Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Volunteer One-on-One Tutoring Model for Early Elementary Reading Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Trial Replication Study
Markovitz, Carrie E.; Hernandez, Marc W.; Hedberg, E. C.; Whitmore, Heidi W. (2022). American Educational Research Journal, v59 n4 p788-819 Aug 2022. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1343505
-
examining798Students, gradesK-3
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Fastbridge Test of Letter Sounds Fluency |
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 |
|
|
|
Fastbridge Test of Letter Sounds Fluency |
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 Site: 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 Site: MN;
|
102.59 |
96.15 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Fastbridge CBM Reading Fluency |
Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) K-3 vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade: 1 Site: WI;
|
21.85 |
20.60 |
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.
-
23% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Other or unknown: 50% -
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, Wisconsin
-
Race Asian 6% Black 31% Native American 3% Other or unknown 11% Pacific Islander 2% Two or more races 1% White 46% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12% Other or unknown 88% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
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.
Study sample
The racial and ethnic composition of the student sample was 46 percent White, 31 percent Black, 12 percent Hispanic, 6 percent Asian, 3 percent American Indian/Alaskan Native, 1 percent multi-racial, and less than 1 percent Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Just over half (51%) of the sample was female. Approximately 23 percent of students were English language learners. Students with IEPs were not eligible for participation in the intervention.
Intervention Group
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.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business-as-usual. Children in this group waited either a single semester (those in kindergarten and first grade) or an entire school year (those in second and third grade) to receive the intervention.
Support for implementation
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).