Family Perspectives of University Reading Clinic/Literacy Lab Experiences: What Matters

Responsive Teaching

One of the primary goals of clinics/labs more generally, and our programs in particular, is developing responsive teachers (Dozier et al., 2006; Hoffman et al., 2016; Lazar et al., 2012). Responsive teaching involves working within students’ zones of proximal development (Dozier et al., 2006; Vygotsky, 1978), understanding students and how they learn (Moll et al., 1992), choosing and aligning learning and instructional practices (Hoffman et al., 2019), and reflecting on dispositions toward students and families (Schön, 1983). In past clinic/lab research, tutors developed responsive instruction (Atkinson & Colby, 2006; Carr, 2003; Cuevas et al., 2006; D’Abate et al., 2018; Helfrich & Bean, 2011; Nickel & Chadwick, 2022), grew to thoughtfully choose, use, and flexibly adapt assessment and instructional practices (Hoffman et al., 2016), learned to build on student strengths and interests (Atkinson & Colby, 2006; Nickel & Chadwick, 2022), supported student engagement (Deeney et al., 2011), and reflected on their practice (Dozier et al., 2006).

Relationship Building

The unique nested structure of clinics/labs creates spaces for building co-learning relationships (Tuten & Jensen, 2008) through tutors and instructors engaging in joint productive activities (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) and collaboratively constructing new learning. Research has shown that clinic/lab programs helped tutors understand the relational aspect of teaching (Hoffman et al., 2019), value these relationships (Abrego et al., 2006), and build strong relationships with students (Pletcher et al., 2019). Yet, research has also attested to the difficulty tutors face in developing co-learning relationships (D’Abate et al., 2018).

Self-Efficacy and Agency

Given clinics’/labs’ dual focus on tutor and student learning, clinics/labs seek to create communities in which all involved gain confidence and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Hoffman et al., 2019; Nickel & Chadwick, 2022). Learners who attend clinic/lab programs have often experienced challenges in school, therefore, tutors must move beyond deficit thinking (Dozier et al., 2006; O’Neil & Chambers, 2013) to emphasize learner strengths. For students, this means coming to view themselves as readers and writers and advocating for their learning (Ahmed, 2018; Fredricks, 2011; Johnston, 2004; Sargent et al., 2006). Research suggests that within clinic/lab communities of practice, tutors came to realize the importance of student success and their responsibility for this success (Atkinson & Colby, 2006). Through tutor support, students in clinic/lab programs increased their self-concept as readers and writers (Dunston, 2007), showed positive change in affect and confidence toward reading and writing (Tuten & Jensen, 2008), and used language to articulate their learning (Atkinson & Colby, 2006).

Family Engagement

Research on family engagement in clinic/lab teacher preparation programs has revealed a variety of ways programs communicate and engage with families. Most clinics/labs provided families written reports, held parent conferences, and organized end-of-program celebrations (Pletcher et al., 2019). Some also provided family workshops (Laster, 1999) and/or arranged initial meetings between tutors and families (Atkinson & Colby, 2006). These studies highlighted structures that clinics/labs used to share information, instructional ideas, and potential resources to families. We still need to understand how tutors and families work together for the benefit of children, tutors, and families.

Learning Experiences to Support Responsive Teaching

As in many other clinic/lab programs (Hoffman et al., 2019; Pletcher et al., 2019), our clinic/lab instructors supported tutors to prepare weekly lesson cycles (planning, feedback, revision, enactment, reflection, and feedback) to ensure tutors planned for and engaged within their student’s zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). Instructors asked tutors to intentionally plan several possibilities within the lesson to prepare to follow the child’s lead (Hoffman et al., 2019). Instructors also created reflective engagements (e.g., video-recorded session reflections, behind-the-glass teaching) for tutors to interrogate their own practices, language, and dispositions (Schön, 1983). During sessions, supervisors provided in-the-moment mentoring, scaffolded tutor’s instruction, and modeled a strengths-based focus and intentional language choices. During accompanying seminars, supervisors facilitated reflective conversations about student learning and interactions, responsive instruction, dispositions, and how these intersected with course readings.

Learning Experiences to Support Relationship Building

Instructors modeled interactions that supported developing trusting relationships with students and families using strengths-based language and adopting a co-learner stance (Hoffman et al., 2016; Lazar et al., 2012; Rogers et al., 2023; Souto-Manning & Swick, 2006; Tuten & Jensen, 2008). For example, instructors showed tutors how to welcome children and family members by their names, invite families to join the tutoring space, inquire about families’ lives, and listen to and learn from families (Moll et al., 1992). If tutors seemed reluctant or tentative to engage with families, instructors intervened in the moment and facilitated generative conversations. Instructors insisted that tutors sit side-by-side with students as co-learners. They asked tutors to keep anecdotal notes on student and family engagement as a source of reflection on insights that lead to instructional adjustments (Schön, 1983). Instructors set the tone for relationship building by continuously modeling reflective thinking about their own dispositions and engagements.

