Delayed Effects of a Low-Cost and Large-Scale Summer Reading Intervention on Elementary School Children's Reading Comprehension
Kim, James S.; Guryan, Jonathan; White, Thomas G.; Quinn, David M.; Capotosto, Lauren; Kingston, Helen Chen (2016). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v9 suppl 1 p1-22. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1115350
-
examining5,319Students, grades2-3
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2022
- Single Study Review (findings for READS (Reading Enhances Achievement During Summer))
- 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 |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) - reading comprehension |
READS (Reading Enhances Achievement During Summer) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.02 |
0.01 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Reading Comprehension |
READS (Reading Enhances Achievement During Summer) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.04 |
-0.01 |
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.
-
16% English language learners -
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- 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
North Carolina
-
Race Black 40% Other or unknown 37% White 23% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 21% Not Hispanic or Latino 79%
Study Details
Setting
A total of 59 elementary schools in seven North Carolina public school districts participated in this study, including 39 high-poverty schools (75%–100% free- and reduced-price lunch; FRL) and 20 moderate-poverty schools (61%–74% FRL). The participating schools were located in two metropolitan school districts including suburban and central city schools, three mid-sized urban districts, and two rural districts. Teachers and students from grade 2 and 3 general education classrooms participated in the study, which aimed to improve reading comprehension.
Study sample
Just over half (51%) of students in the sample were female, while a majority (78%) were eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch. About 16 percent were described as having limited English proficiency. The student sample included 21% of students identifying as Hispanic, 40% identifying as Black, 23% identifying as White, and 16% identifying as some other race.
Intervention Group
The intervention included three main components: end-of-year lessons, an end-of-year family literacy night, and books for summer reading. Teachers of students in the intervention condition taught six reading lessons with these students near the end of the school year.The end-of-year lessons were based on recommendations from the What Works Clearinghouse Practice Guide on improving reading comprehension for students in grades K-3. During the lessons, teachers (a) modeled how to use a before, during, and after reading comprehension routine tailored to narrative or expository texts, (b) asked literal and inferential questions to promote discussion during read-alouds, (c) taught children to apply these activities to multiple genres of texts, and (d) created a motivational context that promoted children’s engagement with lesson books. The after-school family literacy event was designed to provide parents of students in the intervention group with information about the comprehension activities that students were encouraged to use with books mailed home over the summer.The event occurred after teachers had begun implementing classroom lessons, but before the end of the school year. At the event, students and their parents had an opportunity to use the content-based prediction routine prior to receiving matched books in the mail during the summer months. Specifically, parents learned that their children would receive books in the mail and were expected to complete before- and after-reading activities on a trifold that included these activities. Facilitators at the event asked parents to be involved with their child’s home reading activities in four ways, as expressed by the acronym EATS: (a) Encourage your child to read their matched books received in the mail; (b) Ask whether they completed the trifold; (c) Talk with your child about the books; and (d) Send back the trifolds after your child reads the books and answers the comprehension questions. Children also recited a reading pledge and received medals. Students in the intervention group also received 10 books in the mail at their home over the summer, including 8 matched books and 2 lesson books that were used in the end-of-year lessons. The researchers used a computer algorithm to identify books that were matched to each student’s reading skill level and reading interests. Each child’s reading skill levels were measured using the spring baseline reading comprehension test (ITBS), which were translated into Lexiles, a proprietary system designed to align reading skills with the difficulty of children’s books.
Comparison Group
Teachers of students in the comparison condition taught six math lessons with these students near the end of the school year. The math lessons were developed by a professor of mathematics education and were based on a unit using a problem-based learning framework.
Support for implementation
Teachers for the intervention group participated in a two-hour after-school training session, which was led teachers who were trained by the research staff. During the training, teachers received a lesson plan for each of the six end-of-year lessons and accompanying materials. The trainers began by explaining the goals and purpose of the lessons, walked teachers through the lesson procedures, modeled the lessons, answered questions, and offered the teachers an opportunity to ask follow-up questions via e-mail or phone prior to and during the week when the lessons were scheduled. Trainers emphasized the importance of adhering to the lesson scripts. Teachers were instructed to complete lesson logs after each of the six lessons.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Guryan, Jonathan; Kim, James S.; Quinn, David M. (2022). Does Reading during the Summer Build Reading Skills? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in 463 Classrooms. Working Paper 20689. National Bureau of Economic Research.
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).