Markovitz, C. E., Hernandez, M. W., Hedberg, E. C., & Whitmore, H. W. (2021). American Educational Research Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi. org/10.3102/00028312211066848.
Reviewed: January 2023
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter sounds fluency (Fastbridge) - kindergarten |
Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) K-3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K Site: MN ;
|
26.94 |
16.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Fastbridge Test of Nonsense Words |
Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) K-3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1 Site: MN ;
|
61.65 |
45.35 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Letter sounds fluency (Fastbridge) - kindergarten |
Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) K-3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: K Site: WI ;
|
27.18 |
20.72 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Fastbridge Test of Nonsense Words |
Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) K-3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1 Site: WI;
|
43.81 |
35.08 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
6th grade Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT) 2.0 |
Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) K-3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1 Setting: MN ;
|
41.04 |
27.75 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fastbridge CBM Reading Fluency |
Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) K-3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 2&3 Setting: MN;
|
102.59 |
96.15 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Fastbridge CBM Reading Fluency |
Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) K-3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1 Setting: WI;
|
21.85 |
20.60 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 7% | |
| Black | 31% | |
| Other or unknown | 15% | |
| Two or more races | 1% | |
| White | 46% |
| Hispanic | 12% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 88% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
This study examined the impacts of Americorps programs in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Twenty-four schools in Minnesota participated, with 10 in urban/suburban areas and 14 in rural areas. Ten eligible Wisconsin Reading Corps schools participated.
The racial composition of the student sample is 46 percent White, 31 percent Black, 7 percent Asian, 1 percent multi-racial, and 15 percent other or unknown. The gender composition of the sample is 51 percent female and 49 percent male. Approximately 23 percent of students are English language learners. Students with IEPs were not eligible for participation in the intervention.
Volunteers from Americorps provided daily one-on-one tutoring services in reading as a supplement to regular classroom instruction, to students who scored below grade-level literacy proficiency targets at baseline. The content for the program is based on the National Reading Panel's "Big Five Ideas in Literacy," which includes phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Each tutoring session lasted approximately 20 minutes per day. Students participated in the program until they demonstrated adequate progress on weekly progress monitoring benchmarks.
The comparison condition was business-as-usual.
Participating schools had school-based literacy coaches. The literacy coaches met with tutors regularly and provided daily supervision for the program, as well as coordinated literacy instruction across grades K-3. Before the school year started, tutors, Master Coaches, and Internal Coaches participated in a 3-day Institute to receive training. Tutors receive detailed literacy manuals and online resources to augment the contents of the manual (e.g., videos of model practices). Supplemental training sessions were offered throughout the school year.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube