The Effect of the Experience Corps[R] Program on Student Reading Outcomes
Lee, Yung Soo; Morrow-Howell, Nancy; Jonson-Reid, Melissa; McCrary, Stacey (2012). Education and Urban Society, v44 n1 p97-118. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ948930
-
examining881Students, grades1-3
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Experience Corps® (EC))
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Teacher Perception of Grade-Specific Reading Skills (Lee et al. 2011) |
Experience Corps® (EC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.76 |
2.66 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson III (WJ-III): Word Attack subtest |
Experience Corps® (EC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
95.79 |
94.20 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson - Passage Comprehension |
Experience Corps® (EC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
88.69 |
87.17 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III) |
Experience Corps® (EC) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
82.72 |
82.70 |
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: 49%
Male: 51% -
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
Massachusetts, New York, Texas
-
Race Black 58% Other or unknown 42% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 36% Not Hispanic or Latino 64% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 94% No FRPL 6%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 23 public elementary schools implementing Experience Corps (EC) in three urban cities: Boston, Massachusetts; New York, New York; and Port Arthur, Texas. Study participants were predominantly low-income students, most of which were Black or Hispanic.
Study sample
The study randomly assigned 538 students to the intervention condition and 562 to the comparison group. At the end of the study, 430 intervention students and 451 comparison students contributed outcomes to the study findings. The sample included students in grade 1 (41%), grade 2 (36%), and grade 3 (23%). Fifteen percent of students had an individualized education plan.
Intervention Group
Experience Corps places trained older adult volunteers age 55 and older in elementary schools to support children at risk of reading failure. Across the three study sites, students received one-to-one tutoring two to four times per week for about 30 to 40 minutes per session using a structured reading curriculum selected locally; the national model required sites to use a structured tutoring curriculum, while allowing adaptation to local preferences. New York used Book Buddies, Boston used Reading Coaches, and Port Arthur used the Brigance Inventory of Basic Skills and related materials. Tutoring was delivered in school as a one-to-one pull-out program, usually outside the classroom and sometimes in a private area within the classroom, with students working with tutors throughout the academic year. The reports do not specify exactly which classroom instruction students missed to participate in tutoring. Across all three cities, 75% of students received at least 35 tutoring sessions during the academic year.
Comparison Group
Students assigned to the comparison group did not receive Experience Corps tutoring. They continued to receive the schools’ usual reading instruction and supports available in their schools, but they were not assigned to work with an EC tutor during the study period.
Support for implementation
Each site had designated paid Experience Corps coordinators who recruited, trained, and monitored tutors and coordinated the program with classroom teachers and principals. Tutor training ranged from 15 to 32 hours and covered the reading curriculum, relationship-building with children, and strategies for handling challenging behavior. Tutors also received ongoing support and supervision during implementation, including regular support or training meetings, site-based technical assistance, and monitoring by coordinators. Coordinators also monitored tutoring activity regularly, and schools maintained attendance records, lesson plans, and daily lesson logs for each student.
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.
-
Morrow-Howell, N., Jonson-Reid, M., McCrary, S., Lee, Y., & Spitznagel, E. (2009). Evaluation of Experience Corps: Student reading outcomes. St. Louis: Washington University, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Center for Social Development.
-
Gattis, Maurice N.; Morrow-Howell, Nancy; McCrary, Stacey; Lee, Madeline; Jonson-Reid, Melissa; McCoy, Henrika; Tamar, Kemba; Molina, Alina; Invernizzi, Marcia. (2010). Examining the Effects of New York Experience Corps[R] Program on Young Readers. Literacy Research and Instruction, v49 n4 p299-314.
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).