Research Database

Research Article Database

Search our Database for Research Articles


Loading...
Title Author Journal Year Category Link
What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report: Reading RecoveryUnited States Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.WWC WebsiteReviews of ResearchViewPage 1 WWC Intervention Report US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION What Works Clearinghouse Beginning Reading Updated July 2013 Reading Recovery Report Contents Overview p 1 Program Information p 2 Research Summary p 3 Effectiveness Summary p 4 References p 7 Research Details for Each Study p 24 Outcome Measures for Each Domain p 28 Findings Included in the Rating for Each Outcome Domain p 30 Endnotes p 34 Rating Criteria p 36 Glossary of Terms p 37 Program Description 1 Reading Recovery is a shortterm intervention that provides one onone tutoring to firstgrade students who are struggling in reading and writing The supplementary program aims to promote literacy skills and foster the development of reading and writing strategies by tailoring individualized lessons to each student Tutoring is delivered by trained Reading Recovery teachers in daily 30 minute pullout sessions over the course of 1220 weeks Research 2 The What Works Clearinghouse WWC identified three studies of Reading Recovery that both fall within the scope of the Beginning Reading topic area and meet WWC evidence standards All three studies meet standards without reservations Together these studies included 227 students in first grade in at least 14 states The WWC considers the extent of evidence for Reading Recovery on the reading skills of beginning readers to be small for four out come domainsalphabetics reading fluency comprehension and general reading achievement See the Effectiveness Summary on p 4 for further description of these domains Effectiveness Reading Recovery was found to have positive effects on general reading achievement and potentially positive effects on alphabetics reading fluency and comprehension for beginning readers Table 1 Summary of findings 3 Improvement index percentile points Outcome domain Rating of effectiveness AverageRangeNumber of studies Number of students Extent of evidence Alphabetics Potentially positive effects 219 to 42 214 8 Small Reading fluency Potentially positive effects 4632 to 49 174Small Reading Recovery Updated July 20131
Phonological Processing Skills and the Reading Recovery ProgramS. J. Iversen & W. E. TunmerJournal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437-4471993Overall EffectivenessViewBackground Iversen and Tunmer conducted a study to determine whether the Reading Recovery program would be more effective if systematic instruction in phonological recording skills were incorporated into the program. Three matched groups of 32 at-risk readers were compared: children taught by teachers who received Reading Recovery training children taught by teachers who received Reading Recovery training that included phonological recording skills as part of the lesson children who received a standard intervention (not Reading Recovery) Measures included all six tasks of the Diagnostic Survey, Dolch Word Recognition Test, Yopp-Singer Phoneme Segmentation Test, Phoneme Deletion Test, and Pseudoword Decoding Task. Findings The critical finding in this study was that the two Reading Recovery groups preformed at very similar levels when Reading Recovery lessons were successfully completed (discontinued). Both groups performed much better on all measures than children in the standards intervention group, and they often performed significantly better than classroom controls (especially on phonological segmentation and phoneme deletion). Results revealed that the modified Reading Recovery group reached levels of performance required for discontinuing more quickly than the standard Reading Recovery group. Authors acknowledged that both the standard and modified Reading Recovery programs included explicit instruction in phonological awareness. For more information: Download Six Reading Recovery Studies: Meeting the Criteria for Scientifically Based Research (PDF) This abstract first appeared in What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery (2002). Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.1
Reading Recovery: Helping At-Risk Children Learn to ReadG. S. Pinnell.The Elementary School Journal, 90, 161-1831989Overall EffectivenessViewBackground Pinnell evaluated two cohorts of students. The purposes of the study were to explore whether Reading Recovery could succeed with low-achieving children and to determine whether those children maintained their gains. The lowest-achieving children were randomly assigned either to Reading Recovery or to a control group served daily in individual lessons taught by a trained paraprofessional (not a Reading Recovery teacher). Both groups were compared with a random sample of average and high progress first graders as an indication of average progress. The study used all six tasks of Clay’s Diagnostic Survey, a writing sample, and the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (two subtests). Findings Pinnell found that in the full Reading Recovery program, Reading Recovery children scored significantly better than control children on seven of the nine diagnostic measures at the end of first grade. They compared well with the random sample group. Reading Recovery children were followed in second and third grade to determine their performance in text reading in subsequent years. Reading Recovery children remained superior in comparison with the control group. For more information: Download Six Reading Recovery Studies: Meeting the Criteria for Scientifically Based Research (PDF)
