|
Responding to Critics
Dispelling Misrepresentations and Misconceptions About Reading Recovery
Reading Recovery Council of North America (Feb. 1, 2012)
(Full Response) (One-Page Abstract)
Response to:
International Dyslexia Association (2011). Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 37(4) 7-38.
Allington, Richard (Feb. 14, 2007)
Think Tank Review of Whole-Language High Jinks
Education Policy Studies Laboratory. Published online.
Response to:
Moats, Louisa (2007). Whole-Language High Jinks: How to Tell When "Scientifically Based Reading Instruction" Isn't. Thomas B. Fordham Institute
A Review of What Research Really Says About Reading Recovery
Reading Recovery Council of North America (2006)
Response to:
Farrall, M. (2006, February 7). Reading Recovery: What Do School Districts Get for Their Money? A Review of the Research. Wrightslaw Website newsletter posting.
Jones, N. (2006)
One to One vs. Two-to-One Instruction: A Response to Iversen, Tunmer, and Chapman
Response to:
Iversen, S., Tunmer, W., & Chapman, J. (2005). The effects of varying group size on the Reading Recovery approach to preventive early intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 256–272.
Schwartz, R. M. (2005)
Research Findings and Recommendations: A Response to Elbaum et al. (2000) Meta-Analysis of One-to-One Interventions
Response to:
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S. M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4) 605–619.
Schwartz, R. M. (2005)
The Effectiveness of Early-Intervention Tutoring Programs—When is a Research Brief Too Brief?
Response to:
The effectiveness of early-intervention tutoring programs on student reading achievement. (2005, April 26). ASCD Research Brief.
What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery
Reading Recovery Council of North America (2002)
Response to:
Internet letter distributed to members of Congress in Spring 2002
Letter Says Evidence Distorts Research
Signed by 200 academics and literacy scholars (2002)
Response to:
Internet letter distributed to members of Congress in Spring 2002. Signed by 31 academics.
Pinnell, G. S. (1999)
Comments in Response to Critics
Response to:
Grossen, B., & Coulter, G. Reading Recovery: An evaluation of benefits and costs: The claims versus the facts. Published online.
Response to Investors Business Daily editorial
Open letters to the editor and comments from Reading Recovery professionals (1999)
Response to:
When education theories go bad. (1999, April 1). Investors Business Daily.
|
