Mobilizing Volunteer Tutors to Improve Student Literacy: Implementation, Impacts, and Costs of the Reading Partners Program
Tepper Jacob, Robin; Armstrong, Catherine; Willard, Jacklyn Altuna (2015). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558508
-
examining1,151Students, grades2-5
Mobilizing Volunteer Tutors to Improve Student Literacy: Implementation, Impacts, and Costs of the Reading Partners Program
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2016
- Single Study Review (711 KB) (findings for Reading Partners)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) |
Reading Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
All students;
|
92.78 |
91.37 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) |
Reading Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in grades 2 and 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) |
Reading Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) |
Reading Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students who are ELs;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) |
Reading Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students who are not ELs;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE) |
Reading Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in grades 4 and 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AIMSweb CBM Words Read Correct |
Reading Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
All students;
|
0.06 |
-0.03 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
AIMSweb CBM Words Read Correct |
Reading Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Female students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
AIMSweb CBM Words Read Correct |
Reading Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students who are ELs;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
AIMSweb CBM Words Read Correct |
Reading Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in grades 2 and 3;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
AIMSweb CBM Words Read Correct |
Reading Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in grades 4 and 5;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
AIMSweb CBM Words Read Correct |
Reading Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
AIMSweb CBM Words Read Correct |
Reading Partners vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students who are not ELs;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
55% English language learners -
Female: 45%
Male: 55% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California, District of Columbia, New York
-
Race Asian 9% Black 19% Other or unknown 1% White 6% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 65% Not Hispanic or Latino 35%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 19 schools: 16 schools in California, two in New York, and one in Washington, DC. The majority of the schools were Title I schools. Eight of the 19 schools were “in varying stages of federal School Improvement status.”
Study sample
The analytic sample was 55% male, 65% Hispanic, 19% African American, 9% Asian, 6% White, and 1% other race or ethnicity. Over 90% of students in the analytic sample were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 55% of students were English learners. The intervention and comparison groups had similar characteristics.
Intervention Group
The Reading Partners intervention was a pull-out program that was offered during school hours or afterschool programs. Volunteer tutors and students met in a dedicated space, and the program was designed to provide two 45-minute sessions per week. The average number of Reading Partners tutors assigned to each student was 2.5. Across schools, the average number of tutors assigned to each student ranged from 1.7 to 3.6 tutors. On average, students received about 1.5 tutoring sessions per week for 28 weeks. In eight of the 19 schools, the Reading Partners center was in its second year of operation, while the rest had been operating a Reading Partners center for at least 3 years.
Comparison Group
Students assigned to the comparison group did not receive one-to-one tutoring through the Reading Partners program during the study period, but they were eligible for other supplemental reading services at school. The supplemental programs were usually offered in small group settings. The researchers found that 65% of comparison group students received supplemental reading services at school, and 21% of comparison group students received one-to-one tutoring. On average, the comparison students received 57 fewer minutes of supplemental reading instruction time per week than the intervention group. The researchers also found that 26% of comparison group students had received Reading Partners services prior to the study period.
Support for implementation
In addition to volunteer tutors, other core components of the Reading Partners program that supported the implementation of the individualized tutoring included the following: dedicated space and materials (including work stations, a library, and resource materials); a structured curriculum that tutors use with students; availability and use of assessment tools to be administered to students during the academic year; 2 weeks of training for new program managers; ongoing training provided to volunteers at the beginning of the year and on a monthly basis thereafter; and instructional supervision and support provided by staff to volunteer tutors.
Quick Review
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2015
- Quick Review
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Review in progress
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.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.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).