Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-8
Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Volunteer One-on-One Tutoring Model for Early Elementary Reading Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Trial Replication Study
This study examines the impacts of two AmeriCorps programs, Minnesota Reading Corps and Wisconsin Reading Corps, where AmeriCorps volunteers provide literacy tutoring to at-risk kindergarten through third-grade (K–3) students utilizing a response-to-intervention framework. This evaluation replicates a prior randomized controlled trial evaluation of the program 4 years later and for the first time evaluates the program model replicated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The results of the two evaluations showed that kindergarten and first-grade students who received a single semester of Reading Corps tutoring achieved significantly higher literacy assessment scores, and demonstrated meaningful and significant effects after a full-school year of the intervention for second- and third-grade students.
AartsA. A.AndersonJ. E.AndersonC. J.AttridgeP.AttwoodA.AxtJ.BabelM.BahníkS.BaranskiE.Barnett-CowanM.BartmessE.BeerJ.BellR.BentleyH.BeyanL.BinionG.BorsboomD.BoschA.BoscoF. A.. . . ZuniK. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), 943–950. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
2.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 300–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325020230050501
3.
AllorJ.McCathrenR. (2004). The efficacy of an early literacy tutoring program implemented by college students. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(2), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00095.x
4.
BakerS.GerstenR.KeatingT. (2000). When less may be more: A 2-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 494–519. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.35.4.3
5.
BaluR.ZhuP.DoolittleF.SchillerE.JenkinsJ.GerstenR. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (Report number NCEE 2016-4000). U.S. Department of Education.
6.
BarthA. E.StuebingK. K.AnthonyJ. L.DentonC. A.MathesP. G.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J. (2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.004
7.
BayeA.InnsA.LakeC.SlavinR. (2018). A synthesis of quantitative research on reading programs for secondary students. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(2), 133–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.229
8.
BollmanK. A.SilberglittB.GibbonsK. A. (2007). The St. Croix River education district model: Incorporating systems-level organization and a multi-tiered problem-solving process for intervention delivery. In JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 319–330). Springer.
9.
BuckJ.TorgesenJ. (2003). The relationship between performance on a measure of oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCRR Tech. Rep. No. 1). Florida Center for Reading Research. https://www.fcrr.org/TechnicalReports/TechnicalReport1.pdf
10.
BurnsM. K.AppletonJ. J.StehouwerJ. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(4), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290502300406
11.
CallenderW. A. (2007). The Idaho results-based model: Implementing response to intervention statewide. In JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 331–342). Springer.
12.
CattsH. W.HerreraS.NielsenD. C.BridgesM. S. (2015). Early prediction of reading comprehension within the simple view framework. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28(9), 1407–1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9576-x
13.
ChardD. J.StoolmillerM.HarnB. A.WanzekJ.VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.Kame’enuiE. J. (2008). Predicting reading success in a multilevel schoolwide reading model: A retrospective analysis. Journal of Learning disabilities, 41(2), 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407313588
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.
16.
CookR. G. (2003). The utility of DIBELS as a curriculum based measurement in relation to reading proficiency on high-stakes tests [Unpublished master’s thesis, Marshall University Graduate College, Huntington, WV].
DentonC. A.HasbrouckJ. A. N. (2009). A description of instructional coaching and its relationship to consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19(2), 150–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410802463296
19.
DentonC. A.VaughnS.FletcherJ. M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00075
20.
EdmondsM. S.VaughnS.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC. K.CableA.TackettK. K.SchnakenbergJ. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998
21.
EhriL. C. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S45–S60. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.334
22.
ElbaumB.VaughnS.Tejero HughesM.Watson MoodyS. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.605
FitzgeraldJ. (2001). Can minimally trained college student volunteers help young at-risk children to read better?Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.1.2
FuchsD.DeshlerD. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00237.x
27.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2017). Critique of the national evaluation of response-to-intervention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children, 83(3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917693580
28.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13(4), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511189
29.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HospM. K.JenkinsJ. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3
30.
GamseB. C.JacobR. T.HorstM.BoulayB.UnluF. (2008). Reading first impact study: final report (NCEE 2009-4038). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
31.
GentryJ. R.OuelletteG. (2019). Brian words: How the science of reading informs teaching. Stenhouse.
32.
