Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Tutoring Format and Tutors: Findings from an Early Literacy Tutoring Program. EdWorkingPaper No. 25-1176
Shirin Hashim; Katharine Pace Miles; Erin Croke (2025). Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED674069
-
examining408Students, grades1-3
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for In-person tutoring - Hashim et al. (2025))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STAR Early Literacy |
In-person tutoring - Hashim et al. (2025) vs. Remote tutoring—Hashim et al. (2025) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.09 |
-0.04 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Acadience Reading Composite Score |
In-person tutoring - Hashim et al. (2025) vs. Remote tutoring—Hashim et al. (2025) |
2 Months |
Grades 1 and 2;
|
-0.06 |
-0.12 |
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.
-
39% English language learners -
Female: 47%
Male: 53% -
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
New York
-
Race Asian 26% Black 29% Other or unknown 34% White 11% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 31% Not Hispanic or Latino 69% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 11 Summer Rising program sites in New York City. Summer Rising is a summer program offered to students in New York City Public Schools. The manuscript does not offer additional details about this program.
Study sample
School administrators identified 939 students entering grades 1 through 3 to receive early literacy tutoring at Summer Rising program sites. The study focused on these students who needed extra help with reading. The researchers randomly assigned 401 students to in-person tutoring and 538 students to remote tutoring. The study analyzed outcomes for up to 446 students who completed at least one tutoring session, with the exact number included varying across outcome measures.
Intervention Group
Reading Ready and Reading Go were structured early literacy tutoring programs designed to help young students build foundational reading skills. In this study, students in the intervention group were offered one-on-one tutoring in person from undergraduate students. Tutors used lessons that covered skills such as letter-sound knowledge, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, sentence reading, and writing. The study described Reading Ready lessons as lasting about 20 to 30 minutes and Reading Go lessons as lasting about 30 to 45 minutes. Tutoring took place over about six weeks, and students in the in-person condition who participated completed about 14 sessions on average. About two-thirds (68%) of the 401 students assigned to this group attended at least one tutoring session.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group were offered the same Reading Ready and Reading Go tutoring content, but it was delivered remotely instead of in person. They worked one-on-one with undergraduate students during the same summer period and used the same program materials. Students in the remote condition who participated completed about 12 sessions on average. Fewer than two-thirds (62%) of the 538 students assigned to this group attended at least one tutoring session.
Support for implementation
The tutors were undergraduate students recruited by City University of New York. They received training on Reading Ready and Reading Go before tutoring began. Coordinators managed both in-person and remote tutoring sessions at each site. The manuscript did not provide additional detail about the length or format of the training or other ongoing support.
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).