1
ONE-ON-ONE READING INTERVENTION
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY: EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIVIDUALIZED, ONE-ON-ONE READING INTERVENTION
Strayhorn, J.M. & Bickel, D.D. (2003). A randomized trial of individual tutoring for
elementary school children with reading and behavior difficulties. Psychological
Reports, 92(2), 427-445.
Children in Grades K-5, selected forreadingand behavior problems, received individualtutoringin a program which aimed to detail a hierarchy ofreadingskills, locate the point on the hierarchy at which each child should work, and provide enthusiastic social reinforcement for successes.Children were randomly assigned to higher or lower frequencytutoring(one 45-min.session every 1.6 days vs every 8.3 days).The higher frequency group progressed significantly faster inreadingthan the lower frequency group.Both groups progressed much faster during the time of the intervention than they had beforetutoring.Beforetutoring, both groups had progressed at about 0.5 grade per year; duringtutoring, the higher frequency group progressed at 1.5 grade per year and the lower frequency group at 1.l grade per year.The subsets of children with verbal ability scores one or two standard deviations below the population mean, as assessed on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, still progressed at average rates of 1.2 grade per year duringtutoring.The amount of work students accomplished on a sounding and blending drill predictedreadingprogress.
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., & Yurecko, M. (2003). Teaching children to read: The fragile
link between science and federal education policy. Educational Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(15),
Teaching Children to Read (TCR) has stirred much controversy among reading experts regarding the efficacy of phonics instruction. This report, which was conducted by the National Reading Panel (NRP), has also played an important role in subsequent federal policy regarding reading instruction. Using meta-analysis, the NRP found that systematic phonics instruction was more effective than alternatives in teaching children to read. In the present study, the findings and procedures leading to TCR were examined. We concluded that the methodology and procedures in TCR were not adequate for synthesizing the research literature on phonics instruction. Moreover, we estimated a smaller though still substantial effect (d = .24) for systematic phonics, but we also found an effect for systematic language activities (d = .29) and tutoring (d = .40). Systematic phonics instruction when combined with language activities and individual tutoring may triple the effect of phonics alone. As federal policies are formulated around early literacy curricula and instruction, these findings indicate that phonics, as one aspect of the complex reading process, should not be over-emphasized.
Morris, D. Tyner, B. Perney, J. (2000). Early Steps: Replicating the effects of a first
grade reading intervention program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4),
681-693.
This study examined the effectiveness of Early Steps, alst-grade reading intervention program. Forty-three at-risk 1st graders, identified in September, received an average of 91 1-to-l tutoring lessons during the school year. The work of the tutors was carefully guided by a trainer who made 9 site visits. At the end of the school year, the Early Steps group outperformed a comparison group on a variety of reading measures, including oral reading accuracy, comprehension, and pseudoword decoding. Moreover, Early Steps tutoring made the largest difference for those children who were most at risk (lowest in reading ability) in September. In discussing the intervention model, emphasis is given to its systematic word study component and to the critical role of the trainer of tutors
Institute of Education Sciences (2003).Identifying and implementing education practices
supported by rigorous evidence. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
This study examined programs that met rigorous empirical criteria. As illustrative examples of the potential impact of evidence-based interventions on educational outcomes, the following have been found to be effective in randomized controlled trials – research’s “gold standard” for establishing what works. One-on-one tutoring by qualified tutors for at-risk readers in grades 1-3 (the average tutored student reads more proficiently than approximately 75% of the untutored students in the control group). Instruction for early readers in phonemic awareness and phonics (the average student in these interventions reads more proficiently than approximately 70% of students in the control group).
Darrell, M. & Gafney, M. (2011). Building reading fluency in a learning disabled middle
school reader. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55 (4), 331-341.
The article presents a case study of an eighth-grade student with learning disabilities who was tutored by one-on-one by a reading expert to improve aspects of hisreadingability including fluency and speed.The authors describe the type of instructional intervention used in a summerreadingclinic and after-school program, the use of a partner-readingstrategy, and practice with oralreadingand silentreading. After forty-seven hours of individual tutoring, the student in question made significant games in rate, accuracy and automatic word recognition.
Woolley, G. & Hay, I. (2007). Reading intervention: The benefits of using trained tutors.
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30 (1), 9-20.
This study demonstrates that reading intervention programs using trained tutors can have positive effects on students’ reading performance. Successful reading tutoring programs have utilized scaffolding and explicit modeling of reading skills to students, and these techniques require ongoing tutor training and supervision. When tutors provide appropriate feedback on students’ reading strategy performance, they can assist less able readers to know how and when to apply the strategies and develop their self-regulatory and self-efficacy reading behaviors. Consequently, tutors should be able to enhance students’ engagement with text, use of strategies and motivation, by fostering the students’ reading competency, autonomy and reading self-concept. Thus, the learning environment for students with reading problems should have social supports that provide positive language and vocabulary experiences within a framework of problem solving and choice.
Saddler, B. & Staulters, M. (2008). Beyond tutoring: After school literacy instruction.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(4).203-209.
One of the greatest challenges facing classroom teachers is accommodating struggling, diverse, and at-risk readers. Even with the use of effective, research-based techniques, many children fail to make adequate progress in reading and may need additional assistance. One way to provide this assistance is through tutoring in an after school setting. This study showed the one-on-one tutoring not only provided students with tools to better decoding and comprehension but also with enhanced self-esteem.
Hough, T., Geier, C., & Peyton, D. (2008). Targeting adolescents reading skills using
one-to-one instruction with research-based practices. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(8).640-650.
This article shows the one-on-one intervention is a highly effective method for improving the literacy skills of struggling adolescent readers. The article focuses on the three components of successful one-to-one literacytutoringprograms that have been identified as important for literacy skills enhancement among adolescents.The article stresses how the authorsused these methods in a clinical setting and how important the one-to-one component is in terms of implementation fidelity.