Maximising access to reading intervention: comparing small group and one‐to‐one protocols of Reading Rescue.

Reading Rescue (Reading Rescue), a research and evidence‐based programme for struggling readers (Ehri et al., 2007; Miles et al., 2018), was developed by an academic in response to the cost and lack of explicit letter, phonemic awareness and phonics instruction in Reading Recovery. Reading Rescue represents a pathway from research to practice. An academic advisor works closely with the nonacademic partner that trains school staff to deliver the programme in order to maintain alignment of the curriculum with research from the reading science field. In this study, the academic and nonacademic partner evaluated the effectiveness of small‐group delivery of Reading Rescue, which has previously only been evaluated in a one‐to‐one delivery mode. This study therefore provides an illustration of how academics and practitioners can work together to achieve practical outcomes. This study compared the performance of two cohorts (N = 146; 104) of randomly assigned first‐graders who received 50 sessions of Reading Rescue in a one‐to‐one or a small group setting compared with a control group. Results showed that intervention groups outperformed the control group (for most associations, p <.05) and performed similarly to each other (for most associations, p >.05), suggesting the small group protocol is as effective as one‐to‐one, enabling the programme to serve substantially more students. Discussion focuses on the importance of collaboration between academics and practitioners in expanding the reach of evidence‐based programmes. The collaboration in this study serves as a model for how academics, and practitioners can join forces and leverage their expertise to reach more students. Highlights: What is already known about this topic A need for strong academic–nonacademic partnerships is essential for translating science of reading findings into effective and manageable instructional approaches (Seidenberg et al., 2020; Solari et al., 2020)Ehri et al. (2007) demonstrated that students who received Reading Rescue outperformed students who received an alternative intervention, as well students in the control group. Also, Miles et al. (2018) found that Reading Rescue continued to be effective even after the programme had expanded substantially across a large metropolitan area.The National Reading Panel (2000) and other studies have demonstrated that depending on the format, small group instruction has the potential to be just as effective, if not more effective, for students learning certain foundational skills, but other reviews of the research (Neitzel et al., 2021) have suggested that small group instruction is either not as effective or less effective than individual instruction. More research is needed directly comparing two versions of the same programme. What this paper adds This paper examines whether the small group version of the programme, designed and implemented with strong academic oversight, is as effective as the one‐to‐one version of the programme.This paper demonstrates that a strong partnership between academics and nonacademics can be mutually beneficial, resulting in expanded reach of evidence‐based programmes.An explanation of the roles, traits and contributions that academics, non academics and stakeholders played in this study may serve to guide future partnerships. Implications for theory, policy or practice This collaboration serves as an illustration of how to best leverage academic and practitioner skills to create, adjust and evaluate programmes to reach more students.This study also serves as a guide for how policy makers and administrators can engage with academics and literacy programmes to provide resources, guidance and opportunities to do more with evidence‐based programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]