View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Bridging the Summer Gap: A Scoping Review of the Literature on Summer Reading Programs

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Bridging the Summer Gap: A Scoping Review of the Literature on Summer Reading Programs
Language: English
Authors: Pamela Beach (ORCID 0000-0002-4980-9447), Holly Crump
Source: Reading Research Quarterly. 2026 61(2).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Summer Programs, Reading Programs, Elementary Education, Skill Development, Motivation, Educational Research, Research Methodology
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.70092
ISSN: 0034-0553
1936-2722
Abstract: This article presents the findings of a scoping review of 32 empirical studies that examined summer reading programs in the elementary education context between 2014 and 2024. A five-stage framework for conducting scoping reviews was employed. In addition, a thematic content analysis was conducted, resulting in three main themes associated with the studies: (1) targeted programs, (2) focus on skill development, and (3) fostering motivation for literacy. The study contexts, research methods, and other relevant study characteristics are also reviewed and discussed. Findings from this review have implications for both practice, in terms of designing responsive and targeted summer reading programs, and theory, in terms of strengthening conceptual models that explain how targeted support, skill development, and motivation interact to influence literacy outcomes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1503760
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE8Pdv4KJeCuHiauHllUAB5AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDO4mvLZb1Rl5p7LamwIBEICBm5-LyqKj_tvV1KWrnBDNkBKMhMEfoGYb76_2rPJ5d2oFkfQgBGz-r-MI54cSy6hbU3c_imKDPZGd-6cKOoJCbb9x1_GloB7SDtcNaPWbrh2bBccDjCrb3bO50J579aCVjtYd8GmbDuU53lBctqC5v-8t24nUMAev3bb8IO_WrrrbDFBYq7RR6Rmw7-j3Q8_9QpaG53QU_oVlpkQK
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0193225959;[nrnu]02apr.26;2026Apr27.05:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0193225959-1">Bridging the Summer Gap: A Scoping Review of the Literature on Summer Reading Programs </title> <p>This article presents the findings of a scoping review of 32 empirical studies that examined summer reading programs in the elementary education context between 2014 and 2024. A five‐stage framework for conducting scoping reviews was employed. In addition, a thematic content analysis was conducted, resulting in three main themes associated with the studies: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) targeted programs, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) focus on skill development, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) fostering motivation for literacy. The study contexts, research methods, and other relevant study characteristics are also reviewed and discussed. Findings from this review have implications for both practice, in terms of designing responsive and targeted summer reading programs, and theory, in terms of strengthening conceptual models that explain how targeted support, skill development, and motivation interact to influence literacy outcomes.</p> <p>The graphical abstract provides an overview of a scoping review examining the empirical research that has been conducted on summer reading programs.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02apr26/rrq70092-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70092-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225959-3">Introduction</hd> <p>Known as the "summer slide," breaks from schooling during the summer months have been associated with declines in reading achievement (Borman and Boulay [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref4">11</reflink>]), especially for early readers from low‐income backgrounds (Alexander et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>]; McCombs et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref6">39</reflink>]). Efforts to bridge the gap between the gains students make during the school year and following the summer break have been, and continue to be, made by school districts, community organizations, and families. In particular, participation in summer reading programs has been shown to benefit students who may be experiencing declines in reading performance during the previous school year (Alexander et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]; McCombs et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref8">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Summer reading programs help students maintain and even improve their reading skills, counteracting the typical summer learning loss. Several different types of summer reading programs exist with varying benefits and community involvement, including library‐based programs and summer reading interventions for targeted populations. However, based on the authors' preliminary literature search, there does not appear to be a recent review summarizing the empirical studies that have examined the impact of summer programs on students' reading. A scoping review of the relevant literature is critical to researchers interested in the most effective methods, measures, and approaches to studying summer reading programs, and to practitioners in terms of effective program structure and sustainability of skills. A scoping review can be defined as "an ideal tool to determine the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic and give clear indication of the volume of literature" (Munn et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref9">44</reflink>], 2). While they are more common in the field of health science, this type of review was deemed appropriate to identify gaps in empirical work and better understand effective approaches to summer reading programs. As such, the primary aim of this scoping review was to identify and synthesize the empirical research that has been conducted on summer reading programs over the span of 10 years (2014–2024). This scoping review is guided by a pragmatic and descriptive epistemological stance. Pragmatism is adopted to highlight the practical purpose of the review: to identify the themes, characteristics, and methodological approaches of empirical research on summer reading programs in order to inform future research and practice. The review also seeks to describe how these programs have been studied, including the populations, contexts, research designs, and outcomes examined.</p> <p>This article begins by setting the context for the scoping review with a discussion of the literature related to how reading develops and the most effective pedagogical approaches, as well as how the summer slide affects reading achievement. An overview of the research purpose and questions guiding this review is then provided. This is followed by a discussion of the methods which includes a summary of the five‐stage framework that was adopted for this scoping review. The results and discussion follow the methods section and include a discussion of the practical and theoretical implications of the findings.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-4">Setting the Context</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225959-5">Reading Development and Instruction</hd> <p>Reading is a complex cognitive process that involves the acquisition and use of word recognition and language‐related skills (Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref10">31</reflink>]; Scarborough [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref11">54</reflink>]). Word recognition skills include phonological and phonemic awareness, decoding, and sight word recognition, whereas language‐related skills include vocabulary, syntax and sentence structure, morphology, background knowledge, and inferencing. Both sets of skills are essential to fluent reading, where word recognition skills provide a foundation for recognizing and sounding out written words while language‐related skills allow a reader to make sense of what they are reading. Researchers generally agree that each skill area, word recognition and language, contributes to reading comprehension and that developing these skills must occur in a supportive context that allows beginning readers to construct meaning from print (Castles et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref12">14</reflink>]; Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref13">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Supportive reading contexts for beginning readers should incorporate explicit and systematic instructional approaches which can be described as clear and direct teaching of key concepts in a logical or sequential order (Spear‐Swerling [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref14">57</reflink>]). For instance, knowledge in sound‐symbol mapping is crucial in developing word recognition (Moats [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref15">43</reflink>]), and for beginning readers, presenting letter–sound relationships explicitly and in a logical order provides opportunities to spell and read simple consonant‐vowel‐consonant words right away, even before beginning readers have learned all 44 sounds and 26 letters of the English alphabet. Ehri et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref16">25</reflink>]) meta‐analysis of studies that examined the effects of systematic phonics instruction compared to unsystematic or no phonics instruction in learning to read found that sequential phonics instruction leads to more effective word learning and reading fluency, particularly in the early grades. In their randomized controlled study, Dunn et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>]) examined the effects of a phonics intervention on the reading outcomes of 273 grades 2 and 3 students with reading difficulties. Results showed significant improvement on all measures post‐intervention highlighting that explicit and systematic instruction can significantly improve the reading performance of struggling readers (Dunn et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref18">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Castles et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref19">14</reflink>]) conducted a more recent comprehensive review of the science of learning to read by detailing the range of skills required of beginning readers to crack the English writing system and make meaning from text. Castles et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref20">14</reflink>]) emphasize the critical importance of phonics instruction in every beginning reading program, while at the same time highlight additional and equally important word‐recognition and language‐related skills that are important to include in reading instruction (Castles et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref21">14</reflink>]). This balance is highlighted in a randomized controlled study that examined the effect of targeted fluency and comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Cockerill et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref22">16</reflink>]) found the intervention led to positive gains on students' reading scores. The intervention targeted struggling readers aged 7–9 across 12 schools in the United States. Students received small group instruction focused on fluency and comprehension over 12 weeks. Following the intervention, students' fluency and comprehension were both enhanced, suggesting that targeted instruction that builds reading fluency and comprehension has the potential to improve reading performance.</p> <p>Language‐related skills often develop through implicit and explicit instruction. For instance, Beck and McKeown ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref23">10</reflink>]) examined students' vocabulary growth through rich vocabulary instruction. This type of explicit instruction provides students with opportunities to enhance their vocabulary depth, that is, knowing and actively using word meanings, synonyms, and antonyms. Vocabulary depth can lead to increases in reading comprehension (Beck and McKeown [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref24">10</reflink>]). When a group of kindergarten and grade one students in Beck and McKeown's ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref25">10</reflink>]) quasi‐experimental study received rich vocabulary instruction, they made greater gains in vocabulary knowledge than the control group. The rich and explicit instruction included explaining word meanings in student‐friendly language, providing multiple examples in multiple contexts, and offering students opportunities to identify and explain appropriate and inappropriate uses of given words.</p> <p>In another quasi‐experimental study that examined the effects of a targeted reading intervention on students' reading growth, Mendes and Kirby ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref26">41</reflink>]) found that 20 h of explicit and systematic instruction in morphology was related to gains in students' skills in morphological awareness, decoding, and word analysis. The intervention involved teaching the different types of morphemes (e.g., bases, prefixes, suffixes), how words can be assembled and deconstructed, and how to use morphology in reading and spelling words (Mendes and Kirby [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref27">41</reflink>]). Although relatively brief, the intervention, which occurred with a group of students in grades 2–4, had a positive effect on students' word reading and spelling skills. Through clear, step‐by‐step teaching methods, students in Mendes and Kirby's study ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref28">41</reflink>]) were better prepared to decode words and understand their meanings. While studies examining targeted and explicit reading instruction generally show positive effects on students' reading skills immediately following instruction, most studies have documented students' reading outcomes based on a program or intervention that occurred during the school year (Reed and Aloe [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref29">52</reflink>]). Without consistent reinforcement of these skills over the summer months, students may experience setbacks in their learning (Alexander et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-6">Summer Slide</hd> <p>The summer slide can have a negative impact on the academic gains made by students during the school year (Borman and Boulay [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref31">11</reflink>]). This is particularly true of students who are considered early readers from lower‐income backgrounds (Alexander et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>]; McCombs et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref33">39</reflink>]). It is not just about the loss of academic skills but also about a lack of resources and opportunities necessary to maintain learning outside the school year. Known as the faucet theory, resources and opportunities for many students are turned off during the summer breaks (Alexander [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>]). This, in turn, can have a direct effect on students' reading achievement. Cooper et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>]), for instance, conducted a meta‐analytic review of early studies examining the impact of the summer break on students' academic skills. They found that the typical student loses approximately one month of grade‐equivalent skill or knowledge in combined math and reading achievement over the summer break.