GoodR. H.SimmonsD. C.Kame’enuiE. J. (2001). The importance and decision making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 257–288. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_4
HaffordC.MarkovitzC.HernandezMDiaconisA.EstreraE.MuyskensP. (2013, February). Process Assessment of the Minnesota Reading Corps Program. (Prepared under contract to the Corporation for National and Community Service). Chicago, IL: NORC at the University of Chicago.
35.
HillC. J.BloomH. S.BlackA. R.LipseyM. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2(3), 172–177. https://doi.org/1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00061.x
36.
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for service delivery in an RTI framework: Candidate measures. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087919
37.
JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (2016). From response to intervention to mulit-tiered systems of support: Advances in the science and practice of assessment and intervention. In JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed., pp. 1–6). Springer.
38.
Kame’enuiE. J.SimmonsD. C. (1998). Beyond effective practice to schools as host environments: Building and sustaining a school-wide intervention model in beginning reading. Oregon School Study Council, 41(3), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1030011990230204
39.
KimY. S.PetscherY.SchatschneiderC.FoormanB. (2010). Does growth rate in oral reading fluency matter in predicting reading comprehension achievement?Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 652–667. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019643
MarkovitzC.HernandezM.HedbergE.SilberglittB. (2014). Impact evaluation of the Minnesota Reading Corps K-3 Program. NORC at the University of Chicago.
42.
MorrisD.ShawB.PerneyJ. (1990). Helping low readers in Grades 2 and 3: An after-school volunteer tutoring program. Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 132–150. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1001747
43.
National Science Foundation, & Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, I. for E. S. (2018). Companion guidelines on replication and reproducibility in education research: A supplement to the common guidelines for education research and development. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2019/nsf19022/nsf19022.pdf
44.
RennieD. (2001). CONSORT revised—Improving the reporting of randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(15), 2006–2007. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.15.2006
45.
ReschlyD. J. (2008). School psychology RTI paradigm shift and beyond. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology V (5th ed., pp. 3–15). National Association of School Psychologists.
46.
RitcheyK. D.SpeeceD. L. (2006). From letter names to word reading: The nascent role of sublexical fluency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(3), 301–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.10.001
47.
RitterG. W.BarnettJ. H.DennyG. S.AlbinG. R. (2009). The effectiveness of volunteer tutoring programs for elementary and middle school students: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325690
48.
RobertsG.GoodR.CorcoranS. (2005). Story retell: A fluency-based indicator of reading comprehension. School Psychology Quarterly, 20(3), 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.2005.20.3.304
49.
RoehrigA. D.PetscherY.NettlesS. M.HudsonR. F.TorgesenJ. K. (2008). Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting high-stakes third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 343–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2007.06.006
50.
RubinD. B. (2005). Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(469), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214504000001880
51.
ShanahanT. (1998). On the effectiveness and limitations of tutoring in reading. Review of Research in Education, 23(1998), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.2307/1167291
52.
ShanahanT. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction?Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S235–S247. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.349
53.
ShanahanT.CunninghamA.EscamillaK. C.FischelJ.LandryS.LoniganC. J.MolfeseV. J.SchatschneiderC.StricklandD. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the national early literacy panel. National Institute for Literacy. https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
54.
SlavinR. E.LakeC.DavisS.MaddenN. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.002
55.
SnowC. E.BurnsS. M.GriffinP. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press.
56.
SnyderP. A.HemmeterM. L.FoxL. (2015). Supporting implementation of evidence-based practices through practice-based coaching. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 35(3), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121415594925
57.
StanleyC. T.PetscherY.CattsH. W. (2018). A longitudinal investigation of direct and indirect links between reading skills in kindergarten and reading comprehension in tenth grade. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31(1), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9777-6
58.
SteinerP. M.WongV. C.AnglinK. L. (2019). A causal replication framework for designing and assessing replication efforts. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 227(4), 280–292. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000385
59.
StuartE. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical science: A review. Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 25(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS313
60.
SugaiG.HornerR.GreshamF. (2002). Behaviorally effective school environments. In ShinnM.WalkerH.StonerG. (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approach (pp. 315–350). National Association of School Psychologists.
61.
ThompsonJ. A.SonnenscheinS. (2016). Full-day kindergarten and children’s later reading: The role of early word reading. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 42(January-February), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.11.005
62.
TorgesenJ. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1501_6
WasikB. (1998). Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 266–291. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.33.3.2
65.
WongV. C.AnglinK.SteinerP. M. (2021). Design-based approaches to causal replication studies. Prevention Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01234-7
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
