1. 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 Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S.W. Presented by: Brooke Betson

2. Purpose  Determine the effectiveness of one-to-one reading interventions for elementary school children  Reading is an important skill for all students  One-to-One tutors can be costly

3. Questions to Consider  What intervention variables relate to the outcome:  Expertise of tutor  Training volunteers  Duration  Total hours of instruction provided

4. Questions to Consider  How does the outcome of Reading Recovery compare to other interventions?  How do one-to-one interventions compare to small group interventions?

5. Literature Review  Articles related to one-to-one interventions in reading were located using database thesauruses and from previous research  Ex. Educational Research Information Center

6. Inclusion Criteria  1975-1998  Study Participants were elementary students identified as at risk for reading failure  Outcomes compared at risk students who received one-to-one interventions with students who did not receive interventions  Calculation of an effect size was possible

7. Included Studies  29 studies met inclusion criteria  28 separate reports  Range of Dates  2 from the 1970’s  5 from the 1980’s  21 from the 1990’s  Student Grade Level  Majority of students were in the first grade

8. Results Intervention Variables:  Expertise of Tutor: Teachers, Community Volunteers, College Students or Paraprofessional  Training of Volunteers: Yes or No  Duration : Up to 20 weeks or Over 20 weeks  Total Hours : Less than 50 or 50-150 hours

9. Results Tutorkd95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper Teachers28.36.26.46 Community Volunteer 8.26.07.45 College students31.651.341.96 Paraprofessional1.68.041.32

10. Results Training of Volunteers kd95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper All volunteer tutors 8.26.07.45 Trained Volunteers 6.59.33.84 Training not reported 2-.17-.46.12

11. Results Durationkd95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper Duration Reported 30.48.38.58 Up to 20 Weeks 14.65.50.80 Over 20 Weeks 16.37.24.49

12. Results Total Hourskd95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper Studies Reporting Total Time 27.35.24.46 Less than 50 hours 15.38.24.52 50 – 150 hours 12.32.15.48

13. Interpretation  Expertise of Tutor  Greatest gains when college students were the tutors  Training  Greater gains were made when volunteers had been trained

14. Interpretation  Duration  Greater effect size for interventions lasting up to 20 hours  Total Hours  Research indicated that total hours was not reliably associated with the effect size

15. Results  Reading Recovery vs. other intervention strategies  Interventions using Teachers  Interventions for first graders

16. Results Interventions Using Teachers kd95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper All28.36.26.46 Reading Recovery 15.47.32.62 Other13.28.14.41

17. Results Interventions for First Graders kd95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper All26.49.39.59 Reading Recovery 16.66.52.80 Other10.29.14.44

18. Interpretation  Interventions Using Teachers  Reading Recovery had a larger effect, but this was not statistically reliable  Interventions for First Graders  Reading Recovery had a significantly higher effect size than other one-to-one interventions

19. Results  Reading Recovery vs. Small Group Interventions  Students achieved similar outcomes in both settings

20. Conclusions  One-to-One interventions are not better than small group interventions  College Students and trained volunteers can help improve a child’s reading abilities  Overall Reading Recovery is not better than other programs, but for certain populations it does lead to significant gains in reading ability

21. Strengths and Limitations Strengths  Detailed Tables  Easily understandable  Detailed Information about all studies included Limitations  Lack of Information  How many studies were not included  What is Reading Recovery  Limited Explanations  Brief explanations of all variables

22. References  Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., & Moody, S.W. (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.  Reading Recovery Council of North America. (2001) Retrieved May 30, 2003 from http://www.readingrecovery.org