</p> <p>These findings are consistent with more recent studies, including a large‐scale study by Atteberry and McEachin ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref36">5</reflink>]) who analyzed data from nearly 18 million students across 7685 districts in the United States over nine years. Although results indicated dramatic variability in summer learning loss, Atteberry and McEachin ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref37">5</reflink>]) did find that the average student loses between 25% and 34% of each school‐year gain during the following summer, with some students losing nearly as much as what is typically gained in the preceding school year. Atteberry and McEachin ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]) suggest that summer vacations contribute more to achievement disparities than school years, aligning with findings from other empirical work examining summer learning loss (e.g., Downey et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref39">22</reflink>]; von Hippel et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref40">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>These studies emphasize the critical role of summer learning environments in promoting reading and ultimately, equity. Summer reading programs have demonstrated consistent positive effects on students' academic outcomes, particularly for those who experienced declines or persistent gaps in reading achievement during the prior school year (e.g., McCombs et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref41">39</reflink>]). These programs have long served as an effective approach for mitigating the typical summer learning loss or summer slide, as previous described. Although summer reading programs vary widely in structure and length (e.g., daily or weekly schedules), delivery settings and instructors (e.g., library‐based, home‐based, or school‐based), and programmatic components, including instructional formats (e.g., small group or one‐on‐one), such variation is often driven by differences in target populations, available resources, and funding support (Alexander et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref42">3</reflink>]). Despite these differences, a shared objective across programs is to promote reading engagement, strengthen literacy skills, and narrow achievement gaps. By providing all students with reading and literacy opportunities throughout the summer, schools, community organizations, and families can help maintain academic progress and bridge the gap from widening during the summer break.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-7">Method</hd> <p>This review followed a five‐stage framework specifically designed for conducting scoping reviews (Arksey and O'Malley [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref43">4</reflink>]). By organizing the methods according to Arksey and O'Malley ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref44">4</reflink>]) five‐stage framework, in‐depth and broad conclusions can be gleaned. The five stages include: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>) identifying the research questions, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>) identifying relevant studies, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>) selecting the studies, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref48">4</reflink>) charting the data, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref49">5</reflink>) summarizing and reporting the results (Arksey and O'Malley [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref50">4</reflink>]). Both authors worked collaboratively throughout the five stages.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-8">Identifying the Research Questions</hd> <p>Given the aim of this review, to identify and synthesize the existing research on summer reading programs and their impact on literacy growth at the elementary level, the main overarching research question was developed: What empirical research has been conducted on summer reading programs? Three sub‐questions were also developed: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>) What are the main themes associated with the reviewed studies? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>) What methods have been used to study summer reading programs and their impact on elementary literacy? and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>) What other characteristics of the reviewed studies can inform future research and practice? To answer these questions, a broad date range was set, between 2014 to 2024, with the aim of obtaining as much information as possible relative to the research questions. Additionally, "main themes" was used in the first research question to indicate the recurring concepts across the reviewed studies that resulted from the thematic analysis. This terminology has been used in previous research involving scoping reviews (Beach [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref54">9</reflink>]), and Arksey and O'Malley ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref55">4</reflink>]) discuss the process of "sorting material according to key issues and themes" during stage 4 of their framework, <emph>charting the data</emph> (p. 26).</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-9">Identifying Relevant Studies</hd> <p>Using an electronic database search and an ancestry search (i.e., a hand search of included articles' references), the PRISMA scoping review extension (Tricco et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref56">60</reflink>]) was used to map the relevant research. Additionally, five categories of search terms were constructed using the Population/Concept/Context framework from the Joanna Briggs Institute ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref57">32</reflink>]). These categories were: (a) summer reading programs, (b) reading and reading outcomes, (c) program effectiveness, (d) elementary students, and (e) summer. The first three categories, summer reading programs, reading outcomes, and program effectiveness represented the <emph>concept</emph> of interest. The next category, elementary students, represented the <emph>population</emph> of interest. The last category, summer, represented the <emph>context</emph> of interest. Data was extracted from each article identified through the review, assessed to ensure trustworthiness of the results, and summarized both descriptively and thematically.</p> <p>The main databases chosen for this review included Education Source, ERIC, and PsychINFO. Searches were conducted using the term <emph>summer reading program*</emph> alongside other keywords including comprehension, fluency, decoding, literacy, outcome, success, and effect* in order to generate the largest possible number of related articles. The keywords were entered into non‐specific fields (such as author or title), and the date range was set from 2014 to 2024. This database search resulted in 214 articles (see Table 1).</p> <p>1 TABLE Databases and search terms.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Search term</th><th align="center">Education source</th><th align="center">ERIC</th><th align="center">PsychINFO</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">"Summer reading program*" AND comprehension</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">"Summer reading program*" AND fluency</td><td align="center">9</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">"Summer reading program*" AND decoding</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">10</td><td align="center">0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">"Summer reading program*" AND literacy</td><td align="center">39</td><td align="center">12</td><td align="center">9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">"Summer reading program*" AND outcome</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">"Summer reading program*" AND success</td><td align="center">13</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">"Summer reading program*" AND effect*</td><td align="center">34</td><td align="center">22</td><td align="center">9</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="center">116</td><td align="center">68</td><td align="center">30</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193225959-10">Selecting the Studies</hd> <p>Following each search, study titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevancy. Furthermore, searches were limited to English peer‐reviewed journal articles. In total, 29 studies met the inclusion criteria. The reference list from each study's article was then reviewed for additional studies. Based on the relevance of the study titles in the reference lists, abstracts were reviewed for possible inclusion. This process resulted in the inclusion of three additional studies which were reviewed in greater detail to ensure that the articles met the inclusion criteria (Christodoulou et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref58">15</reflink>]; Stein [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref59">58</reflink>]; Zvoch and Stevens [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref60">63</reflink>]). Thus, 32 studies were selected for further review which involved a full reading of each article. Table 2 shows a complete list of the reviewed studies according to the year of publication. As can be seen, the majority of the studies we reviewed were published between 2014 to 2019. It is quite possible that the reason for this difference was due to the COVID‐19 pandemic and its impact on in‐person activities.</p> <p>2 TABLE Complete list of studies (N = 32).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Year of publication</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">Study</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">2014–2019</td><td align="center">25</td><td align="center">Albee et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2019</xref>); Barnyak and McNelly (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2016</xref>); Beach et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2018</xref>); Christodoulou et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2017</xref>); Compton‐Lilly et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2016</xref>); Cromie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2017</xref>); Dillon et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2017</xref>); Dynia et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>); Garst and Ozier (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref>); Hill and Flores (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2015</xref>); Johnston et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2015</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2017</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2016</xref>); Magpuri‐Lavell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2014</xref>); McDaniel et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2017</xref>); Mitchell and Begeny (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2014</xref>); Nicholson and Tiru (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Pagan and Sénéchal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>); Parker and Reid (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2017</xref>); Petty et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2017</xref>); Rasinski et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2017</xref>); Reed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>); Stein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2017</xref>); White et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2014</xref>); Zvoch and Stevens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2015</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2020–2024</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">Beach and Traga Philippakos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2021</xref>); Borman et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2021</xref>); Contesse et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Ha et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2021</xref>); Jones (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2024</xref>); Reed and Aloe (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2020</xref>); Strong and Anderson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2024</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193225959-11">Charting the Data</hd> <p>Charting the data involved recording key items of information related to the research questions. This involved entering relevant data from the reviewed studies into a spreadsheet, including the citations, country of origin, research design, study population, reading skills discussed, whether the study reported longitudinal results, and key findings. In line with Arksey and O'Malley ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref61">4</reflink>]) framework, results are summarized and reported below, organized according to the research questions. Before presenting the results and discussion, we outline the thematic analysis that was used to identify the main themes associated with the reviewed studies.