effective) please rate the effectiveness of your self-reflection structure: 1 2 3 4 5 Please explain: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. What were some of the main issues you assisted students with this semester (check all that apply)? Test Preparation Writing (writing papers, research skills, revising, etc.) Reading Strategies Sight Words Spelling Worksheets Notetaking Strategies Reviewing course content and concepts Keeping up with pace of course Other: _______________________________________ 4. What, if any, personal benefits have you gained from being more aware of your self-reflection? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. As a tutor this semester, what could you have done better? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. What did you like MOST about self-reflecting? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. What did you like LEAST about self-reflecting? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8. What suggestions would you make for improving your self-reflection in future semesters? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10. Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  Appendix F The Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (SRIS) by Grant, Franklin & Langford (2002) Statements Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 1 I don’t often think about my thoughts 2 I am not really interested in analyzing my behavior 3 I am usually aware of my thoughts 4 I am often confused about the way that I really feel about things 5 It is important for me to evaluate the things that I do 6 I usually have a very clear idea about why I have behaved in a certain way 7 I am very interested in examining what I think about 8 I rarely spend time in self-reflection 9 I’m often aware that I am having a feeling, but I often don’t quite know what it is 10 I frequently examine my feelings 11 My behavior often puzzles me 12 It is important to me to try to understand what my feelings mean 13 I don’t really think about why I behave in the way that I do 14 Thinking about my thoughts make me more confused 15 I have a definite need to understand the way my mind works 16 I frequently take time to reflect on my thoughts 17 Often, I find it difficult to make sense of the way I feel about things 18 It is important to me to be able to understand how my thoughts arise 19 I often think about the way I feel about things 20 I usually know why I feel the way I do  Appendix G Initial Interview questions (Phase I)-for all America Reads (AR) tutors 1. What do you think are some characteristics of a good tutor? 2. What responsibilities do you think a tutor has? 3. Is there any part about tutoring that you find challenging? 4. You may not have begun tutoring but do you think self-reflection is helpful in tutoring? Briefly explain why you think so. In general, (not related to tutoring), what specific techniques or activities have you been involved in that promote self-reflection? 6. What would you self-reflect about? 7. How often do you think self-reflection should take place? 8. What do you self-reflect on? 9. In your opinion, when would it be acceptable to NOT self-reflect? Post-intervention interview questions (Phase II)- for AR participating in case studies). I want to remind you again that our conversation is confidential and has no impact upon your grade and is not an evaluation of your work for AR. I remind you of this so that, you will feel free to speak your mind in response to the questions in the handout. You may choose to stop this interview session at any point. There is so much that we can learn from your first-hand experiences tutoring student that will help future tutors. Your participation is greatly appreciated as I learn how AR tutors engage in self-reflect. The interview will take not more than twenty or thirty minutes. The interview will tend to focus on your actions, thoughts and decisions when tutoring in relation to your self-reflection. (Possible open-ended questions to get the interview going and allowing tutors the opportunity to let the interview proceed as needed.) Name _______________________________ Date_______ School tutoring in ____________________ Turing duration per session: ___________________ Number of students working with each session: ____________________ Questions What does self-reflection mean to you now? / How do you feel about your reflection? (Self-efficacy related) What about self-reflection can be challenging? (Self-efficacy related) (constructivism related) Do you discuss about your self-reflection on tutoring with your peers? (constructivism related) How would self-reflection become better for you? (constructivism related) Has there been an “aha” moment in your self-reflection, for example, have you used your self-reflection for something specific? (constructivism related) What characteristics or qualities do you think are necessary for self-reflecting? (ALACT related) Do you think of different perspectives to take future actions when self-reflecting? For example, do you include non-tutoring perspectives in your self-reflection, such as your personal experience as a learner, childhood experiences etc. (ALACT related) What about the Self-reflection are you more aware of today? (ALACT related) What do you usually reflect on? (ALACT related) What specific techniques or activities have you been involved in that promote self-reflection? (ALACT related) What part about self-reflection do you often concentrate on? (ALACT related) Do you reflect with a specific purpose? (ALACT related) Do you find yourself trying out new things when tutoring? (ALACT related, self-efficacy related) Probing statements/phrases How do you know…. Why or why not….? Can you explain further? Please tell me more. / I would like to hear more about that. Is it working? How do you feel about that? What has changed? Can you provide me an example? (Silence) Is there an example that you are thinking of?  Appendix H Interview Protocol Prior to Interview Identify tutor and essential background information about them. Design a set of interview questions tailored to the tutor, choosing from among the questions listed in this protocol. Arrange date and time of interview, explain aims of project Send interview questions ahead of interview with covering letter asking for any documents, data and resources that may be helpful to be identified where possible prior to interview Send website address and short blurb and contact details of interviewer Request permission for recording interview Inform tutor that a transcript can be provided if requested. Check tape recorder, spare batteries and tapes. During Interview At interview, provide background information to the project Re-confirm permission to record, confidentiality and transcript to be provided. Check tape recorder and conduct voice test. Throughout interview take notes. Identify any action to be followed up, if any. Request permissions to follow up issues by telephone/face to face/e-mail After Interview Write up interview notes/transcribe. Enter into database. Identify action points Write letter/email of thanks to tutor and ask whether transcription needed. Check and edit transcript If requested, send transcript to tutor and ask to confirm/amend accordingly. Request any additional information at this point. Arrange to follow up with telephone/face to face meeting where necessary Enter factual content information from interview into database (key people. Moments, dates and events) Save transcript and notes on-line in one WORD file.  Appendix I Tutoring observation template America Reads Observation Sheet Tutor Name: ______________________________ Grade: ______________ Date: ________ School: ___________________________________ Classroom Teacher: __________________ Setting: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Time Observation Comments Time Observation Comments Areas of strength: Areas to continue developing: Goal: Tutor signature: __________________________ Observer signature: ___________________ Date: ___________________ Appendix J Observation protocol Both the tutor and observer will agree upon a time that is convenient to all, allowing tutor to discuss with classroom teacher. The observer will only observe the tutor and not the classroom teacher. Observations will be undertaken in a way that minimizes disruption to teaching and learning. Observer will not take part in lessons. However, when suitable opportunities arise, observer may talk informally with learner or examine his/her work. Where practical and only upon request by tutor, feedback will take place at the end of the observation. Where this is not practical, informal feedback must take place with 24 hours of the observation. The formal written feedback will be provided within 5 working days of the observation. Observer will: evaluate objectively and be impartial base observations and judgments on clear and rigorous evidence report honestly and clearly, ensuring that judgments are fair and reliable carry out the observation with integrity, treating practitioners with respect and sensitivity try to minimize the stress on those involved in the observation (practitioner and learners) maintain purposeful and productive dialogue with the tutor being observed, and communicate judgments clearly and frankly take written notes or complete documentation electronically during the session or afterwards as far soon as possible. 3 138