Comparing Instructional Models for the Literacy Education of High Risk First GradersPinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A., & Seltzer, N.Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 8-391994Overall EffectivenessViewBackground Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer’s study systematically compared Reading Recovery to three other instructional models of early intervention. In this study (N = 324) the lowest-achieving first-grade students from 40 different schools in 10 different school districts were randomly assigned within schools to one of five groups. Reading Recovery a Reading Recovery-like intervention with partially trained teachers a skills-based individual intervention small group instruction offered by Reading Recovery teachers a control group Measures included those used in Reading Recovery as well as generally known reading tests (Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test and Woodcock Reading Mastery). The study employed a formal experimental design that used split plots to control effects that may result from differing cultures among school districts or individual schools. The difficulty of small standard errors in analysis of data at the student level was addressed by using the Hierarchical Linear Model for data analysis. Researchers at the University of Chicago independently analyzed the data. In addition, a renowned national panel of researchers not involved in Reading Recovery provided oversight for analyzing results. Findings The results of the study were definitive: Reading Recovery subjects performed significantly better than any other treatment and comparison group on all measures. Essential differences were related to individual instruction, the lesson framework (combination of techniques), and teacher training. For more information: Download Six Reading Recovery Studies: Meeting the Criteria for Scientifically Based Research (PDF)
Literacy Learning of At-Risk First-Grade Students in the Reading Recovery Early InterventionR. M. SchwartzJournal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 257-2672005Overall EffectivenessViewBackground Thirty-seven Reading Recovery teachers from different schools in 14 states submitted the names of two at-risk first-grade students to a Web-based program for random assignment to first- or second-round Reading Recovery service, and submitted data on those students across the school year that allowed comparison of at-risk students with and without intervention services. In addition, data was collected on a low-average and a high-average student from the same classroom as the two at-risk students. These students (n = 148) were assessed on a variety of literacy measures at the beginning of the school year, at the transition from first- to second-round Reading Recovery service, and at the end of the year. Measures include six tasks from Clay’s An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. In addition, at the transition period and at year-end, students were assessed on the Yopp-Singer Phonemic Segmentation task, a sound deletion task, the Degrees of Reading Power Test, and the Slosson Oral Reading Test. This was an experimental design with random assignment of at-risk students to first- round intervention services or a comparison group that did not receive intervention service until after the transition period testing. The design also controlled for classroom literacy instruction by selecting all participants from the same classroom within each school. Repeated measures analysis of variance with follow-up main effect or simple effect comparisons were conducted. Analyses among groups at the transition period are of primary importance because this provided a comparison of the learning of randomly assigned groups of at-risk students with and without intervention services and a comparison to the progress of average students from the same classrooms. Findings The at-risk students who received Reading Recovery in the first half of the year performed significantly better at the end of their intervention period than at-risk students assigned to receive intervention services later in the year. This is most apparent in the large effect sizes for Text Reading Level (d = 2.02), the Ohio Word test (d = 1.38), Concepts About Print (d = 1.10), Writing Vocabulary (d = 0.90), Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (d = 1.06), and the Slosson Oral Reading Test-Revised (d = 0.94). Comparisons of the at-risk intervention group with the high-average and low-average classroom groups at the transition period showed that the at-risk students had closed the achievement gap with their average peers. A further efficiency analysis showed that selection procedures were effective in identifying students in need of early intervention services and that the Reading Recovery intervention could reduce the number of children who appear to need long-term literacy support from 17% to 5% of the first-grade cohort. For more information: Download Six Reading Recovery Studies: Meeting the Criteria for Scientifically Based Research (PDF)