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-12">Thematic Analysis</hd> <p>To answer the first research question (what are the main themes associated with the reviewed studies?), we followed Braun and Clarke's ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref62">13</reflink>]) six phases of thematic content analysis. First, we tracked the frequency of several broad categories to understand the emphases and gaps in focus across all studies (<emph>phase 1: familiarizing yourself with the data</emph>). Each author of the current article read through the 32 selected articles. While all articles had already been screened and reviewed, reading each article in greater depth provided an opportunity to better understand each article as well as to begin to identify trends and patterns across articles. Following this close reading, each article was categorized into one or more topic areas or initial codes (<emph>phase 2: generating initial codes</emph>), including <emph>focus on reading skills</emph>, <emph>program effectiveness</emph>, <emph>motivation for literacy</emph>, <emph>equity considerations</emph>, and <emph>parent/community involvement</emph> (see Table 3).</p> <p>3 TABLE Initial topic areas.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Category</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">Studies</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Focus on improving reading skills</td><td align="center">18</td><td align="center">Albee et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2019</xref>); Christodoulou et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2017</xref>); Contesse et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Cromie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2017</xref>); Hill and Flores (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2015</xref>); Johnston et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2015</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2017</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2016</xref>); Magpuri‐Lavell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2014</xref>); McDaniel et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2017</xref>); Mitchell and Begeny (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2014</xref>); Nicholson and Tiru (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Pagan and Sénéchal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>); Petty et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2017</xref>); Rasinski et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2017</xref>); Strong and Anderson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2024</xref>); White et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2014</xref>); Zvoch and Stevens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2015</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Program effectiveness</td><td align="center">9</td><td align="center">Contesse et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Dillon et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2017</xref>); Garst and Ozier (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref>); Hill and Flores (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2015</xref>); Parker and Reid (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2017</xref>); Reed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>); Reed and Aloe (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2020</xref>); Stein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2017</xref>); Strong and Anderson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2024</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Motivation for literacy</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">Barnyak and McNelly (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2016</xref>); Cromie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2017</xref>); Dillon et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2017</xref>); Garst and Ozier (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref>); Ha et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2021</xref>); Jones (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2024</xref>); Petty et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2017</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Equity considerations</td><td align="center">9</td><td align="center">Beach et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2018</xref>); Beach and Traga Philippakos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2021</xref>); Christodoulou et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2017</xref>); Jones (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2024</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2017</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2016</xref>); Nicholson and Tiru (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Reed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>); White et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2014</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent/community involvement</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">Borman et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2021</xref>); Compton‐Lilly et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2016</xref>); Dynia et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>); Mitchell and Begeny (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2014</xref>); Pagan and Sénéchal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>); Parker and Reid (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2017</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Once organized into a table, the more specific examples of the broader categories were reviewed, compared, and reorganized into three themes (<emph>phase 3: searching for themes</emph>). For instance, studies that were initially identified as focusing on reading skills were reviewed for the type of skills. Studies that explicitly examined a program's effectiveness and the effective program components, as well as studies that targeted specific populations and considered the role of equity in program supports, were merged together to form the overarching theme <emph>Targeted Programs</emph>. Given that the primary aims of most studies focused on supporting students' skills in decoding, phonemic awareness, fluency, comprehension, morphology, and vocabulary, the theme <emph>Focus on Skill Development</emph> was deemed one of the key themes. Finally, studies that focused on motivation for literacy, as well as the contribution of parental and community support to a student's motivation, were merged together into the common theme <emph>Motivation for Literacy</emph>. Themes were then reviewed in relation to the initial codes and dataset (<emph>phase 4: reviewing the themes</emph>). Themes were then refined, and clear definitions were given to each theme, as presented in Table 4 (<emph>phase 5: defining and naming themes</emph>). Each theme is described in the results and discussion section (<emph>phase 6: producing the report</emph>). Specific examples from the reviewed studies are included to support each theme. In addition, we have included sub‐themes where appropriate.</p> <p>4 TABLE Themes associated with the reviewed studies (N = 32).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Theme</th><th align="center">Sub‐theme</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">Examples</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Targeted programs</td><td align="center">Equity considerations</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="center">Beach et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2018</xref>); Beach and Traga Philippakos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2021</xref>); Christodoulou et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2017</xref>); Jones (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2024</xref>); Nicholson and Tiru (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Program impact</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">Contesse et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Dillon et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2017</xref>); Hill and Flores (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2015</xref>); Stein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2017</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Focus on skill development</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">12</td><td align="center">Albee et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2019</xref>); Johnston et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2015</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2017</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2016</xref>); Magpuri‐Lavell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2014</xref>); McDaniel et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2017</xref>); Reed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>); Reed and Aloe (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2020</xref>); Rasinski et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2017</xref>); Strong and Anderson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2024</xref>); White et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2014</xref>); Zvoch and Stevens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2015</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Fostering motivation for literacy</td><td align="center">Cultivating a love for reading</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="center">Barnyak and McNelly (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2016</xref>); Cromie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2017</xref>); Garst and Ozier (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref>); Ha et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2021</xref>); Petty et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2017</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Parental and community involvement</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">Borman et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2021</xref>); Compton‐Lilly et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2016</xref>); Dynia et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>); Mitchell and Begeny (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2014</xref>); Pagan and Sénéchal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>); Parker and Reid (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2017</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193225959-13">Results</hd> <p>The main goal of this scoping review was to identify and synthesize the empirical research that has been conducted on summer reading programs over the span of 10 years (2014–2024). Using a Arksey and O'Malley ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>]) five‐stage framework and Braun and Clarke's ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref64">13</reflink>]) six phases of thematic content analysis, our analysis revealed three main themes associated with the reviewed studies as well as the research methods have been used to study summer reading programs. We also identified and synthesized additional study characteristics (e.g., geographical location, types of summer programs) that can inform future research and practice. Our results are organized and discussed according to the research questions. A general discussion follows the results section, in which study implications and future directions are shared.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-14">What Are the Main Themes Associated With the Reviewed Studies?</hd> <p>Three main themes were identified as a result of the thematic content analysis: targeted programs, focus on skill development, and fostering motivation for literacy. These themes reflect the most salient trends that were identified across the reviewed studies. While some of the reviewed studies may have initially been coded into more than one category, the most prominent topic of each study was organized into one of the three identified themes. This approach helped streamline the results and create a more substantive discussion. Sub‐themes are also discussed for themes 1 and 3.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-15">Theme 1: Targeted Programs</hd> <p>As Table 4 presents, nine of the studies we reviewed presented the benefits of targeted summer reading programs in terms of student population as well as the intensity of the intervention. Two sub‐themes were identified within the broader theme, Targeted Programs: 1. Equity Considerations (<emph>n</emph> = 5) and 2. Program Impact (<emph>n</emph> = 4). Along with academic benefits, targeting specific populations during an intensive intervention appeared to be beneficial to reading motivation and achievement. For instance, Beach and Traga Philippakos ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref65">8</reflink>]) examined the effects of intensive reading instruction during the summer on the reading performance of 39 s and third graders from low‐income families who were reading below grade level. Over the course of approximately three weeks, students received two hours of daily instruction in evidence‐based practices including instruction on word‐level skills, sentence writing, and shared reading. Following the intensive summer reading intervention, participating students showed significant gains in oral reading fluency, improvements in phonological awareness, non‐word reading fluency, and spelling. Students maintained skills across all measured areas, avoiding the typical summer learning loss; compared with peers without the targeted intervention, students demonstrated stronger fall reading outcomes.</p> <p>In Jones' ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref66">34</reflink>]) qualitative study involving video observations, student artifacts, and small‐group artifact‐elicited interviews, the relationship between Black girls' reading motivations and their reading comprehension was examined. Working alongside a non‐profit organization that provides a summer camp experience to lower‐income communities, Jones ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref67">34</reflink>]) explored how the reading class of the camp's program engaged the participating girls. Structured as a book club, collaborative discussions ensued over the course of the summer camp. Findings from Jones' study show how the participants' "reading motivations" were a precursor to comprehension. Reading motivations appeared to work in tandem with comprehension, suggesting that summer reading programs focused on Black girls' reading motivations can have positive effects on comprehension and overall engagement in reading.