Identifying Essential Instructional Components of Literacy Tutoring for Struggling Beginning Readers
Lane, Holly B.; Pullen, Paige C.; Hudson, Roxanne F.; Konold, Timothy R. (2009). Literacy Research and Instruction, v48 n4 p277-297 2009. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ856831
-
examining46Students, grade1
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.60 |
8.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.48 |
5.65 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.60 |
10.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological awareness--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
51.20 |
49.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.48 |
6.63 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological awareness--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
51.20 |
50.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.60 |
12.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.60 |
12.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Sight words--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
76.50 |
56.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Sight words--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
76.50 |
66.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Sight words--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
76.50 |
85.10 |
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.
-
Female: 43%
Male: 58% -
- 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
South
-
Race Black 68% Other or unknown 8% White 25% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4% Other or unknown 96% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 80% No FRPL 20%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 12 elementary schools in a medium-sized district in the southeastern United States.
Study sample
The study included 22 students in the intervention condition and 24 students in the primary comparison group. Three supplemental contrasts were also studied, and were reviewed as separate interventions. The three supplemental comparison groups each included between 17 and 19 additional students. Students were screened with an invented-spelling assessment, and only those scoring below the 30th percentile were eligible to participate. Only students who participated in at least 35 tutoring sessions were included in the sample. The authors provide sample characteristics for a larger sample of students in the 12 schools, including students participating in other arms of the research study. Approximately 43% of students were female, 25% of students were White, 68% of students were African American, and 7% of students were other or unknown race. About 4% of students were Hispanic, and approximately 80% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
The University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) is a one-on-one tutoring model designed to enhance literacy achievement for struggling beginning readers. Tutoring sessions included structured activities focused on reading connected text and targeted skill-building. In each session, students read familiar text to gain word reading accuracy and automaticity; used manipulative letters to work with familiar words, learn new words, and reinforce knowledge about letters and sounds; segmented words and wrote sentences with a tutor; and read a new book with scaffolding. In this variant of the intervention, an additional component—exploring new text genres and reading strategies—was not included. The tutor recorded the student reading the new book to guide instruction. Students received an average of 39.1 sessions, with sessions occurring 3-4 days per week. Each session lasted approximately 38 minutes. The tutoring sessions were supplemental to students’ regular classroom reading instruction.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received regular classroom reading instruction and no tutoring intervention during the study period. Reviewed by the WWC in supplemental findings, the study also examined a comparison of the full UFLI intervention and a variation dropping one component from the full UFLI intervention, excluding in turn (1) manipulative-letters word work and (2) segmenting words and writing sentences.
Support for implementation
Tutors were university graduate students (studying education, communication disorders, and psychology) who completed 12 hours of preservice training plus weekly 1-hour follow-up training sessions throughout the tutoring period. Training included demonstrations, videotaped lessons review, and practice of each lesson step. Tutors had to demonstrate mastery of the tutoring model before working with students. Fidelity checks showed tutors implemented about 93% of session components correctly. Most of the 32 tutors worked across multiple study conditions.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.30 |
8.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.63 |
5.65 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.30 |
10.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.30 |
12.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological awareness--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
49.70 |
50.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.30 |
12.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.63 |
7.48 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological awareness--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
49.70 |
51.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Sight words--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
72.40 |
56.20 |
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.
-
Female: 43%
Male: 58% -
- 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
South
-
Race Black 68% Other or unknown 8% White 25% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4% Not Hispanic or Latino 96% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 80% No FRPL 20%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 12 elementary schools in a medium-sized district in the southeastern United States.
Study sample
The study included 19 students in the intervention condition and 24 students in the primary comparison group. Three supplemental contrasts were also studied, and were reviewed as separate interventions. The three supplemental comparison groups each included between 17 and 22 additional students. Students were screened with an invented-spelling assessment, and only those scoring below the 30th percentile were eligible to participate. Only students who participated in at least 35 tutoring sessions were included in the sample. The authors provide sample characteristics for a larger sample of students in the 12 schools, including students participating in other arms of the research study. Approximately 43% of students were female, 25% of students were White, 68% of students were African American, and 7% of students were other or unknown race. About 4% of students were Hispanic, and approximately 80% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
The University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) is a one-on-one tutoring model designed to enhance literacy achievement for struggling beginning readers. Tutoring sessions included structured activities focused on reading connected text and targeted skill-building. In each session, students read familiar text to gain word reading accuracy and automaticity; used manipulative letters to work with familiar words, learn new words, and reinforce knowledge about letters and sounds; read a new book with scaffolding; and explored new text genres and reading strategies. In this variant of the intervention, an additional component—using segmented words and writing sentences with a tutor—was not included. The tutor recorded the student reading the new book to guide instruction. Students received an average of 39.1 sessions, with sessions occurring 3-4 days per week. Each session lasted approximately 38 minutes. The tutoring sessions were supplemental to students’ regular classroom reading instruction.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received regular classroom reading instruction and no tutoring intervention during the study period. Reviewed by the WWC in supplemental findings, the study also examined a comparison of the full UFLI intervention and a variation dropping one component from the full UFLI intervention, excluding in turn (1) manipulative-letters word work and (2) exploring new text genres.