Evaluation of the i3 Scale-up of Reading Recovery reportsConsortium for Policy Research in Education2013, 2014, 2016Overall EffectivenessViewFinal independent research report finds i3 scale-up of Reading Recovery ‘highly successful’ Innovation in Intervention: Replicating the Success of Reading Recovery In this podcast, CPRE senior researchers Henry May, Abigail Gray, and Philip Sirinides discuss their monumental study of Reading Recovery and how their results could be used to inform and monitor future developments in education. Their paper, “The Impacts of Reading Recovery at Scale: Results From the 4-Year i3 External Evaluation,” was published in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis in March 2018. 4-Year Evaluation of Reading Recovery Expansion Finds Strong Gains in Student Reading Achievement March 17, 2016 University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education Findings from “one of the most ambitious and well-documented expansions of an instructional program in U.S. history” show the $55 million Investing in Innovation (i3) scale-up of Reading Recovery was highly successful. Reading Recovery: An Evaluation of the Four-Year i3 Scale-Up by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) reports key findings on scale-up processes, challenges, and outcomes; immediate and sustained impacts; implementation fidelity, and implementation at both the lesson and school level. The independent evaluation examining Reading Recovery’s “impacts and execution is one of the most comprehensive evaluations ever implemented in the field of education.” The randomized control trial (RCT) study of immediate impacts in the scale-up schools—among the largest such studies ever conducted—revealed medium to large impacts across all outcome measures. Effect sizes at the end of 12- to 20-weeks of treatment ranged between 0.30 and 0.42 standard deviations. “The growth rate we observed in students who participated in Reading Recovery over approximately a five-month period was 131 percent of the national average rate for 1st-grade students. Moreover, these results were similar in two subgroups of interest to the i3 program: English Language Learners and students in rural schools.” (p. 3) A total of 3,747 teachers were trained, serving 61,992 students in one-to-one lessons. In addition, these Reading Recovery-trained professionals taught 325,458 students in classroom or small-group instruction. Background In October 2010, the USDE awarded a 5-year, $45.6 million Investing in Innovation (i3) grant to The Ohio State University. An additional $9.1 million required private sector match was also raised to support Reading Recovery training across the United States. All 19 Reading Recovery university training centers in the U.S. partnered in the project. These funds supported year-long Reading Recovery training for teachers. Although all U.S. schools were eligible for the professional development funding provided by the i3 grant, particular priority was given to very low-performing schools, schools in rural areas, and schools with high populations of English language learners. The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) was contracted to conduct an independent evaluation of the i3 scale up of Reading Recovery over the course of 5 years. About CPRE The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) brought together experts from major research universities to improve elementary and secondary education by bridging the gap between educational policy and student learning. CPRE’s member institutions are the University of Pennsylvania, Teachers College Columbia University, Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin-Madison and Northwestern University. The report was a collaboration between CPRE and the University of Delaware Center for Research in Education and Social Policy (CRESP).
International Data Evaluation CenterThe Ohio State UniversityCollege of Education and Human EcologyData CollectionViewInternational Data Evaluation Center Reading Recovery® Reading Recovery ® Descubriendo la Lectura IDEC International Data Evaluation Center Reading Recovery Data Collection Home Videos Log In About How we process data Random Sample Selector Publications LOG IN I Forgot My Password IDEC Updates facebook--> twitter   Tweets by @IDECWEB Top Trending Downloads © 2022 The Ohio State University, all rights reserved. Contact Security facebook twitter youtube
Florida Center for Reading Research: Reading RecoveryFlorida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University.June 19, 2008Reviews of ResearchViewFlorida Center for Reading Research 227 N Bronough St Suite 7250 Tallahassee FL 32301 httpwwwfcrrorg 8506449352 1 Florida Center for Reading Research Reading Recovery What is Reading Recovery Reading Recovery is a short term early reading intervention for the lowest performing students in first grade Descubriendo la Lectura is the Reading Recovery program for Spanish speaking students the instruction is delivered in Spanish Reading Recovery was originally developed in New Zealand by the late educator and child psychologist Marie Clay The program is designed to support regular classroom instruction and its goal is to reduce the number of struggling readers in first grade by accelerating students learning so that they are reading and achieving at the average level of their classroom peers Teachers who have been highly trained in Reading Recovery techniques provide daily intensive onetoone 30minute lessons