Learning Experiences to Support Self-Efficacy and Agency

Instructors modeled how to identify learner strengths and asked tutors to specifically name strengths in weekly lesson reflections. They scaffolded tutors and students in naming how clinic/lab learning transferred to home and school contexts (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999). Instructors also modeled helping students use language to explain their learning (Atkinson & Colby, 2006), apply new-found confidence (Dunston, 2007), and envision possibilities as readers and writers, in this way supporting tutors in teaching students to advocate for themselves.

Learning Experiences to Support Family Partnerships

Instructors acknowledged that families come to clinics/labs with goals and intentions for their children’s experiences and required that tutors inquire about these goals. To prepare tutors for these conversations, instructors helped tutors generate questions/conversational prompts to learn from families. By insisting that tutors ask families what mattered to them, instructors helped tutors make connections with families and center family voices from the start. Instructors also fostered partnerships through ongoing, routine, and informative communication pathways. For example, across sites, tutors touched base with families at drop-off and pick up, communicated via email, texts, or phone calls, provided a written case or progress report, and held an end-program family celebration. Five programs also held orientations (IL1, IL2, MD, NC2, and CAN). Instructors insisted tutors ask for families’ communication preferences and follow families’ leads. When tutors and families did not share a common language, instructors sought translators. Through ongoing discussions with families and children, instructors helped tutors recognize and build on family funds of knowledge to plan learning experiences. Thus, instructors assisted tutors in engaging families as members of the community of practice.

Surveys

We first sought quantitative family ratings related to the four research-based clinic/lab guiding principles (see Table 1). In consultation with our group and other experts, we designed survey items formatted in a forced-choice Likert-type scale (1 = NO!, 2 = mostly no, 3 = somewhat no, 4 = somewhat yes, 5 = mostly yes, 6 = YES!). We piloted the survey at four clinic/lab sites (58 families), reviewed data with the group and outside experts, and then revised items, expanding from 10 to 14 items to disentangle ratings of reading from ratings of writing. To collect data for this study’s participants, instructors asked a family member to respond to a paper survey toward the end of program completion and provided support when asked. Translators or dual language speakers assisted when needed. We entered all survey data (N = 132) into an open access data analysis program, jamovi (Version 2.3) (The jamovi project, 2021); the overall reliability score (ɑ = .849) suggested high internal consistency of the 14-item set.

Interview Protocols

To deepen our understanding of family perspectives, we created a structured interview protocol (Seidman, 2019) to parallel the survey data (Table 1). In addition to the prompts in Table 1, we included prompts for goals and recommendations for improvement. As with the survey, we created the protocols in consultation with experts in the field and piloted the protocol with two clinic/lab sites (17 families) and clarified language throughout. Toward the end of each program’s completion, instructors conducted in-person one-on-one audio-recorded interviews with families who agreed to and were available (N = 84). Each director transcribed interviews from their site, identifying family member role (e.g., parent, grandparent), child grade level, and site.

Quantitative Analysis

Using jamovi (The jamovi project, 2021), we generated descriptive statistics for each survey item and compared means between program type (graduate, combined, and undergraduate) through analysis of variance (ANOVA) to understand any differences in survey responses by level of tutor. As we found no differences in items between program types, we provide group means and standard deviations in our findings.

Qualitative Analysis

We aligned qualitative analyses with the research questions using a deductive, a priori method related to our areas of interest (four clinic/lab guiding principles, family goals, and family recommendations). We conducted analyses manually in three cycles (Strauss & Corbin, 2008). First, we read through the transcripts several times to understand the content of data. Working in pairs, researchers collated data from interview prompts designed to address an area of interest (see Table 2). Each pair then identified any text within the remainder of the transcripts that related to that area of interest.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Examples of Coding System.

Guiding principle/definition	Preliminary in vivo code examples	Final category
Responsive teaching Tutors thoughtfully choose, use, and flexibly adapt assessment and instruction practices, build on strengths, support engagement, and reflect on their practice	strengths, bright spots, can do, praise, interests, child-led, decide, chose/choose(ing)	Learner-centered instruction built on strengths
	physical, active/activities, not sitting, games, electronics, YouTube, Internet	Multiple learning pathways
	engage(/d/ment/s), enjoy/ed/ing/s, excited, fun, interests, right level/theme	Engagement
Building relationships Teachers/instructors develop trusting relationships, build on student strengths, interests, culture, and center student needs	loves her, kind, easy to talk to, connection(s), positive, patient, lovely, know my kids	Tutor affect
	home strategies, share(ing/d/s), learned from, observe(ing/d/s), learned with, teaching (tutors), together	Learning together
Self-efficacy Teachers create spaces for students to view themselves as readers/writers and advocate for their learning	confidence/confident, improved	Confidence
	shared, independent, love reading, reads more, risk, takes initiative, show off	Independence
	motivated to learn, pushes herself, habit, advocates/cy	Habits of mind
Family partnerships Tutors/instructors honor and respect families, drawing on family funds of knowledge, as they engage with/learn from families as partners in child’s learning	communicate/d/s/ing, email/s/ing/ed, conversations, call/s/ed/ing, meetings, discussions, updates, open lines	Communication pathways
	Listen/s/ed/ing (to), learns/ed/ing, ask/s/ed/ing, questions, find(ing) out about	Building on funds of knowledge