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-16">Theme 2: Focus on Skill Development</hd> <p>Of the reviewed studies, 12 focused on a structured approach to instruction that led to increases in specific reading skills. All 12 of these studies included programs that focused on the development of key skills involved in reading. As the studies described, focusing on a structured approach to instruction that includes evidence‐based strategies provided an avenue for skill development. For instance, in Johnston et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref68">33</reflink>]) study, in which they examined students' reading achievement through a pre‐post study design, students who attended a three‐week intensive summer reading program that incorporated evidence‐based fluency and comprehension strategies showed a reduction in the effects of the setback brought on by a break in schooling during the summer months, as shown by students not enrolled in the summer program. By focusing the intensive summer reading program on reading fluency and comprehension skills, students who were enrolled in the program significantly increased their reading achievement and started the school year with percentile ranks in reading that were higher than those at the end of the previous school year (Johnston et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref69">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similarly, Magpuri‐Lavell et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref70">38</reflink>]) examined the impact of the Simultaneous Multisensory Institute for Language Arts (SMILA) approach on the reading proficiency of 39 students between the ages of 7–11 participating in a summer reading program at a local reading clinic. Targeted skills in sound‐symbol relationships, accuracy and automaticity of word reading, and oral reading fluency were explicitly taught by trained teachers over four weeks which included 60 h of explicit instruction. Participating students demonstrated significant gains in word reading, sound‐symbol knowledge, and oral reading fluency suggesting that targeting these skills through explicit instruction from highly trained teachers can have a tremendous impact on students' reading achievement.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-17">Theme 3: Fostering Motivation for Literacy</hd> <p>The importance of motivation for literacy was a prominent theme in 11 of the reviewed studies. Two sub‐themes were also identified: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>) Cultivating a Love for Reading (<emph>n</emph> = 5) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref72">2</reflink>) Parental and Community Involvement (<emph>n</emph> = 6). Fostering motivation for reading has been shown to be foundational for literacy engagement and overall reading achievement. The studies that we deemed as highlighting the role of motivation for literacy in reading achievement often included families and the local community (e.g., public library). Fostering motivation for literacy through parental and community involvement makes sense given the tremendous influence that both families and community organizations can have on elementary and secondary students. One of the reviewed studies by Pagan and Sénéchal ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref73">47</reflink>]) examined the impact of a comprehensive book reading summer intervention with parents on students' performance on expressive vocabulary and reading comprehension. Parents were trained to foster reading comprehension through training exercises that allowed them to practice reading comprehension strategies during shared reading. Families received one book package per week, and parents were asked to engage in shared reading with their child 5 to 15 min each day. At the end of the intervention, the authors found that students who participated in the eight‐week intervention made significantly greater gains in reading comprehension, reading fluency, and receptive vocabulary than students in the control condition. Given the research that shows how shared reading between a parent and their child can encourage a positive space for children to develop their literacy skills (Levy et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref74">37</reflink>]), it is not surprising that with the added comprehension training component, parents can provide an effective means of supporting their children's reading achievement.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-18">What Methods Have Been Used to Study Summer Reading Programs and Their Impact on Elementary L...</hd> <p>Almost all the reviewed studies used quantitative methods to examine how summer reading programs impact students' reading (see Table 5; <emph>n</emph> = 27, 79.4%). This finding is not surprising given that a key goal of many of the reviewed studies was to examine the effectiveness of the program and to identify whether gains were made after the program had been delivered; quantitative approaches provide objective and data‐driven conclusions allowing for more generalizable findings.</p> <p>5 TABLE Methods used.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Method</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic> (%)</th><th align="center">Studies</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Quantitative</td><td align="center">24 (75.0)</td><td align="center">Albee et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2019</xref>); Beach and Traga Philippakos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2021</xref>); Beach et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2018</xref>); Borman et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2021</xref>); Christodoulou et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2017</xref>); Contesse et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Dynia et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>); Garst and Ozier (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref>); Hill and Flores (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2015</xref>); Johnston et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2015</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2017</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2016</xref>); Magpuri‐Lavell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2014</xref>); McDaniel et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2017</xref>); Mitchell and Begeny (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2014</xref>); Nicholson and Tiru (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Pagan and Sénéchal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>); Rasinski et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2017</xref>); Reed and Aloe (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2020</xref>); Reed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>); Stein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2017</xref>); Strong and Anderson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2024</xref>); White et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2014</xref>); Zvoch and Stevens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2015</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Mixed</td><td align="center">4 (12.5)</td><td align="center">Barnyak and McNelly (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2016</xref>); Cromie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2017</xref>); Dillon et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2017</xref>); Ha et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2021</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Qualitative</td><td align="center">4 (12.5)</td><td align="center">Compton‐Lilly et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2016</xref>); Jones (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2024</xref>); Petty et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2017</xref>); Parker and Reid (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2017</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Of the quantitative studies, the majority used a quasi‐experimental or experimental research design (<emph>n</emph> = 16, 50.0%). For example, Beach et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref75">7</reflink>]) used an experimental design to examine the effects of a summer reading intervention on the reading outcomes of struggling readers entering grades two and three. The authors were specifically interested in whether participating in the intervention would have an effect on students' sight word reading, phonemic decoding, oral reading fluency, and oral reading accuracy when compared with students who did not receive the intervention. Reading outcomes on multiple measures indicated several significant effect sizes for those students entering grade three. Similarly, Strong and Anderson ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref76">59</reflink>]) used a quasi‐experimental design to evaluate the effects of an 18‐day summer reading program focused on skills in phonemic awareness, word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Results were based on pre‐post assessment scores and showed that the summer reading program, which was delivered by trained graduate students, can improve targeted reading skills.</p> <p>Additional quantitative methods included pre‐post non‐experimental designs (<emph>n</emph> = 5, 15.6%) and randomized control trial (<emph>n</emph> = 3, 8.8%). For example, Kim et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref77">35</reflink>]) randomly assigned students from high‐poverty elementary schools to one of two conditions: a core treatment group or adaptive group. In the core program, teachers implemented a reading comprehension routine prior to summer which students then use independently with their books. Families were sent tips and reminders throughout the summer. The adaptive group differed in that the teachers could use non‐scripted lessons to teach the reading comprehension routine. Results suggested that structured teacher adaptations may enhance rather than diminish the effectiveness of an evidence‐based summer literacy program.</p> <p>Four of the reviewed studies used a mixed methods design (<emph>n</emph> = 4, 12.5%), while four of the studies we reviewed used qualitative methods (<emph>n</emph> = 4, 12.5%). Specifically, Cromie et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref78">20</reflink>]) used quantitative surveys of reading achievement and attitudes as well as qualitative focus groups, observations, and interviews to investigate whether a summer reading program supported by teachers and the community could reduce the summer slide in reading achievement and improve student attitudes toward reading. Based on the multiple sources of data, the authors found that the summer reading program they examined contributed positively toward students' reading skills, reading attitudes, community engagement, self‐efficacy, and student ownership.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-19">What Other Characteristics of the Reviewed Studies Can Inform Future Research and Practice?</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225959-20">Geographic Location</hd> <p>Table 6 shows that the majority of studies we reviewed were conducted in the United States (<emph>n</emph> = 31, 91.2%). Two studies (5.9%) were conducted in New Zealand, while only one study (2.9%) was conducted in Canada. Given that we limited our search to articles published in English journals, it is possible that additional studies have been conducted in countries outside of the United States, New Zealand, and Canada. Future research could consider including languages other than English. This would indeed provide a more comprehensive scope of the empirical work examining summer reading programs.</p> <p>6 TABLE Study location.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Country</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic> (%)</th><th align="center">Studies</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">United States</td><td align="center">29 (90.6)</td><td align="center">Albee et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2019</xref>); Barnyak and McNelly (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2016</xref>); Beach et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2018</xref>); Beach and Traga Philippakos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2021</xref>); Borman et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2021</xref>); Christodoulou et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2017</xref>); Compton‐Lilly et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2016</xref>); Contesse et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Dillon et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2017</xref>); Dynia et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>); Garst and Ozier (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref>); Ha et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2021</xref>); Hill and Flores (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2015</xref>); Johnston et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2015</xref>); Jones (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2024</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2017</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2016</xref>); Magpuri‐Lavell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2014</xref>); McDaniel et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2017</xref>); Mitchell and Begeny (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2014</xref>); Parker and Reid (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2017</xref>); Petty et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2017</xref>); Rasinski et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2017</xref>); Reed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>); Reed and Aloe (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2020</xref>); Stein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2017</xref>); Strong and Anderson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2024</xref>); White et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2014</xref>); Zvoch and Stevens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2015</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">New Zealand</td><td align="center">2 (6.2)</td><td align="center">Cromie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2017</xref>); Nicholson and Tiru (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Canada</td><td align="center">1 (3.1)</td><td align="center">Pagan and Sénéchal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193225959-21">Type of Setting and Program Structure</hd> <p>The majority of studies we reviewed examined summer reading programs in a school‐based setting (<emph>n</emph> = 12, 37.5%). As Table 7 shows, programs were also based in homes (<emph>n</emph> = 9, 28.1%), libraries (<emph>n</emph> = 3, 9.4%), community centers (<emph>n</emph> = 3, 9.4%), camps (<emph>n</emph> = 2, 6.3%), and reading clinics (<emph>n</emph> = 2, 6.3%). One of the reviewed studies examined a program that occurred across students' homes and participating schools (3.1%). The fact that most of the reviewed studies examined school‐based summer reading programs is not surprising given the structure and financial support that school districts often provide to participating families.