Air Reading: A randomized evaluation of a virtual tutoring model
Neitzel, A. J., & Storey, N. (2024). Center for Research and Reform in Education, John Hopkins University.
-
examining381Students, grades1-6
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Air Reading)
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
Air Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
174.41 |
172.40 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
Air Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Black;
|
173.51 |
171.08 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
Air Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
White;
|
177.21 |
175.38 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
Air Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Hispanic or Latino;
|
173.46 |
171.51 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
Air Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Emergent bilingual students;
|
173.21 |
172.21 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
Air Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Special education students;
|
169.99 |
170.06 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
Air Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Economically disadvantaged students;
|
173.24 |
172.06 |
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.
-
25% English language learners -
Other or unknown: 100% -
Rural
-
- 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
Texas
-
Race Black 27% Other or unknown 52% White 21% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 48% Not Hispanic or Latino 52% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 72% No FRPL 28%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in six elementary schools in a school district in Texas.
Study sample
The study included students in grades 1 through 6 who had been identified as needing extra help in reading based on a standardized reading test. The study randomly assigned students to Air Reading or a comparison condition; among the 381 students in the analysis, 156 were in the Air Reading group and 225 were in the comparison group.
Intervention Group
Air Reading is an online tutoring program designed to improve students’ reading skills by addressing specific reading needs. In this study, students met online in small groups of up to four with a tutor, who guided lessons shaped by the program's reading curriculum and diagnostic information about student progress. Tutoring was scheduled for 40 minutes, four times each week, across one semester. Students attended about 40 sessions on average. The study did not report whether the sessions happened during or outside of regular school hours.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group continued to receive the instruction and services their schools normally provided. The report described this condition as business-as-usual classroom instruction and did not provide additional detail about whether comparison students also received other reading intervention services or extra support.
Support for implementation
The report stated that Air Reading tutors received ongoing training and support, but it did not provide more detail about the amount, format, or timing of that training and 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).