|
NOINDEX
includes/content/subnav.asp NOINDEX
|
Responding to Critics
Background on Reading Recovery Criticism
Reading Recovery is a scientifically based early literacy
intervention used in the United States since 1984. Because it is
widely studied and well known, Reading Recovery has drawn criticism
from a small but vocal minority who hold differing views about the
beginning reading process. Although critics often quote research,
advocates can be confident that the vast majority of research
evidence supports Reading Recovery.
The following links provide needed detail to respond to Reading
Recovery critics.Allington, Richard (February 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 (2006).
Reading Recovery Council of North America.
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 (2002). Reading
Recovery Council of North America.
Response to:
Internet letter distributed to members of Congress in Spring 2002.
Letter Says Evidence Distorts Research (2002)
Signed by 200 academics and literacy scholars
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.
Pinnell, G. S., & Moriarty, D. J. (1999)
Open letters to the editor of
Investors Business Daily
Response to:
When education theories go bad. (1999, April 1). Investors Business
Daily.
|
