Texas Journal of Literacy Education - Volume 12 - Issue 2 - Fall/Winter 2025

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Margaret

High schools use English I tutorial periods to support students who previously failed the Texas STAAR assessment, yet tutorials often rely on lecture, passive practice, or worksheet completion that limits active literacy engagement. This quantitative quasi-experimental pretest–posttest study evaluates a guided practice and engaged learning model in a high school English I tutorial course for STAAR retesters. Data from observations, behavior logs, attendance, and pre-post measures link instruction emphasizing modeling, scaffolds, response opportunities, and collaborative literacy tasks to higher engagement, fewer disruptions, and stronger assessment outcomes.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages35

Reading Time1 h 28 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Purpose of the Study

Study Context and Participants

Instructional Approach and Rationale

Ashleigh Bridges, M.S., M.Ed., NBCT Texas A&M University-Texarkana Abstract High schools may rely on tutorial periods to support students who have previously failed the English I State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) exam. However, these tutorials often rely on lecture, passive practice, or isolated worksheet completion, which are approaches that rarely promote active literacy engagement. This quantitative, quasi‑experimental pretest–posttest study examines the impact of implementing guided practice and engaged learning routines in a high school English I tutorial course serving STAAR retesters. Using classroom observations, behavior documentation, attendance patterns, and pre-post assessment data, the study analyzes how instructional shifts relate to performance on the December STAAR retest. Findings suggest that tutorials grounded in modeling, scaffolded practice, opportunities to respond, and collaborative literacy tasks are associated with higher engagement, fewer disruptive behaviors, and stronger assessment performance. Implications for English Language Arts teachers and literacy leaders are discussed, particularly in the design of tutorials that prioritize interaction and meaningful reading and writing practice. Keywords: state assessment; literacy; guided practice; tutorials; English Language Arts Texas Journal of Literacy Education | Volume 12: Issue 2 | Fall/Winter 2025 | ISSN 2374-7404 High school tutorial programs are essential for supporting students who have not met proficiency on state assessments; however, these spaces are often characterized by low engagement and instructional routines that lack meaningful literacy interaction (Vaughn & Fletcher, 2012). Many English I State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) retesters enter tutorial classes with a history of academic frustration and negative associations with reading and writing tasks. When tutorials rely heavily on lecture or independent packet completion, students frequently disengage, exhibit off-task behaviors, or fail to demonstrate progress on required assessments (Cooper, 2014; Vaughn & Fletcher, 2012) . Teachers are managing full instructional schedules and large class sizes, and they often lack the time or support necessary to create more interactive and responsive tutorial environments (Shernoff et al., 2016; Wang & Hofkens, 2020) . This results in instructional mismatch and contributes to persistent gaps in literacy performance, particularly among students who need the most targeted support (Cooper, 2014) . In Texas, meeting proficiency on the English I State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) exam is a graduation requirement (Texas Education Agency, 2019), making tutorial programming a central component of secondary literacy intervention. Since the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) exam measures reading comprehension, textual analysis, and extended writing, it requires students to actively process and analyze the texts, make inferences, and produce evidence-based responses on the written portion. Instructional approaches that position students as passive recipients of information rarely foster the deep engagement necessary for such complex literacy tasks (Moore, 2016; Rosenshine, 2012). Research has long emphasized that adolescents, particularly those with a history of academic difficulty, benefit from instruction that includes explicit modeling of strategic reading, Texas Journal of Literacy Education | Volume 12: Issue 2 | Fall/Winter 2025 | ISSN 2374-7404 scaffolded practice with complex tasks, structured discussion and cognitive rehearsal, and frequent opportunities to demonstrate their understanding of what is being taught (Fisher & Frey, 2014; Rosenshine, 2012; Vaughn & Fletcher, 2012). Guided practice and engaged learning routines have been associated with student gains in reading comprehension and in showing more sustained academic engagement as well a

FAQs

What problem does the study address about high school English I tutorials?

Tutorial periods for STAAR retesters often depend on lecture, passive practice, or isolated worksheet work, which rarely produces active literacy engagement and can lead to low engagement and limited progress.

What instructional changes define the guided practice and engaged learning routines?

The redesigned approach includes modeling cognitive processes in reading and writing, chunking complex tasks into manageable steps, enabling frequent opportunities to respond, and using collaborative literacy activities.

How did the researchers measure the impact of the tutorial redesign?

The study used classroom observations, behavior documentation, attendance patterns, and pre-post assessment data to analyze links between instructional shifts and performance on the December STAAR retest.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Margaret