Search the NSSA Website
Use our Tutoring Information Hub to find materials that are relevant to your high-impact tutoring needs. You can also subscribe to our newsletter to learn more about our work!
Displaying 151 - 159 of 159
04/13/2021. Research Study
04/13/2021. Research Study
Spanish-dominant bilingual students in grades 2-5 were tutored 3 times per week for 40 minutes over 10 weeks, using 2 English reading interventions. Tutoring took place from February through April of 1 school year. One, Read Well, combined systematic phonics instruction with practice in decodable text, and the other, a revised version of Read Naturally, consisted of repeated reading, with contextualized vocabulary and comprehension instruction. The progress of tutored students (n = 51) was compared to that of nontutored classmates (n = 42) using subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests--Revised. Students who received systematic phonics instruction made significant progress in word identification but not in word attack or passage comprehension. There were no significant effects for students in the repeated reading condition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)
04/13/2021. Research Study
This study investigated the relative effects of three treatments with varying instructional emphases in reading with a comparison condition. Eighty-seven students in fourth grade with reading impairments were assigned through stratified random assignment to one of four conditions: (a) comprehension emphasis, (b) word study emphasis, (c) emphasis of either comprehension or word study based on the student’s pretest reading profile, or (d) school-provided intervention comparison condition. Students in the three researcher-provided treatments received intervention in small groups with a trained tutor for 30 min daily for approximately 28 weeks. Results revealed no statistically significant main effects between conditions on measures of word reading, fluency, vocabulary, or comprehension. Students with limited English proficiency performed significantly better at posttest in all conditions than other students. Discussion addresses the challenges of successfully remediating reading problems with older students with significant reading problems.
04/13/2021. Research Study
Tutoring is commonly employed to prevent early reading failure, and evidence suggests that it can have a positive effect. This article presents findings from a large-scale (n = 734) randomized controlled trial evaluation of the effect of Time to Read—a volunteer tutoring program aimed at children aged 8 to 9 years—on reading comprehension, self-esteem, locus of control, enjoyment of learning, and future aspirations. The study found that the program had only a relatively small effect on children's aspirations (effect size +0.17, 95% confidence interval [0.015, 0.328]) and no other outcomes. It is suggested that this lack of evidence found may be due to misspecification of the program logic model and outcomes identified and program-related factors, particularly the low dosage of the program.
04/13/2021. Research Study
Examined the effectiveness of Reading Recovery as compared with 3 other instructional models. Treatments included a treatment modeled on Reading Recovery provided by teachers trained in a shortened program, a one-on-one skills practice model, and a group treatment taught by trained Reading Recovery teachers. 403 lowest achieving 1st-grade readers were randomly assigned to 1 of the 4 interventions or to a comparison group. Reading Recovery children performed significantly better on 4 measures (dictation, text reading level, Gates-MacGinitie, and Woodcock) than any of the other treatment groups and the comparison group. A macroanalysis of videotaped lessons revealed that essential program components related to success were one-on-one lessons, the lesson framework, and the Reading Recovery teacher staff development model. (French, Spanish & German abstracts) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
04/13/2021. Research Study
Examined the effectiveness of the Paired Reading (PR) method, using a competency-based training program with 52 parents of 2nd and 3rd graders receiving Chapter 1 services and 4th graders who received Chapter 1 services the year before. Overall reading improvement was assessed using difference scores obtained on the Paragraph Reading subtest of the Gray Oral Reading Test. Child and parent perceptions of the child's reading skills and reading habits were also assessed. Ss in the PR condition did not improve more than Ss in the control condition on overall reading scores. The small subset of Ss who completed the program did improve more in their overall reading scores than their matched controls. A post-hoc analysis indicated that 2nd and 3rd graders who were receiving Chapter 1 services in school improved in their overall reading scores and that 4th graders who no longer were eligible for Chapter 1 services did not show improvement. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
04/13/2021. Research Study
Investigated the effects of 2 parent tutoring reading programs upon children's reading achievement: one that used children's literature books and one that used each child's classroom basal reading materials. 36 2nd-grade students (mean age 7 yrs, 11 mo) and their parents were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups and a control group. The 15-wk study comprised 5 wks of baseline, 5 wks of treatment, and 5 wks of follow-up. During treatment, tutoring occurred 4 times each week for 20 min per session. Treatment effects were evaluated using curriculum-based measurement. The results show that although parents implemented the tutoring programs as designed, neither tutoring program had a significant effect upon student reading achievement. However, some individual students in LB and CB groups did experience gains in reading achievement. Implications for future endeavors in parent tutoring in reading are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
04/13/2021. Research Study
This paper reports on an evaluation study of a non‐professional, school‐based reading help scheme called Volunteer Reading Help (VRH). The adult community volunteers were involved in working twice a week for about 30 minutes on an individual basis with junior school children. The study is in two parts. Part One is a pre‐post experimental study investigating the effectiveness of VRH in improving children's reading and Self‐concept. The children were allocated randomly to either VRH (N‐43) or control‐group (N=38). The findings show no significant VRH‐effect. Part Two is an investigation of VRH as it is provided in practice. The analysis of tape‐recorded sessions (of 15 different Volunteer Reading Helpers) shows many discrepancies between the recommended VRH approach and the actual approach taken in practice, in particular with respect to reading for meaning and talking with children. It is recommended that more professional help for the volunteers might improve their effectiveness.
04/13/2021. Research Study
This randomized control trial examined the efficacy of a multitiered supplemental tutoring program within a first‐grade responsiveness‐to‐intervention prevention model. Struggling first‐grade readers (n = 649) were screened and progress monitored at the start of the school year. Those identified as unresponsive to general education Tier 1 (n = 212) were randomly assigned to receive Tier 2 small‐group supplemental tutoring (n = 134) or to continue in Tier 1 (n = 78). Progress‐monitoring data were used to identify nonresponders to Tier 2 (n = 45), who were then randomly assigned to more Tier 2 tutoring (n = 21) or one‐on‐one Tier 3 tutoring (n = 24). Tutoring in Tier 3 was the same as in Tier 2 except for the delivery format and frequency of instruction. Results from a latent change analysis indicated nonresponders to Tier 1 who received supplemental tutoring made significantly higher word reading gains compared with controls who received reading instruction only in Tier 1 (effect size = 0.19). However, no differences were detected between nonresponders to Tier 2 who were assigned to Tier 3 versus more Tier 2. This suggests more frequent 1:1 delivery of a Tier 2 standard tutoring program may be insufficient for intensifying intervention at Tier 3. Although supplemental tutoring was effective in bolstering reading performance of Tier 1 nonresponders, only 40% of all Tier 2 students and 53% of Tier 2 responders were reading in the normal range by grade 3. Results challenge the preventive intent of short‐term, standard protocol, multitiered supplemental tutoring models.