for 1220 weeks Students are selected for Reading Recovery by the classroom teachers informal ranking scores on measures from An Observation Survey Clay 2007 and other standardized scores The teacher designs daily instruction based on careful observation during the lesson and by using a range of instruments including daily running records lesson records writing books weekly records of text reading levels and records of student growth in reading and writing vocabulary The first two weeks of Reading Recovery lessons are referred to as roaming around the known The teacher observes what the student knows and how she responds in the context of reading texts and writing messages During this period of time the focus is on building fluency and flexibility with what the student knows and extending the initial assessment by observing the students strengths and response patterns After this instruction begins with the tasks that comprise the Reading Recovery daily lesson framework Each days lesson begins by rereading familiar books that may cover a range of levels The teacher interacts with the student during this time supporting strategy use fluency and meaning Next the student reads the book that was introduced the previous day as the teacher observes and records reading behavior using a running record Letter identification and breaking words apart follow rereading With the teachers guidance the student examines letter sequence letter clusters and onsetrime patterns Then the student composes and writes a message or story and reads it with opportunities to analyze words and sounds The teacher writes the message on a sentence strip and cuts it up for the student to reassemble While reassembling the cutup message or story the student attends to letter andor word sequence and phrasing and rereads the message or story In the last part of the lesson the teacher introduces a new book and helps the student prepare for the text This overview may involve a picture walk building prior knowledge examining vocabulary and reading a phrase or sentence from the story that is crucial to its meaning Finally the student reads the new book with support and prompts from the teacher Although the lesson framework is structured instructional techniques and activities may vary depending upon a students need Those differences are captured in momentary teacher decisions based on student response the book chosen for that days lesson and the written message the child has composed An important component to Reading Recovery that is used before and after instruction is Clays diagnostic An Observation Survey 2007 It includes six reading and writing tasks that have been documented for reliability and validity Denton Florida Center for Reading Research 227 N Bronough St Suite 7250 Tallahassee FL 32301 httpwwwfcrrorg 8506449352 2 Ciancio Fletcher 2006 Letter Identification Word Test Concepts About Print Writing Vocabulary Hearing and Recording Sounds and Text Reading In addition to the diagnostic there is a guidebook for teachers a wide variety of leveled books from different publishers a blank book for messagesstory writing and word work sentence strips for recording and reassembling cutup messages and magnetic letters and magnetic boards for work with letters and words A Principals Guide and a Site Coordinators Guide include information that assists in supporting administrators with implementing and sustaining Reading Recovery in their schools How is Reading Recovery aligned with Current Research The theoretical base of Reading Recovery derives from cognitive psychology and aligns with the cognitive apprenticeship model of instruction Rogoff 1990 The intent of Reading Recovery lessons is that by working intensively with the teacher the student gradually accomplishes difficult tasks that she is unable to do alone The teacher provides structured activities with modeling guidance and with scaffolding as the student gains competence through active participation with increasingly complex activities As the student becomes more independent the level of support and scaffolding is reduced There is no scope and sequence with Reading Recovery Rather the teacher designs and conducts each days lessons based on assessments observations and the students responses within the lesson Responsive teaching involves knowing where students are and helping them figure out where they need to go The notion of scaffolding plays a crucial role in responsive teaching Rayner Foorman Perfetti Pesetsky Seidenberg 2001 Reading Recovery lessons include work in phonemic awareness and phonics Students learn letter identification with their own alphabet book The personal alphabet book enables isolated work with letter sounds letter names and words that start with that letter or sound For the breaking words apart task students learn to hear sounds in words the alphabetic principle the sequence of letters in words and onset and rime segmenting Students engage in word building and analysis with magnetic letters and sound and letter manipulation with Elkonin boxes Word work may occur briefly during any part of the lesson as the teacher introduces the new book as the student reads or in the message writing portion Opportunities for fluency development are abundant in Reading Recovery lessons On a daily basis students strive to build overall fluency by reading and rereading familiar texts the written messages phrases and individual words Fluency practice is enhanced