Support for implementation
Tutors were university graduate students (studying education, communication disorders, and psychology) who completed 12 hours of preservice training plus weekly 1-hour follow-up training sessions throughout the tutoring period. Training included demonstrations, videotaped lessons review, and practice of each lesson step. Tutors had to demonstrate mastery of the tutoring model before working with students. Fidelity checks showed tutors implemented about 93% of session components correctly. Most of the 32 tutors worked across multiple study conditions.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.80 |
8.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological awareness--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
50.30 |
49.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological awareness--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
50.30 |
51.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.80 |
12.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.65 |
6.63 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.80 |
12.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.80 |
12.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Woodcock Johnson (WJ): Word Attack subtest |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.65 |
7.48 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Sight words--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
66.60 |
56.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Sight words--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
66.60 |
76.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Sight words--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
66.60 |
85.10 |
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.
-
Female: 43%
Male: 58% -
- 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
South
-
Race Black 68% Other or unknown 8% White 25% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4% Not Hispanic or Latino 96% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 80% No FRPL 20%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 12 elementary schools in a medium-sized district in the southeastern United States.
Study sample
The study included 18 students in the intervention condition and 24 students in the primary comparison group. Three supplemental contrasts were also studied, and were reviewed as separate interventions. Students were screened with an invented-spelling assessment, and only those scoring below the 30th percentile were eligible to participate. Only students who participated in at least 35 tutoring sessions were included in the sample. The authors provide sample characteristics for a larger sample of students in the 12 schools, including students participating in other arms of the research study. Approximately 43% of students were female, 25% of students were White, 68% of students were African American, and 7% of students were other or unknown race. About 4% of students were Hispanic, and approximately 80% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
The University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) is a one-on-one tutoring model designed to enhance literacy achievement for struggling beginning readers. Tutoring sessions included structured activities focused on reading connected text and targeted skill-building. In each session, students read familiar text to gain word reading accuracy and automaticity; segmented words and wrote sentences with a tutor; read a new book with scaffolding; and explored new text genres and reading strategies. In this variant of the intervention, an additional component—using manipulative letters to work with familiar words, learn new words, and reinforce knowledge about letters and sounds—was not included. The tutor recorded the student reading the new book to guide instruction. Students received an average of 39.1 sessions, with sessions occurring 3-4 days per week. Each session lasted approximately 38 minutes. The tutoring sessions were supplemental to students’ regular classroom reading instruction.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received regular classroom reading instruction and no tutoring intervention during the study period. Reviewed by the WWC in supplemental findings, the study also examined a comparison of the full UFLI intervention and a variation dropping one component from the full UFLI intervention, excluding in turn (1) segmenting words and writing sentences and (2) exploring new text genres.
Support for implementation
Tutors were university graduate students (studying education, communication disorders, and psychology) who completed 12 hours of preservice training plus weekly 1-hour follow-up training sessions throughout the tutoring period. Training included demonstrations, videotaped lessons review, and practice of each lesson step. Tutors had to demonstrate mastery of the tutoring model before working with students. Fidelity checks showed tutors implemented about 93% of session components correctly. Most of the 32 tutors worked across multiple study conditions.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.90 |
8.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.90 |
10.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding sentence writing component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.90 |
12.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Nonword decoding--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.90 |
12.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Sight words--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.10 |
56.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Sight words--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding manipulative letters component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.10 |
66.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Sight words--Lane et al. (2009) |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) vs. University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) excluding extending literacy component |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.10 |
76.50 |
Yes |
|
||
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.
-
Female: 43%
Male: 58% -
- 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
South
-
Race Black 68% Other or unknown 8% White 25% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4% Not Hispanic or Latino 96% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 80% No FRPL 20%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 12 elementary schools in a medium-sized district in the southeastern United States.
Study sample
The study included 17 students in the intervention condition and 24 students in the primary comparison group. Three supplemental comparison groups were also studied, and were reviewed as separate interventions. Students were screened with an invented-spelling assessment, and only those scoring below the 30th percentile were eligible to participate. Only students who participated in at least 35 tutoring sessions were included in the sample. The authors provide sample characteristics for a larger sample of students in the 12 schools, including students participating in other arms of the research study. Approximately 43% of students were female, 25% of students were White, 68% of students were African American, and 7% of students were other or unknown race. About 4% of students were Hispanic, and approximately 80% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
The University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) is a one-on-one tutoring model designed to enhance literacy achievement for struggling beginning readers. Tutoring sessions included structured activities focused on reading connected text and targeted skill-building. In each session, students read familiar text to gain word reading accuracy and automaticity; used manipulative letters to work with familiar words, learn new words, and reinforce knowledge about letters and sounds; segmented words and wrote sentences with a tutor; read a new book with scaffolding; and explored new text genres and reading strategies. During each session, the tutor measured the student's accuracy reading the previous session's new book; results guided instruction for the remainder of the session. Students received an average of 39.1 sessions, with sessions occurring 3-4 days per week. Each session lasted approximately 38 minutes. The tutoring sessions were supplemental to students’ regular classroom reading instruction.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received regular classroom reading instruction and no tutoring intervention during the study period. Reviewed by the WWC in supplemental findings, the study also examined three variations of the intervention as additional comparison groups. Each of these variations dropped one component from the full UFLI intervention, excluding in turn (1) manipulative-letters word work, (2) segmenting words and writing sentences, and (3) exploring new text genres.