</p> <p>7 TABLE Study context: Type of setting.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Type of setting</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic> (%)</th><th align="center">Studies</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">School‐based</td><td align="center">12 (37.5)</td><td align="center">Barnyak and McNelly (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2016</xref>); Beach et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2018</xref>); Christodoulou et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2017</xref>); Contesse et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Ha et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">2021</xref>); Hill and Flores (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2015</xref>); Johnston et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2015</xref>); Nicholson and Tiru (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Reed and Aloe (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2020</xref>); Reed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>); Strong and Anderson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2024</xref>); Zvoch and Stevens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2015</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Home‐based</td><td align="center">9 (28.1)</td><td align="center">Albee et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2019</xref>); Compton‐Lilly et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2016</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2017</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2016</xref>); Mitchell and Begeny (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2014</xref>); Pagan and Sénéchal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>); Parker and Reid (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2017</xref>); Stein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2017</xref>); White et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2014</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Library‐based</td><td align="center">3 (9.4)</td><td align="center">Cromie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2017</xref>); Dillon et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2017</xref>); Dynia et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Community centre</td><td align="center">3 (9.4)</td><td align="center">Beach and Traga Philippakos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2021</xref>); Jones (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2024</xref>); McDaniel et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2017</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Camp</td><td align="center">2 (6.3)</td><td align="center">Garst and Ozier (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2015</xref>); Petty et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2017</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading clinic</td><td align="center">2 (6.3)</td><td align="center">Magpuri‐Lavell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2014</xref>); Rasinski et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2017</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Home‐school</td><td align="center">1 (3.1)</td><td align="center">Borman et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2021</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As Table 8 shows, most of the studies we reviewed examined programs with targeted skills focused on reading fluency (<emph>n</emph> = 23, 71.9%) and reading comprehension (<emph>n</emph> = 22, 68.8%). Many of the programs in the reviewed studies also targeted phonics (<emph>n</emph> = 14, 43.8%), vocabulary (<emph>n</emph> = 14, 43.8%), and phonemic awareness skills (<emph>n</emph> = 11, 34.4%). Two programs in the reviewed studies incorporated morphology (<emph>n</emph> = 2; 6.2%), while only one program that was studied incorporated writing (<emph>n</emph> = 1; 3.1%).</p> <p>8 TABLE Targeted skills.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Skill</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic> (%)</th><th align="center">Studies</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Reading fluency</td><td align="center">23 (71.9)</td><td align="center">Albee et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2019</xref>); Beach and Traga Philippakos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2021</xref>); Beach et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2018</xref>); Borman et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2021</xref>); Christodoulou et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2017</xref>); Compton‐Lilly et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2016</xref>); Contesse et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Cromie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2017</xref>); Dynia et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>); Johnston et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2015</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2017</xref>); Magpuri‐Lavell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2014</xref>); Mitchell and Begeny (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2014</xref>); Nicholson and Tiru (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Pagan and Sénéchal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>); Rasinski et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2017</xref>); Reed and Aloe (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2020</xref>); Reed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>); Stein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2017</xref>); Strong and Anderson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2024</xref>); White et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2014</xref>); Zvoch and Stevens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2015</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Reading comprehension</td><td align="center">22 (68.8)</td><td align="center">Albee et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2019</xref>); Beach and Traga Philippakos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2021</xref>); Borman et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2021</xref>); Compton‐Lilly et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2016</xref>); Cromie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2017</xref>); Dynia et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>); Johnston et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2015</xref>); Jones (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2024</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2017</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2016</xref>); Magpuri‐Lavell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2014</xref>); McDaniel et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2017</xref>); Nicholson and Tiru (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Pagan and Sénéchal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>); Rasinski et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2017</xref>); Reed and Aloe (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2020</xref>); Reed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>); Stein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2017</xref>); Strong and Anderson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2024</xref>); White et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2014</xref>); Zvoch and Stevens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2015</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Phonics</td><td align="center">14 (43.8)</td><td align="center">Albee et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2019</xref>); Beach and Traga Philippakos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2021</xref>); Beach et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2018</xref>); Christodoulou et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2017</xref>); Contesse et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Dynia et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>); Hill and Flores (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2015</xref>); Magpuri‐Lavell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2014</xref>); McDaniel et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2017</xref>); Nicholson and Tiru (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Reed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>); Stein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2017</xref>); Strong and Anderson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2024</xref>); Zvoch and Stevens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2015</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Vocabulary</td><td align="center">14 (43.8)</td><td align="center">Beach and Traga Philippakos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2021</xref>); Beach et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2018</xref>); Cromie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">2017</xref>); Dynia et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2017</xref>); Magpuri‐Lavell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2014</xref>); McDaniel et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2017</xref>); Nicholson and Tiru (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Pagan and Sénéchal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>); Reed and Aloe (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2020</xref>); Reed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>); Strong and Anderson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2024</xref>); White et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2014</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Phonemic awareness</td><td align="center">12 (34.4)</td><td align="center">Albee et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2019</xref>); Beach and Traga Philippakos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2021</xref>); Christodoulou et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2017</xref>); Contesse et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Dynia et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>); Hill and Flores (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2015</xref>); Magpuri‐Lavell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2014</xref>); Nicholson and Tiru (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Reed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>); Strong and Anderson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2024</xref>); Zvoch and Stevens (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2015</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Morphology</td><td align="center">2 (6.2)</td><td align="center">Albee et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2019</xref>); Beach and Traga Philippakos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2021</xref>); Nicholson and Tiru (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Reed et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Writing</td><td align="center">1 (3.1)</td><td align="center">Reed and Aloe (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2020</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193225959-22">Longitudinal Design</hd> <p>Five (15.6%) of the studies we reviewed used a longitudinal design (Albee et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>]; Cromie et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref80">20</reflink>]; Kim et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref81">36</reflink>]; Jones [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref82">34</reflink>]; Zvoch and Stevens [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref83">63</reflink>]). For instance, Cromie et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref84">20</reflink>]) conducted a mixed methods longitudinal study to investigate whether a library summer reading program focused on student interests, backgrounds, and experiences could reduce the summer slide in reading achievement and improve student attitudes toward reading. The four‐week program was supported by teachers and the community and consisted of personal reading time, literacy‐related activities, such as creating visual storyboards for the books participants had read, and library‐focused activities, including how to find new books, genres, and authors. Reading scores and achievement data were collected at three time points over two years and analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods. The authors found that a summer slide in reading achievement could be minimized, and while the summer reading program alone could play a role, multiple interconnected factors contributed to student success (Cromie et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref85">20</reflink>]). Factors like building a community of readers through shared reading experiences and increasing self‐efficacy through relationship building seemed to play a role in students' overall reading gains.