by teacher modeling of accuracy and expression Vocabulary and comprehension infuse every aspect of a Reading Recovery lesson Daily lessons focus on prior knowledge building word meanings and on discovering a message in oral and written language through frequent discussions These discussions are intended to provide rich opportunities for oral language development especially important for English Language Learners The teacher endeavors to foster and support student selfmonitoring through extensive conversations questioning and text choice during each lesson The hallmark of Reading Recovery is a strong model of professional development that is delivered through a threetiered system consisting of university based trainers teacher leaders and Reading Recovery teacher candidates University trainers train the teacher leaders and the teacher leaders provide the prospective Reading Recovery teachers with training and then offer ongoing support and coaching after the initial training Three features characterize Reading Recovery Florida Center for Reading Research 227 N Bronough St Suite 7250 Tallahassee FL 32301 httpwwwfcrrorg 8506449352 3 professional development for everyone who receives it a they receive a full academic year of professional development followed by ongoing training sessions b they work concurrently with students c they make use of the oneway glass where class members observe a lesson and discuss the students reading behavior and possible teaching decisions to accelerate learning Focal points of the professional development include open discussion systematic observation and analysis of student reading behavior selfanalysis of teaching based on student progress and the design and delivery of lessons An important consideration for schools and districts wishing to implement Reading Recovery would be in the choice of teachers to receive the training Skill and teacher expertise are paramount to the success of the program particularly in the ability to scaffold to make instantaneous instructional decisions and to design and deliver lessons The Reading Recovery professional development is meant to complement and enhance an already skillful teacher who has the potential to excel Research Support for Reading Recovery The Reading Recovery program was found to have positive effects in alphabetics and general reading achievement and potentially positive effects in fluency and comprehension A number of studies have evaluated the effectiveness of the Reading Recovery program Two of the studies with an experimental design are summarized below Several studies were not summarized due to incomplete information See httpwwwfcrrorgFCRRReportsPDFResearchCriteriapdf Please see the What Works Clearinghouse website for these additional studies httpwwwreadingrecoveryorgresearchwhatworksindexasp Students from 14 different states participated in a study that compared the effectiveness of Reading Recovery RR at closing the gap between average and atrisk readers in first grade Schwartz 2005 Classroom teachers submitted two of the lowest 2030 of their students for the study The atrisk students were randomly assigned to either first round n37 in the first half of the school year or second round n37 service with RR This summary will only focus on the 37 students randomly assigned to the first round of RR instruction The 37 students who were randomly assigned to the second round of RR instruction served as the comparison group for the first round of students It should be noted that information on student SES background was not available in the study due to the reluctance of some school districts to release such information Pretest and posttest measures included the six tasks from An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement by Clay 1993 The Text Level task involves the teacher taking a running record while the student reads a leveled text Letter Identification Concepts about Print which involves the student responding to questions about book handling directional behavior visual scanning and print language the Ohio Word Test where the student is asked to read 20 high frequency words the Writing Vocabulary task involves students writing every word they can think of for 10 minutes Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words is another writingdictation task where the student listens to a passage and then is asked to write each word as the passage is read again word by word Prompting includes the student saying the word slowly and writing what they heard Additional measures at posttest included the YoppSinger Phoneme Segmentation Task Yopp 1988 a sound deletion task Rosner 1975 the Slosson Oral Reading TestRevised Nicholson 1990 designed to determine a students level of oral word recognition and the Degrees of Florida Center for Reading Research 227 N Bronough St Suite 7250 Tallahassee FL 32301 httpwwwfcrrorg 8506449352 4 Reading Power Test Forms JO and KO Touchstone applied Science Associates 2000 designed to assess general reading achievement In addition to the Reading Recovery intervention described earlier in this report both intervention and control students received the usual classroom literacy instruction and other forms of literacy support offered in the school Results were analyzed in separate repeated measures ANOVAs with the alpha level set at 005 RR students outperformed the control group on Concepts about Print letter name knowledge Letter Identification task word reading