Support for implementation
Tutors were university graduate students (studying education, communication disorders, and psychology) who completed 12 hours of preservice training plus weekly 1-hour follow-up training sessions throughout the tutoring period. Training included demonstrations, videotaped lessons review, and practice of each lesson step. Tutors had to demonstrate mastery of the tutoring model before working with students. Fidelity checks showed tutors implemented about 93% of session components correctly. Most of the 32 tutors worked across multiple study conditions.
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Phonological awareness assessment |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) vs. literacy intervention |
40 Days |
UFLI vs UFLI minus manipulative letters;
|
51.70 |
50.30 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Phonological awareness assessment |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) vs. literacy intervention |
40 Days |
UFLI minus extended literacy vs. UFLI minus manipulative letters;
|
51.20 |
50.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological awareness assessment |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) vs. literacy intervention |
40 Days |
UFLI minus sentence writing vs. UFLI minus manipulative letters;
|
49.70 |
50.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Decoding assessment - author designed |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) vs. Business as usual |
40 Days |
UFLI minus sentence writing versus Control;
|
12.30 |
8.80 |
No |
-- |
|
Sight words assessment - author designed |
University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) vs. Business as usual |
40 Days |
UFLI minus sentence writing versus Control;
|
72.40 |
56.20 |
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.
-
- 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
South
Study Details
Setting
The intervention was conducted in a medium-sized district located in the southeastern United States. The intervention was targeted to first-grade students in 12 elementary schools and consisted of one-on-one tutoring sessions. The intervention was delivered by tutors during the school day.
Intervention Group
The purpose of the intervention was to promote phonemic awareness, print awareness and decoding skills, as well as improve reading fluency, comprehension and use of strategy. The study tested different variations of the program to determine the relative efficacy of the different elements of the tutoring model. It tested five conditions in the study (four treatment conditions and one control no-treatment condition). The treatment conditions were as follows: Treatment Condition 1: UFLI program in its entirety with all 5 steps. The tutoring session under this condition lasted approximately 38 minutes. The tutoring session consisted of the following five steps. 1. Gaining fluency: Tutor coaches student as s/he read a familiar book (4-5 minutes). Tutor also helps student conduct word work using manipulative letters, encoding and decoding at onset-rimes and phoneme levels, starting with words familiar to the student (3-4) minutes. (2) Measuring progress: Tutor monitors student's performance by taking a running record of reading progress (3-4 minutes) and reinforces effective use of reading strategies. (3) Writing and Reading. Tutor discusses the familiar book used in Step 2 with the child and together they create a sentence (30 sentence). The student writes the sentence with coaching from the tutor, using Elkonin boxes and repeated writing practice to learn unfamiliar words (6-8 minutes). (4) Reading a new book: Tutor takes student on a "picture walk" through a new book (5-6 minutes), which the student then reads with the tutor's coaching. Tutor leads the student in word work using manipulative letters, and encoding and decoding words at onset-rime and phoneme levels, this time using new words (2-3 minutes). (5) Extending Literacy: In this step the tutor introduces a new genre of text, explaining its purpose and emphasizing the strategies that can be used to read the genre well. (5-7 minutes). Treatment Condition 2: UFLI minus manipulative letters. This treatment group received the UFLI program without any word work with manipulative letters. The tutoring session lasted approximately 35 minutes. Treatment Condition 3: UFLI minus sentence writing. This treatment group received the UFLI program without any sentence writing. The tutoring session lasted approximately 32 minutes. Treatment Condition 4: UFLI minus the extending literacy component. This treatment group received the UFLI program without the extended literacy component. The tutoring session lasted approximately 34 minutes. The type of Intervention: The intervention was a full reading curriculum. Number of Lessons, Duration, Implementation period: Each student was supposed to receive 40 lessons. On average students received 39.1 lessons, which occurred three or four days each week. (The overall period over which all the sessions were conducted was not specified in the study ) Students receiving less than 35 sessions were excluded. The duration of individual tutoring sessions varied by type of treatment (mentioned above).
Comparison Group
The comparison group did not receive any component of the intervention and simply received the regular reading instruction provided by classroom teachers.
Support for implementation
The intervention was implemented by 32 masters' level graduate students. These tutors received 12 hours of training and had to demonstrate mastery of the intervention model in a simulated lesson before they began instructing students. They also received one-hour follow-up training sessions each week. Trainees observed demonstrations and reviews of videotaped reading lessons as well as practiced each lesson step. Research team members observed each teacher conducting tutoring lessons at least twice to determine fidelity to tutoring steps.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).