In the second cycle, the first two authors created initial in vivo codes to represent ideas in the data and collapsed these into representative categories. They created category definitions and maintained notes, including comments about assumptions and prejudices to discuss with the team throughout the process (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). They repeated this with a second site’s data, listing initial codes, reducing codes into like categories or further dividing codes into separate categories. In the third cycle, the first two authors worked with two additional members of the research team to code a third site’s transcripts using cycle two codes and categories, discussing and resolving discrepancies, and clarifying and refining category definitions and descriptions (Table 2). These four members then divided the remaining seven sites’ data and coded them independently.

To address trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), two additional members of the research team collated coded data across all sites into separate matrices of the six areas’ codes and categories (Miles & Huberman, 1994). These members reviewed the matrices to ensure data fit identified categories, bringing discrepancies to the larger group for discussion. Once satisfied, additional members of the research team reviewed the final category matrices to judge the soundness of category descriptions.

Family Goals for Enrolling Children in Clinics/Labs

Analysis of interviews suggested families looked to clinics/labs to provide additional literacy support, and deliberately sought more individualized instruction to meet their children’s learning needs. A mother (Grade 4 CAN) stated, “[child] learns better within that one-on-one environment versus the group environment . . . because they’re allowing him to go at his own speed.” Families felt one-one-one instruction offered “less interruptions and attention is focused solely on the one student” (mother, Grade 7, IL1). Families also sought help for their children to “improve more so in reading” (mother, Grade 4, MT), in specific literacy areas (e.g., fluency, comprehension, writing, spelling), and with strategies for independence. For example, a mother (Grade 6, CAN) “wanted [child] to learn strategies and stuff that are going to help him to move forward, things that he can use when he’s in school and he’s stuck.” Families also wanted their children to “build[ing] confidence” (mother, Grade 1, VA), “become more secure,” (mother, Grade 3, NY) and develop positive attitudes by “learn[ing] that reading can be and is fun” (mother, Grade 2, NC1).

Family goals also centered on family attempts to balance their dual role of caregivers and teachers. A mother of a seventh grader (MD) noted,

I was not trained to [teach my child]. I didn’t have the skill set to do it and she couldn’t differentiate mommy disciplining her as opposed to mommy trying to help her. So . . . [help] is coming from someone else and their approach was different, so she was able to receive it.

Similarly, the mother of a fifth grader (CAN) shared,

I tried working with him and it was a fight . . . at home, he wanted just to be at home, doing at-home things. So tutoring, coming here was a way to get that extra help, but also, it’s fun and he wasn’t fighting with mom and dad.

What Mattered to Families in Responsive Teaching

Families named responsive teaching practices that resonated with them: tutors’ learner-centered instruction built on strengths, high levels of engagement, and multiple pathways to learning.

What Mattered to Families in Relationship Building

Families spoke of relationships developed during the clinic/lab experience. A mother of a fourth grader (CAN) expressed, “I would say the main thing I have seen definitely is just the relationship that the teacher is building, that rapport with that child.” Another family member echoed, “I thought you guys built the relationship up, which is important for him and for us . . . every time we walked in, you knew all the kids’ names and how happy you were to see them there” (mother, Grade 5, RI). Another mother noted, “These tutors reach children when other teachers can’t” (Grade 1, VA). Within families’ discussions of relationships, we identified two broad ways clinic/lab tutors developed trusting relationships: affect and learning together.

What Mattered to Families Relative to Self-Efficacy and Agency

Families spoke to their children gaining confidence, independence, and habits of mind as learners.

What Mattered to Families for Family Engagement

Families’ comments led us to identify two central ways tutors fostered family engagement: Communication pathways and building on funds of knowledge. Families appreciated being asked for feedback, “Thank you so much for caring to ask about our feedback” (mother, Grade 4, NY). Family recommendations suggested families’ disappointment in programs ending, requesting “longer” programs, “more” sessions, “extended time,” and “multiple years” of instruction. A mother, concerned about losing the partnership at the end of the program, said,

My concern is how do I keep this momentum going? I’m a 57-year-old single mother with two jobs. I’m a hard worker, having just completed a master’s degree myself, but there is only so much time in a day. I recognize I need help, but the trouble is trying to find good help. I’m sad that this program is ending, as is [child]. (Grade 5, IL1)