ie The Ohio Word Test and the Slosson Oral Reading Test spelling Writing Vocabulary and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words and fluency Text Level Effect sizes for all assessments were larger than 80 Another study in Australia examined the effectiveness of the Reading Recovery RR program Center Wheldall Freeman Outhred McNaught 1995 Low achieving first grade students from 10 schools were randomly assigned to either a treatment n31 or control group n39However the sample sizes for the analyses differed from the original assignment due to attrition For the examination of the RR effect through posttest and again 15 weeks later end of first grade for short term maintenance effects only those children who remained until the end of first grade were included thus n22 for the treatment and n30 for the control group Students in the treatment group received the RR intervention described earlier in this report and the control group received extra support in reading typically offered by their school Both treatment and control groups received the usual classroom literacy instruction It should be noted that some RR students also received extra literacy support offered by their school in the form of group remedial activities Neither classroom literacy instruction nor additional support was described Pretests and posttests consisted of 2 sets of tests The first set included the Burt Word Reading Tests which evaluate a students word recognition skills and the Clay Diagnostic Survey 1985 described in the above research summary Clays An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement 1993 The second set of tests included the following standardized and criterion referenced tests the Neale Analysis of Reading AbilityRevised 1988 designed to measure rate accuracy and comprehension of oral reading the Passage Reading Test Deno Mirkin Chiang 1982 designed to measure the median number of words read correctly in 1 minute from 3 passages the Waddington Diagnostic Spelling Test the Phonemic Awareness Test which is a compilation of a variety of measures from Yopp 1988 and Bruce 1964 that include rhyme alliteration phoneme segmentation and deletion the Syntactic Awareness Cloze Test and the Word Attack Skills Test 1991 A multivariate analysis of variance with repeated measures indicated that at posttest the RR students significantly outperformed control students and the effect sizes were large 42305 on all measures for reading words in context and in isolation but significance was not reached on the Phonemic Awareness Test and the Word Attack Skills Test Shortterm effects were also found for RR students with effect sizes ranging from 69 to 155 The Syntactic Awareness Cloze Test and the Word Attack Skills Test did not reach statistical significance It should be noted that mediumterm maintenance effects were also examined when students were at the end of second grade However due to some confounding factors involving attrition the results are not described in this report Florida Center for Reading Research 227 N Bronough St Suite 7250 Tallahassee FL 32301 httpwwwfcrrorg 8506449352 5 Conclusion In summary the Reading Recovery program provides intensive oneonone tutoring in beginning reading skills Highly interactive daily sessions emphasize print concepts contextual reading and meaning Some studies have indicated that there is a strong level of support for alphabetics and general reading growth with potentially positive effects in fluency and comprehension Future well designed experimental studies with measures in comprehension will reinforce the existing research Strengths Weaknesses Strengths of Reading Recovery Extensive professional development and ongoing professional development are a requirement of the program Daily assessments inform instruction Students are exposed to a wide variety of books both narrative and expository The close relationship between the teacher and student may be highly motivational for struggling readers The reciprocal nature of reading and writing is explored and developed daily during the message composition portion of the lesson Rereading texts may benefit and reinforce word recognition and comprehension skills Weaknesses of Reading Recovery None were noted Which Florida districts have schools that implement Reading Recovery Duval 9043902115 Palm Beach 5614348200 Santa Rosa 8509835010 For More Information httpwwwreadingrecoveryorg References Bruce D 1964 An analysis of word sounds by young children British Journal of Education Psychology 34 170 Center Y Wheldall K Freeman L Outhred L McNaught M 1995 An evaluation of reading recovery Reading Research Quarterly 302 240 263 Clay M M 1979 1985 The early detection of reading difficulties 2 nd and 3 rd ed Auckland Heinemann Clay M M 1993 2007 An observation survey of early literacy achievement 2 nd ed Portsmouth NH Heinemann Deno S L Mirkin P K Chiang B 1982 Identifying valid measures of reading Exceptional Children 49 3645 Denton C A Ciancio D H Fletcher J M 2006 Validity reliability and utility of the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement Reading Research Quarterly 411 834 Florida Center for Reading Research 227 N Bronough St Suite 7250 Tallahassee FL 32301 httpwwwfcrrorg 8506449352 6 Macquerie University Special Education Center 1991 Test of word attack skills New South Wales Australia Author Neale M D 1988 Neale analysis of reading abilityrevised Manual Hawthorn Australia Australian