</p> <p>In a school‐based quasi‐experimental study, Zvoch and Stevens ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref86">63</reflink>]) investigated the impact of a five‐week summer reading program on elementary students' reading fluency achievements (<emph>N</emph> = 250). Over the five weeks, students engaged in 3.5 h of intensive direct instruction in phonemic awareness, alphabetic knowledge, fluency, and comprehension four mornings each week. Oral reading fluency scores from the Test of Oral Reading Fluency (TORF) were used to measure changes in literacy skill development. Testing occurred multiple times: at the end of the academic year, during the summer reading program, and throughout the following academic year. The authors found that when compared with the control group, students who participated in the summer reading program showed increases in their reading fluency (Zvoch and Stevens [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref87">63</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-23">Additional Study Characteristics</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0193225959-24">Participants</hd> <p>Just over than half of the studies we reviewed (<emph>n</emph> = 17, 53.1%) included 100 participants or fewer, with the majority of those studies involving at least 11 participants (e.g., Mitchell and Begeny [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref88">42</reflink>]). Seven (21.9%) of the reviewed studies involved over 1000 participants (e.g., White et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref89">62</reflink>]). Most of the reviewed studies included student participants (<emph>n</emph> = 31, 96.9%), while one study we reviewed (Parker and Reid [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref90">48</reflink>]) surveyed parents (<emph>n</emph> = 1, 3.1%).</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-25">Focus on Disabilities</hd> <p>In terms of whether or not the study focus was on participants with specific disabilities, only three (9.4%, Christodoulou et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref91">15</reflink>]; Hill and Flores [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref92">30</reflink>]; Reed et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref93">53</reflink>]) of the studies we reviewed focused on programs with participants with disabilities, whereas 29 (90.6%) did not. Hill and Flores ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref94">30</reflink>]), for instance, investigated the benefits of computer‐aided instruction for reading decoding. The students in their study were between the ages of 9 and 14 and were enrolled in a university extended school year (ESY) summer program. The students were all on the autism spectrum or had limited expressive language skills. Similarly, Christodoulou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref95">15</reflink>]) investigated the impact of a summer reading intervention on students, ages 6 to 9, with a language‐based learning disability. Results had a positive effect on targeted outcomes in symbol imagery, single word and pseudoword reading, and oral reading fluency.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-26">Study Population</hd> <p>Several of the reviewed studies focused on participants from a lower socioeconomic status (<emph>n</emph> = 12, 37.5%), where the study participants were reported as predominantly low‐income or the program under study was designed for low‐income students (e.g., Nicholson and Tiru [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref96">46</reflink>]; White et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref97">62</reflink>]). Nine (28.1%) of the reviewed studies centered racialized students (e.g., Beach and Traga Philippakos [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref98">8</reflink>]; Cromie et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref99">20</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-27">Training and Professional Learning</hd> <p>As Table 9 shows, many of the reviewed studies included details on the training and professional learning that the instructors received prior to the start of the summer reading program (<emph>n</emph> = 15). Most of these 15 studies stated the amount of training time which ranged from 1.5 h (e.g., Pagan and Sénéchal [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref100">47</reflink>]; Rasinski et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref101">51</reflink>]) to 2.5 days (e.g., Contesse et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref102">18</reflink>]) to 15 h (e.g., Strong and Anderson [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref103">59</reflink>]). While most of the teacher and instructor training occurred in person, the parent training in Albee et al.'s study ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref104">1</reflink>]) was delivered through a DVD tutorial. Beach et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref105">7</reflink>]) offer a noteworthy model in which the teachers received 9.5 h of training followed by coaching during the initial days of the summer intervention. Workshop‐style training was recorded most often, where participating instructors received information about the program goals and components, lesson strategies and sequencing, and assessment procedures, as well as logistical program components (e.g., start and end time).</p> <p>9 TABLE Training and Professional Learning.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Type of training</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic> (%)</th><th align="center">Hours</th><th align="center">Studies</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">In‐person workshop</td><td align="center">3 (20)</td><td align="center">1–2 h</td><td align="center">McDaniel et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2017</xref>); Pagan and Sénéchal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>); Rasinski et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2017</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="center">6 (40)</td><td align="center">2–3 h</td><td align="center">Contesse et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2017</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2016</xref>); Mitchell and Begeny (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2014</xref>); Nicholson and Tiru (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Stein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2017</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="center">2 (13)</td><td align="center">9–10 h</td><td align="center">Beach and Traga Philippakos (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2021</xref>); Beach et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2018</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="center">1 (6)</td><td align="center">15 h</td><td align="center">Strong and Anderson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">2024</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Regular company training</td><td align="center">1 (6)</td><td align="center">80 h</td><td align="center">Christodoulou et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2017</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Handbook provided</td><td align="center">1 (6)</td><td align="center">n/a</td><td align="center">Parker and Reid (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2017</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Video tutorial</td><td align="center">1 (6)</td><td align="center">n/a</td><td align="center">Albee et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2019</xref>)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Follow‐up coaching</td><td align="center">4 (27)</td><td align="center">n/a</td><td align="center">Contesse et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Kim et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2017</xref>); Pagan and Sénéchal (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>); Beach et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2018</xref>)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0193225959-28">Discussion</hd> <p>The aim of this scoping review was to provide insight into the research that has examined summer reading programs. Based on the reviewed studies, a secondary aim was to identify themes that exist across the studies. Three research questions helped determine information about the main themes related to the reviewed studies, the methods used to study summer reading programs, and additional study characteristics that can inform future research and practice. Based on the above results, this section discusses two key takeaways that include alternative explanations and perspectives and highlights important implications for research and practice.</p> <p>A key takeaway from the results relates to the complexity of reading development and the interconnectedness of word‐related and language‐related skills involved in reading (Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref106">31</reflink>]; Scarborough [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref107">54</reflink>]). It is well documented that reading programs and interventions that teach these skills through explicit and systematic instruction can positively affect student reading outcomes (e.g., Castles et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref108">14</reflink>]; Spear‐Swerling [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref109">57</reflink>]). However, while the majority of the reviewed studies examined programs that included multiple reading components, including phonemic awareness, letter–sound knowledge, vocabulary, reading fluency, and comprehension, some programs focused on only one or two skills. In addition, several of the examined programs emphasized motivation and reading engagement rather than skill development. Although supporting students' motivation for literacy is essential (Guthrie and Wigfield [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref110">28</reflink>]), the literature suggests that a balance between motivation and skill development, encompassing a range of reading skills, should be considered when determining summer reading program components (Beck and McKeown [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref111">10</reflink>]; Castles et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref112">14</reflink>]; National Reading Panel [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref113">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>A second key takeaway concerns the targeted nature of the programs, particularly with respect to the populations they serve. Research has consistently documented the negative impact of summer learning loss on students' academic achievement (e.g., Alexander [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref114">3</reflink>]; Atteberry and McEachin [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref115">5</reflink>]), with disproportionately adverse effects for students from low‐income families. These findings highlight the critical role of summer learning environments in supporting reading development and improving equity in education. Despite this, not all of the reviewed studies focused on a targeted population most at risk for summer reading loss. Although the goals and objectives of those studies that did not focus on a targeted population were valid and broadly beneficial, prioritizing targeted summer reading programs for students with the greatest instructional needs may represent a more effective and equitable use of educational resources. Such an approach aligns with evidence‐based practices in intervention research, which emphasize matching instruction to student need, and may lead to stronger impacts on closing summer reading gaps.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-29">Implications for Research</hd> <p>Based on this scoping review, four implications for research are offered. First, the methods used across the studies were selected based on the research goals and questions outlined by the authors. As previously mentioned, most of the studies employed quantitative approaches to investigate the impact of a particular summer reading program on students' reading achievements immediately following the program or intervention, and as seen in five cases, during a third time point in the fall term of the next academic year (e.g., Zvoch and Stevens [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref116">63</reflink>]). Given the goal of using numerical data to provide objective information and test relationships between variables, quantitative approaches are valid modes of inquiry. On the other hand, qualitative approaches can provide insight into the attitudes and perceptions of participants as well as more in‐depth descriptions of lived experiences and events. Only a handful of studies we reviewed solely used qualitative methods (e.g., Jones [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref117">34</reflink>]). As such, future research examining summer reading programs should consider the benefits of employing both qualitative and quantitative methods.</p> <p>A second research implication relates to the geographical implications of the reviewed studies. The majority of studies occurred in the United States, and only two additional countries, New Zealand and Canada, conducted studies examining summer reading programs between 2014 to 2024. It is possible that studies could have been carried out in languages other than English; however, only English journals were included in this review, in part because of the focus on learning to read English texts. Another possibility of this limited geographical scope is that the country of origin was not provided in the article. In any case, it is critical that studies are conducted in a variety of countries and that the country is stated in any resulting article, given that the lengths and structures of summer vacations vary. Additionally, a better understanding of ideal program structures, lengths, and targeted skills can be gleaned from broader geographical contexts.