1
“Reading Intervention Impact: Practice Frequency, Tutoring Type,
and Reading Fluency Development.”
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Student number: xx
Tutor: xx
Group: xx
Course: Statistics 2
Datum: 11.05.2025
Word count: 1596
, 2
Reading intervention impact: Practice Frequency, Tutoring Type, and Reading Fluency
Development
In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the impact of intervention methods and
practice intensity on students’ reading fluency. Van der Weijden et al. (2024) showed that sustained
early literacy interventions in schools significantly reduce literacy problems over time, underlining the
importance of consistent practice and structured support. Similarly, Van der Leij et al. (2013) found
that structured and frequent practice improves reading fluency and comprehension in children with
reading difficulties. These findings highlight that both the nature and intensity of interventions are
important for reading development.
In addition to practice intensity, tutoring type may influence intervention outcomes.
Professional tutors, such as trained teachers, tend to deliver more consistent and evidence-based
instruction than volunteer tutors, like parents. Wasik and Slavin (1993) reported that professionals
more reliably use effective teaching strategies. Supporting this, Elbaum et al. (2000) found that
students tutored one-on-one by professionals showed greater reading improvement than those tutored
by volunteers.
Building upon these findings, the present study seeks to further investigate the relationship
between tutoring type, practice intensity, and students’ reading fluency. Specifically, we examine
whether higher practice frequency and longer session duration are associated with greater reading
fluency gains, and whether professional tutoring yields better outcomes that voluntary tutoring. Thus,
our hypotheses are twofold:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between practice frequency and reading fluency. This
association will be stronger for students who practice for longer periods of time during each session.
Hypothesis 2: Students who receive professional tutoring will score higher on reading fluency
compared to those with voluntary tutoring, while controlling for practice frequency.
“Reading Intervention Impact: Practice Frequency, Tutoring Type,
and Reading Fluency Development.”
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Student number: xx
Tutor: xx
Group: xx
Course: Statistics 2
Datum: 11.05.2025
Word count: 1596
, 2
Reading intervention impact: Practice Frequency, Tutoring Type, and Reading Fluency
Development
In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the impact of intervention methods and
practice intensity on students’ reading fluency. Van der Weijden et al. (2024) showed that sustained
early literacy interventions in schools significantly reduce literacy problems over time, underlining the
importance of consistent practice and structured support. Similarly, Van der Leij et al. (2013) found
that structured and frequent practice improves reading fluency and comprehension in children with
reading difficulties. These findings highlight that both the nature and intensity of interventions are
important for reading development.
In addition to practice intensity, tutoring type may influence intervention outcomes.
Professional tutors, such as trained teachers, tend to deliver more consistent and evidence-based
instruction than volunteer tutors, like parents. Wasik and Slavin (1993) reported that professionals
more reliably use effective teaching strategies. Supporting this, Elbaum et al. (2000) found that
students tutored one-on-one by professionals showed greater reading improvement than those tutored
by volunteers.
Building upon these findings, the present study seeks to further investigate the relationship
between tutoring type, practice intensity, and students’ reading fluency. Specifically, we examine
whether higher practice frequency and longer session duration are associated with greater reading
fluency gains, and whether professional tutoring yields better outcomes that voluntary tutoring. Thus,
our hypotheses are twofold:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between practice frequency and reading fluency. This
association will be stronger for students who practice for longer periods of time during each session.
Hypothesis 2: Students who receive professional tutoring will score higher on reading fluency
compared to those with voluntary tutoring, while controlling for practice frequency.