Council for Educational Research Nicholson C L 1990 Slosson oral reading test Revised manual East Aurora NY Slosson Educational Publications Rayner K Foorman B R Perfetti C A Pesetsky D Seidenberg M 2001 How psychological science informs the teaching of reading Psychological science in the public interest 2 3173 Rogoff B 1990 Apprenticeship in thinking Cognitive development in social thinking New York Oxford University Press Schwartz R M 2005 Literacy learning of atrisk firstgrade students in the Reading Recovery early intervention Journal of Educational Psychology 972 257 267 Waddingon N J 1988 Diagnostic reading and spelling tests Ingle Farm Waddington Educational Resources Yopp H K 1988 The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests Reading Research Quarterly 23 159177 Lead Reviewer Michelle Wahl MS Date Posted June 2008 Important Note FCRR Reports are prepared in response to requests from Florida school districts for review of specific reading programs The reports are intended to be a source of information about programs that will help teachers principals and district personnel in their choice of materials that can be used by skilled teachers to provide effective instruction Whether or not a program has been reviewed does not constitute endorsement or lack of endorsement by the FCRR For more information about FCRR go to wwwfcrrorg
ED Agencies Review Reading Recovery ResearchReviews of ResearchViewReading Recovery research studies reviewed by U.S. Department of Education supported agencies National agencies funded through the U.S. Department of Education have reviewed Reading Recovery research studies using rigorous standards. Though each agency reports evaluations using different categories, all require experimental (randomized controlled trial) or quasi-experimental studies as evidence of effectiveness. National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII) NCII, supported by the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, has recognized the evidence-proven effectiveness of Reading Recovery for students who struggle in learning to read and write. NCII’s academic screening and intervention tool charts allow educators and decision makers to select tools and programs that display expert ratings on technical rigor. Screening tools identify students in need of intensive intervention. Intervention tools charts include programs and corresponding research studies documenting effectiveness and designed for use in an intensive intervention context. The charts offer information on the quality and results of the studies, implementation requirements, and descriptions of additional research. As explained on the NCII website, “Assessment is an essential part of the data-based individualization (DBI) process and a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). Without technically sound assessment, which provides accurate, meaningful information, a teacher has no objective method for determining what a student needs or how to intensify instruction to meet those needs. The close connection between assessment and intervention is at the foundation of the DBI process. This connection is what drives teacher decision making. With the right assessment tools and guidance on how to use them, teachers can make sound, data-based decisions about who needs intensive intervention, when to make instructional changes, and what skills to focus on.” An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, the screening tool central to Reading Recovery’s evaluation and instruction and used widely by classroom and specialist teachers and researchers, again received the highest possible ratings in the most recent review. The Observation Survey showed classification accuracy in identifying at-risk students in the fall or winter of first grade based on a nationally representative sample. The assessment also demonstrated strong reliability and validity. The current Academic Screening Tools Chart  updates a 2011 review by the National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI), when the Observation Survey also received high ratings. In fall 2012, the NCII Technical Review Committee reviewed Reading Recovery research and reported large gains based on a 2005 study by Robert Schwartz. Other studies include Center, Wheldall, Freeman, Outhred, & McNaught (1995), and Iversen & Tunmer (1993). The 2016 final evaluation of the 4-year i3 scale-up by May, Sirinides, Gray, and Goldsworthy was added in the most recent update of the Academic Intervention Tools Chart. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, the WWC is “a central and trusted source of scientific evidence for what works in education” and publishes intervention reports that assess research on beginning reading programs. WWC evaluations translate effect sizes from research into improvement index scores to reflect the average change in a student’s percentile rank that can be expected if the student has the intervention. In 2007, 2008, and in July 2013, the WWC examined research on Reading Recovery and accepted studies that met its evidence standards. Reading Recovery received positive or potentially positive ratings across all four domains: alphabetics (phonics and phonemic awareness), fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement. Among all programs reviewed, Reading Recovery received the highest rating in general reading achievement. See how Reading Recovery compares to other interventions.