</p> <p>A third key implication for research relates to the importance of conducting longitudinal studies with follow‐up assessments. While all of the studies indicated a positive impact on students' reading achievements and/or motivation immediately following the summer reading programs, only five of the studies we reviewed employed longitudinal designs (e.g., Albee et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref118">1</reflink>]; Cromie et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref119">20</reflink>]). It is essential that follow‐up assessments occur, whether they are conducted in the fall term of the following academic year or at multiple time points after the summer reading program has ended. As Grammer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref120">27</reflink>]) states, "longitudinal studies can elucidate developmental trajectories of skill acquisition" (p. 2). Multi‐timepoint and multi‐year data can provide insight into the long‐term impact of reading programs and interventions on students' reading skills. Solis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref121">56</reflink>]) also emphasizes that multi‐year data can show patterns well beyond the program and provide additional informational about whether students' scores and reading levels are sustained or whether they decrease, leading to progress monitoring, further interventions and/or more targeted approaches.</p> <p>Finally, future research could consider broadening the scope of participants to include classroom teachers and parents, which could lead to a broadened scope of participant perspective. While study questions and objectives focused on the impact of summer reading programs on student reading achievements, only one of the reviewed studies included parents as participants. Parker and Reid ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref122">48</reflink>]) explored the process by which parents were equipped and prepared as summer specialists to maintain and improve students' academics during the summer out‐of‐school period. Given the direct impact parents can have on their children, particularly during the summer vacation, it is essential to better understand how parents can best support their children in their reading achievements. Additionally, future research should also examine teachers' knowledge of and self‐efficacy for teaching reading. Teachers, instructors, and tutors involved in summer reading programs often participate in rigorous training prior to the start of any intervention. Along with the experience gained working in a summer reading program, especially one that is deemed intensive and targeted, teachers' knowledge of how reading develops and should be taught likely increases. It is also possible that teachers' self‐efficacy for teaching reading increases as a result of teaching in a summer reading program. However, these potential outcomes are only speculations and should be examined through empirical studies.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-30">Implications for Practice</hd> <p>As a result of conducting this scoping review, two key implications for practice emerged. First, the structure and programming approach should be considered when developing a summer reading program. Our thematic analysis suggests that targeted summer reading programs that focus on skill development while simultaneously fostering a motivation for literacy can help close the achievement gap during summer vacation. All of the reviewed studies reported positive outcomes for students' reading achievements and/or their motivation for literacy following participation in the program or intervention. Additionally, most studies assessed a range of reading skills, including phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension, indicating that the programs emphasized developing multiple aspects of students' reading proficiency. Researchers generally agree that reading is not a simple, linear process but rather involves multiple skills and knowledge areas that work together over time (e.g., National Reading Panel [NRP] [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref123">45</reflink>]; Perfetti and Helder [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref124">49</reflink>]; Scarborough [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref125">54</reflink>]; Snow [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref126">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>As such, the programs examined in these studies can serve as examples of effective ways to structure summer reading programs, depending on community and parent involvement as well as the targeted population.</p> <p>A second implication for practice relates to the teacher training and professional learning that teachers and instructors completed before the summer reading programs began. As described in the results section, 15 of the articles provided details related to the training provided to the teachers or instructors, with duration varying according to program intensity. Regardless of duration, a key takeaway is the importance of ensuring program fidelity through well‐designed training that includes opportunities to practice lessons and activities, particularly for intensive and targeted summer reading interventions. High‐quality training that is well‐designed should go beyond introducing materials or strategies and also include explicit modeling as well as guided practice with feedback. Opportunities to receive feedback on lessons and instructional routines, particularly at the start of the summer intervention, can have a positive impact on program fidelity, as seen in Beach et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref127">7</reflink>]). Feedback through non‐evaluative follow‐up coaching occurred during the program (Beach et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref128">7</reflink>]), potentially leading to more open dialogue and engagement, as well as a willingness to try new practices. Providing structured opportunities to practice lessons and activities helps ensure that instruction aligns with the program's design, supports educator confidence, and maximizes the effectiveness of interventions for students.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-31">Conclusion</hd> <p>This scoping review highlights the need to continue to examine summer reading programs, including their structures, the skills they target, and their impact on students' reading achievements both in the short and long term. This need is particularly pressing in countries like Canada, where the empirical research remains limited. Given the positive effects summer reading programs can have on students, not only academically but also in fostering motivation and engagement with literacy, it is critical to understand the key elements of effective programs, including the instructional strategies they employ, the types of lessons and activities they offer, and the ways in which they support student engagement and participation. Such insights can be especially valuable for school boards and community organizations that are in the early stages of implementing summer reading initiatives, as they can inform evidence‐based decision‐making related to program design, resource allocation, instructional approaches, and teacher training. A clearer understanding of program components may also support the development of equitable initiatives that address diverse student needs and literacy engagement. Additionally, these insights can help educational leaders and administrators identify priority areas for sustained funding, enabling summer reading programs to be a part of a broader literacy strategy. Supporting summer reading programs over time rather than implemented as short term or isolated interventions has the potential to strengthen partnerships across educational communities.</p> <p>The well‐documented "summer slide" is linked to declines in reading achievement (Borman and Boulay [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref129">11</reflink>]), particularly among early readers from low‐income backgrounds (Alexander et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref130">2</reflink>]; McCombs et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref131">39</reflink>]). Given the fact that literacy is a fundamental human right and a powerful tool for empowerment, continued research on and investment in summer reading programs are essential to ensure that all students have opportunities to develop lifelong literacy skills. Taken together, these points emphasize the ongoing need for research that clarifies how and why summer reading programs contribute to students' reading development.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-32">Funding</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-33">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>Ethics approval was not necessary to complete this scoping review of the literature.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-34">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0193225959-35">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0193225959-36"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Albee, J. J., M. L. Smith, J. M. Arnold, and L. B. Dennis. 2019. "Digging Struggling Students Out of the Summer Reading Slump." Reading Teacher73, no. 3: 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1847.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alexander, K., D. Entwisle, and L. Olson. 2007. "Summer Learning and Its Implications: Insights From the Beginning School Study." New Directions for Youth Development2007, no. 114: 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.210.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alexander, K., S. Pitcock, and M. C. Boulay. (Eds.). 2016. "The Summer Slide: What We Know and Can do About Summer Learning Loss." Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref43" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arksey, H., and L. O'Malley. 2005. "Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework." International Journal of Social Research Methodology8, no. 1: 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref36" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Atteberry, A., and A. McEachin. 2020. "School's Out: The Role of Summers in Understanding Achievement Disparities." American Educational Research Journal58, no. 2: 239–282. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220937285.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barnyak, N. C., and T. A. McNelly. 2016. "The Literacy Skills and Motivation to Read of Children Enrolled in Title I: A Comparison of Electronic and Print Nonfiction Books." Early Childhood Education Journal44, no. 5: 527–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643‐015‐0735‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref75" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beach, K. D., E. McIntyre, Z. A. Philippakos, M. Mraz, P. Pilonieta, and J. P. Vintinner. 2018. "Effects of a Summer Reading Intervention on Reading Skills for Low‐Income Black and Hispanic Students in Elementary School." Reading & Writing Quarterly34, no. 3: 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1446859.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref65" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Beach, K. D., and Z. A. Traga Philippakos. 2021. "Effects of a Summer Reading Intervention on the Reading Performance of Elementary Grade Students From Low‐Income Families." Reading & Writing Quarterly37, no. 2: 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1760154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref54" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Beach, P. 2025. "Research on Early Literacy in Reggio and Montessori Classrooms: A Scoping Review." Journal of Early Childhood Literacy25, no. 3: 694–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984231186090.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beck, I. L., and M. G. McKeown. 2007. "Increasing Young Low‐Income Children's Oral Vocabulary Repertoires Through Rich and Focused Instruction." Elementary School Journal107, no. 3: 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1086/511706.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borman, G. D., and M. Boulay. 2004. Summer Learning: Research, Policies, and Programs. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borman, G. D., H. Yang, and X. Xie. 2021. "A Quasi‐Experimental Study of the Impacts of the Kids Read Now Summer Reading Program." Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR)26, no. 4: 316–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2020.1855985.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. "Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology." Qualitative Research in Psychology3, no. 2: 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castles, A., K. Rastle, and K. Nation. 2018. "Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert." Psychological Science in the Public Interest19, no. 1: 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christodoulou, J. A., A. Cyr, J. Murtagh, et al. 2017. "Impact of Intensive Summer Reading Intervention for Children With Reading Disabilities and Difficulties in Early Elementary School." Journal of Learning Disabilities50, no. 2: 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415617163.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cockerill, M., A. Thurston, and J. O'Keeffe. 2023. "Using Fluency and Comprehension Instruction With Struggling Readers to Improve Student Reading Outcomes in English Elementary Schools." International Journal of Educational Research Open5: 100264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100264.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Compton‐Lilly, C., R. Caloia, E. Quast, and K. McCann. 2016. "A Closer Look at a Summer Reading Program: Listening to Students and Parents." Reading Teacher70, no. 1: 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1468.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Contesse, V. A., T. Campese, R. Kaplan, et al. 2021. "The Effects of an Intensive Summer Literacy Intervention on Reader Development." Reading & Writing Quarterly37, no. 3: 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2020.1765441.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper, H., B. Nye, K. Charlton, J. Lindsay, and S. Greathouse. 1996. "The Effects of Summer Vacation on Achievement Test Scores: A Narrative and Meta‐Analytic Review." Review of Educational Research66, no. 3: 227–268. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066003227.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cromie, R., I. G. Fa'alogo, M. Gwilliam, and L. Limbrick. 2017. "A Summer Reading Programme." Set: Research Information for Teachers1: 29–36. https://doi.org/10.18296/set.0067.