Impact Evaluation of the Minnesota Reading Corps K-3 Program
Markovitz, Carrie E.; Hernandez, Marc W.; Hedberg, Eric C.; Silberglitt, Benjamin (2014). Corporation for National and Community Service. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED560018
-
examining1,239Students, gradesK-3
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2024
- Grant Competition (findings for Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) K-3)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AIMSweb Letter Sound Fluency |
Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) K-3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade: K;
|
40.54 |
23.32 |
Yes |
|
|
|
AIMSweb Nonsense Word Fluency |
Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) K-3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade: 1;
|
65.34 |
58.83 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AIMSweb Oral Reading Fluency |
Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) K-3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade: 3;
|
85.02 |
82.94 |
No |
-- | |
|
AIMSweb Oral Reading Fluency |
Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) K-3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Grade: 2;
|
51.09 |
49.76 |
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.
-
33% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Other or unknown: 49% -
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
Minnesota
-
Race Asian 26% Black 27% Other or unknown 11% White 36% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 9% Other or unknown 91% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 73% Other or unknown 27%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in schools in Minnesota that were within a 3-hour drive of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area. The schools were located in rural, suburban, and urban areas, with enrollment between 400 and over 700 students. The percentage of students in participating schools who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch ranged from 23 percent to 96 percent.
Study sample
Across the grades, the sample was 51 percent female, 36 percent White, 27 percent Black, and 26 percent Asian, and 9 percent Hispanic. One-third (33%) of students were dual language learners and just under three-fourths (73%) were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL).
Intervention Group
The Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) is an AmeriCorps State program, hosted by ServeMinnesota Action Network, the state commission for all AmeriCorps State programs in Minnesota. MRC is a research-based intensive tutoring program delivered in grades K-3 using a Response to Intervention (RtI) framework to improve student literacy. Tutors receive training during a summer institute and are paired with a coach to support their implementation of the program. Corp members are provided with materials to support their delivery of the program, including a handbook and online supports. Members also attend two additional trainings focused on conducting child assessments using AIMSweb and Great Leaps. Corp members administer the AIMSweb each fall to identify students who fall below the benchmark and are therefore eligible to receive intensive tutoring across the school year. Student progress is assessed weekly, which guides the delivery of the intervention (both focus and duration) and when students no longer need literacy support.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction and ongoing supports through the school, including interventions supporting literacy skills through small group, individual, computer-based, and after-school/miscellaneous delivery models. They were prevented from receiving tutoring services during the first semester of the school year.
Support for implementation
The ServeMinnesota Action Network recruited, trained, placed, monitored, and regularly supported AmeriCorps members to implement the research-based literacy interventions. AmeriCorps members are trained in yearly Summer Institutes where they attend 3 days in the first year and 1 day in subsequent years. AmeriCorps members are supervised and supported by Internal Coaches at each school and MRC Master Coaches. Internal coaches provide AmeriCorps members with feedback based on monthly integrity checks, while the Master Coach assists Internal Coaches in selecting appropriate interventions and ensuring fidelity.
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).