The Effectiveness of One-to-One Tutoring by Community Tutors for at-Risk Beginning Readers

Abstract

One-to-one instruction, while highly desirable for children with the lowest reading skills, is not often available. It could be provided by nonprofessional tutors in the community, however. One aim of this study was to determine whether a one-to-one phonologically based tutoring program that incorporates many features of successful early reading programs and that is delivered by nonprofessional tutors is effective with first-grade students at risk for reading failure. Forty at-risk first graders who did not differ on reading skill prior to the intervention were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The treatment group received 30 minutes of individual instruction from community tutors four days a week for up to 23 weeks. The control group received only the regular reading instruction in their classrooms. The treatment group outperformed the control group on all reading, decoding, spelling and segmenting, and writing measures, with effect sizes averaging .21, .35, .37, and .19, respectively. Differences were significant on only one nonword reading and one spelling measure; however, a second aim was to determine the effects of the tutors' ability to implement the lessons scripted for them. Tutors who implemented the program with a high degree of fidelity achieved significant effect sizes in each early reading skill area assessed. Results support the potential of nonprofessional tutors to supplement early reading instruction, and prevent learning disabilities in at-risk children.

Timing and Intensity of Tutoring: A Closer Look at the Conditions for Effective Early Literacy Tutoring

“…This study provides clear support for the value of early supplementary instruction in phonics-based reading skills for first graders as soon as they are identified with reading problems, similar to the findings we reported previously Vadasy et al, 1997aVadasy et al, , 1997bVadasy, Jenkins, & Pool, 2000). In the case of interventions delivered by teachers and other skilled instructors, and Blachman, Tangel, Ball, Black, and McGraw (1999) found that some students require, or benefit from (Fowler et al, 2002), more than one year of intervention.…”

Efficacy of Supplemental Phonics-Based Instruction for Low-Skilled First Graders: How Language Minority Status and Pretest Characteristics Moderate Treatment Response

“…Our finding of significant positive treatment effects on all but one of our outcome measures (across LM and non-LM students) replicates earlier results on the effectiveness of paraeducator-implemented, supplemental phonics-based instruction for at-risk kindergarteners (Vadasy & Sanders, 2008a;Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton, 2006a), first graders (Jenkins et al, 2004;Vadasy et al, 1997aVadasy et al, , 1997b, and children in Grades 2 and 3 (Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton, 2006b; …”

“…This intervention has been used in prior research with primarily non-LM firstgrade students who performed in the bottom quartile of word reading in the fall of first grade (Jenkins, Peyton, Sanders, & Vadasy, 2004;Vadasy, Jenkins, Antil, Wayne, & O'Connor, 1997a, 1997b and aligns with research on effective instructional practices to develop early literacy skills in low-performing primary-age students (e.g., Blachman et al, 1994;Hatcher et al, 2006;Schneider, Roth, & Ennemoser, 2000). Our interest in testing whether supplemental reading intervention benefits lower skilled LM students stems from the need to improve reading skills for the growing number of LM students in the United States who are at elevated risk for reading difficulties (August & Hakuta, 1998;Lesaux & Geva, 2006).…”

Reviewing evidence‐based practice for pupils with dyslexia and literacy difficulties

“…Some research studies evaluating controlled, well-implemented early intervention programmes have reported educationally significant gains in reading (maintained 2 years later), when delivered by well trained and supported teaching assistants (Elbaum et al, 2000;Hatcher et al, 2006;Savage & Carless, 2004;Savage, Carless & Stuart, 2003;Vadasy, Jenkins, Antil, Wayne & O-Connor, 1997;Vadasy, Jenkins & Pool, 2000;but see Ehri, Dreyer, Flugman & Gross, 2007). In a recent review of the efficacy of early intervention studies, similar effect sizes were found for programmes implemented by trained personnel who were not teachers to those delivered by teachers (Scammacca et al, 2007).…”