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dillon, D. R., D. G. O'Brien, and K. Nichols‐Besel. 2017. "Motivating Boys to Read: Guys Read, a Summer Library Reading Program for Boys." Children and Libraries15, no. 2: 3–8. https://journals.ala.org/index.php/cal/article/view/6334.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Downey, D. B., P. T. Von Hippel, and B. A. Broh. 2004. "Are Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive Inequality During the Summer Months and the School Year." American Sociological Review69, no. 5: 613–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900501.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, K., G. K. Georgiou, R. Savage, and R. Parrila. 2025. "Efficacy of Small‐Group Reading Intervention for Grades 2 and 3 Children With Reading Difficulties: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial." Journal of Learning Disabilities58, no. 5: 374–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194241297058.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dynia, J. M., S. B. Piasta, L. M. Justice, and Columbus Metropolitan Library. 2015. "Impact of Library‐Based Summer Reading Clubs on Primary‐Grade Children's Literacy Activities and Achievement." Library Quarterly85, no. 4: 386–405. https://doi.org/10.1086/682733.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri, L., S. R. Nunes, S. A. Stahl, and D. M. Willows. 2001. "Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence From the National Reading Panel's Meta‐Analysis." Review of Educational Research71: 393–447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garst, B. A., and L. W. Ozier. 2015. "Enhancing Youth Outcomes and Organizational Practices Through a Camp‐Based Reading Program." Journal of Experimental Education38, no. 4: 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825915578914.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grammer, J. K., J. L. Coffman, P. A. Ornstein, and F. J. Morrison. 2013. "Change Over Time: Conducting Longitudinal Studies of Children's Cognitive Development." Journal of Cognition and Development14, no. 4: 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2013.833925.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guthrie, J. T., and A. Wigfield. 2023. "Roles of Motivation and Engagement in Teaching the English Language Arts." In Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts, 267–293. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ha, C., S. Durtschi, A. Roehrig, et al. 2021. "Promoting Children's Reading Motivation With Culturally Relevant Reading Education." Grantee Submission59, no. 1: 268–282.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, D. A., and M. M. Flores. 2015. "A Preliminary Pnvestigation of the Benefits of Computer‐Aided Instruction in Reading Decoding for Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Other Developmental Disabilities." Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals72: 82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoover, W. A., and P. B. Gough. 1990. "The Simple View of Reading." Reading and Writing2: 127–160.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joanna Briggs Institute. 2015. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual 2015: Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews, 6–22. Joanna Briggs Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnston, J., J. Riley, C. Ryan, and L. Kelly‐Vance. 2015. "Evaluation of a Summer Reading Program to Reduce Summer Setback." Reading & Writing Quarterly31, no. 4: 334–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2013.857978.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, S.2024. "Situative Black Girlhood Reading Motivations: Why and How Black Girls Read and Comprehend Text." Education in Science14, no. 5: 474.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, J. S., M. A. Burkhauser, D. M. Quinn, J. Guryan, H. C. Kingston, and K. Aleman. 2017. "Effectiveness of Structured Teacher Adaptations to an Evidence‐Based Summer Literacy Program." Reading Research Quarterly52, no. 4: 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.178.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, J. S., J. Guryan, T. G. White, D. M. Quinn, L. Capotosto, and H. C. Kingston. 2016. "Delayed Effects of a Low‐Cost and Large‐Scale Summer Reading Intervention on Elementary School Children's Reading Comprehension." Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness9, no. 1: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1164780.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy, R., M. Hall, and J. Preece. 2018. "Examining the Links Between Parents' Relationships With Reading and Shared Reading With Their Pre‐School Children." International Journal of Educational Psychology7, no. 2: 123–150.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magpuri‐Lavell, T., D. Paige, R. Williams, K. Akins, and M. Cameron. 2014. "The Effects of a Summer Reading Program Using Simultaneous Multisensory Instruction of Language Arts on Reading Proficiency." Reading Improvement51, no. 4: 361–372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCombs, J. S., C. H. Augustine, H. L. Schwartz, et al. 2011. Making Summer Count. Rand Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDaniel, S. C., R. McLeod, C. L. Carter, and C. Robinson. 2017. "Supplemental Summer Literacy Instruction: Implications for Preventing Summer Reading Loss." Reading Psychology38, no. 7: 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2017.1333070.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mendes, B. B., and J. R. Kirby. 2024. "The Effects of a Morphological Awareness Intervention on Reading and Spelling Ability of Children With Dyslexia." Learning Disability Quarterly47, no. 4: 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487241259775.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mitchell, C., and J. C. Begeny. 2014. "Improving Student Reading Through Parents' Implementation of a Structured Reading Program." School Psychology Review43, no. 1: 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2014.12087453.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moats, L. C.2020. "Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science, 2020: What Expert Teachers of Reading Should Know and Be Able to Do." American Federation of Teachers, AFL‐CIO.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Munn, Z., M. D. Peters, C. Stern, C. Tufanaru, A. McArthur, and E. Aromataris. 2018. "Systematic Review or Scoping Review? Guidance for Authors When Choosing Between a Systematic or Scoping Review Approach." BMC Medical Research Methodology18, no. 1: 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874‐018‐0611‐x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Reading Panel. 2000. "Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence‐Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (Report No. NIH Pub. No. 00–4754)." National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicholson, T., and S. Tiru. 2019. "Preventing a Summer Slide in Reading–the Effects of a Summer School." Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties24, no. 2: 109–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2019.1635499.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pagan, S., and M. Sénéchal. 2014. "Involving Parents in a Summer Book Reading Program to Promote Reading Comprehension, Fluency, and Vocabulary in Grade 3 and Grade 5 Children." Canadian Journal of Education37, no. 2: 1–31. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/canajeducrevucan.37.2.03">www.jstor.org/stable/canajeducrevucan.37.2.03</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parker, L., and C. Reid. 2017. "A Case Study of Elementary School Parents as Agents for Summer Reading Gain: Fostering a Summer Leap and Holding Steady." School Community Journal27, no. 1: 307–327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., and A. Helder. 2022. "Progress in Reading Science: Word Identification, Comprehension, and Universal Perspectives." In The Science of Reading: A Handbook, 5–35. Wiley Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petty, T. M., N. L. Smith, and A. H. Kern. 2017. "Engaging Students Through a Summer Literacy Experience." Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin83, no. 5: 49–54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rasinski, T., D. Paige, C. Rains, et al. 2017. "Effects of Intensive Fluency Instruction on the Reading Proficiency of Third‐Grade Struggling Readers." Reading & Writing Quarterly33, no. 6: 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1250144.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reed, D. K., and A. M. Aloe. 2020. "Interpreting the Effectiveness of a Summer Reading Program: The Eye of the Beholder." Evaluation and Program Planning83: 101852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101852.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reed, D. K., A. M. Aloe, A. J. Reeger, and J. S. Folsom. 2019. "Defining Summer Gain Among Elementary Students With or at Risk for Reading Disabilities." Exceptional Children85, no. 4: 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918819426.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scarborough, H. S.2001. "Connecting Early Language and Literacy to Later Reading (Dis)Abilities: Evidence From a Longitudinal Study." Learning Disabilities Research & Practice16, no. 4: 213–224.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. E.2017. "Early Literacy Development and Instruction: An Overview." In The Routledge International Handbook of Early Literacy Education, 5–13. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solis, M., J. Miciak, S. Vaughn, and J. M. Fletcher. 2014. "Why Intensive Interventions Matter: Longitudinal Studies of Adolescents With Reading Disabilities and Poor Reading Comprehension." Learning Disability Quarterly37, no. 4: 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714528806.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spear‐Swerling, L.2019. "Structured Literacy and Typical Literacy Practices: Understanding Differences to Create Instructional Opportunities." Teaching Exceptional Children51, no. 3: 201–211.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stein, M. L.2017. "Supporting the Summer Reading of Urban Youth: An Evaluation of the Baltimore SummerREADS Program." Education and Urban Society49, no. 1: 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124516630595.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strong, J. Z., and B. E. Anderson. 2024. "Effects of a Summer Tutoring Program on Reading Achievement in Grades K‐5." Reading & Writing Quarterly40, no. 5: 456–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2023.2266807.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tricco, A. C., E. Lillie, W. Zarin, et al. 2018. "PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR): Checklist and Explanation." Annals of Internal Medicine169, no. 7: 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18‐0850.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von Hippel, P. T., J. Workman, and D. B. Downey. 2018. "Inequality in Reading and Math Skills Forms Mainly Before Kindergarten: A Replication, and Partial Correction, of "Are Schools the Great Equalizer?"." Sociology of Education91, no. 4: 323–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040718801760.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, T. G., J. S. Kim, H. C. Kingston, and L. Foster. 2014. "Replicating the Effects of a Teacher‐Scaffolded Voluntary Summer Reading Program: The Role of Poverty." Reading Research Quarterly49, no. 1: 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zvoch, K., and J. J. Stevens. 2015. "Identification of Summer School Effects by Comparing the In‐and Out‐Of‐School Growth Rates of Struggling Early Readers." Elementary School Journal115, no. 3: 433–456. https://doi.org/10.1086/680229.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Pamela Beach and Holly Crump</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref126"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1503760
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Bridging the Summer Gap: A Scoping Review of the Literature on Summer Reading Programs
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pamela+Beach%22">Pamela Beach</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4980-9447">0000-0002-4980-9447</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Holly+Crump%22">Holly Crump</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2026 61(2).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Summer+Programs%22">Summer Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Programs%22">Reading Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Motivation%22">Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/rrq.70092
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article presents the findings of a scoping review of 32 empirical studies that examined summer reading programs in the elementary education context between 2014 and 2024. A five-stage framework for conducting scoping reviews was employed. In addition, a thematic content analysis was conducted, resulting in three main themes associated with the studies: (1) targeted programs, (2) focus on skill development, and (3) fostering motivation for literacy. The study contexts, research methods, and other relevant study characteristics are also reviewed and discussed. Findings from this review have implications for both practice, in terms of designing responsive and targeted summer reading programs, and theory, in terms of strengthening conceptual models that explain how targeted support, skill development, and motivation interact to influence literacy outcomes.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1503760
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503760
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/rrq.70092
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Summer Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Bridging the Summer Gap: A Scoping Review of the Literature on Summer Reading Programs
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pamela Beach
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Holly Crump
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0034-0553
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1936-2722
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 61
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1