U.S. Department of Education Reviews of Reading RecoveryU.S. Department of Education2012Reviews of ResearchViewReading Recovery research studies reviewed by U.S. Department of Education supported agencies National agencies funded through the U.S. Department of Education have reviewed Reading Recovery research studies using rigorous standards. Though each agency reports evaluations using different categories, all require experimental (randomized controlled trial) or quasi-experimental studies as evidence of effectiveness. National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII) http://www.intensiveintervention.org NCII, supported by the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, has recognized the evidence-proven effectiveness of Reading Recovery for students who struggle in learning to read and write. NCII’s academic screening and intervention tool charts allow educators and decision makers to select tools and programs that display expert ratings on technical rigor. Screening tools identify students in need of intensive intervention. Intervention tools charts include programs and corresponding research studies documenting effectiveness and designed for use in an intensive intervention context. The charts offer information on the quality and results of the studies, implementation requirements, and descriptions of additional research. As explained on the NCII website, “Assessment is an essential part of the data-based individualization (DBI) process and a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). Without technically sound assessment, which provides accurate, meaningful information, a teacher has no objective method for determining what a student needs or how to intensify instruction to meet those needs. The close connection between assessment and intervention is at the foundation of the DBI process. This connection is what drives teacher decision making. With the right assessment tools and guidance on how to use them, teachers can make sound, data-based decisions about who needs intensive intervention, when to make instructional changes, and what skills to focus on.” An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, the screening tool central to Reading Recovery’s evaluation and instruction and used widely by classroom and specialist teachers and researchers, again received the highest possible ratings in the most recent review. The Observation Survey showed classification accuracy in identifying at-risk students in the fall or winter of first grade based on a nationally representative sample. The assessment also demonstrated strong reliability and validity. The current Academic Screening Tools Chart  updates a 2011 review by the National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI), when the Observation Survey also received high ratings. In fall 2012, the NCII Technical Review Committee reviewed Reading Recovery research and reported large gains based on a 2005 study by Robert Schwartz. Other studies include Center, Wheldall, Freeman, Outhred, & McNaught (1995), and Iversen & Tunmer (1993). The 2016 final evaluation of the 4-year i3 scale-up by May, Sirinides, Gray, and Goldsworthy was added in the most recent update of the Academic Intervention Tools Chart.
What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)2013Reviews of Research, US Department of Education, What Works ClearinghouseViewhttps://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ Funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, the WWC is “a central and trusted source of scientific evidence for what works in education” and publishes intervention reports that assess research on beginning reading programs. WWC evaluations translate effect sizes from research into improvement index scores to reflect the average change in a student’s percentile rank that can be expected if the student has the intervention. In 2007, 2008, and in July 2013, the WWC examined research on Reading Recovery and accepted studies that met its evidence standards. Reading Recovery received positive or potentially positive ratings across all four domains: alphabetics (phonics and phonemic awareness), fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement. Among all programs reviewed, Reading Recovery received the highest rating in general reading achievement. See how Reading Recovery compares to other interventions.
Evidence for ESSA2015Reviews of Research, US Department of EducationViewhttps://www.evidenceforessa.org/programs/reading/reading-recovery In December, 2015, Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), replacing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) as the main federal law governing K-12 education. Within the bill are provisions with potentially revolutionary implications for education because they promote the use of federal dollars on programs with evidence of effectiveness. More evidence on what works to increase student success is available now than ever before, and ESSA encourages the use of strategies with evidence of impact. Evidence for ESSA is a non-partisan independent evaluation of evidence-based practices in education. Reading Recovery has been reviewed by Evidence for ESSA and designated as a Strong Literacy Intervention.
A Synthesis of Research on Reading RecoveryShanahan, T., & Barr, R. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 958-9961995Reviews of ResearchViewBackground Shanahan and Barr published a comprehensive and independent evaluation of Reading Recovery. The goal of the authors was to offer a thorough, systematic analysis of all available empirical work on Reading Recovery. They reviewed all published evaluations and any available unpublished ones that included sufficient basic information to allow meaningful analysis. When possible to analyze data in a more precise and direct manner, data were combined across studies. Overall, consideration of existing research and evaluation studies was largely qualitative.   Findings “Evidence firmly supports the conclusion that Reading Recovery does bring the learning of many children up to that of their average-achieving peers. Thus, in answer to the questions “Does Reading Recovery work?,” we must respond in the affirmative. It is clear that many children leave the program with well-developed reading strategies, including phonemic awareness and knowledge of spelling. Although some initially low-achieving students will succeed without Reading Recovery, evidence indicates that many who would not succeed do so as a result of this intervention.” (p. 989)   “That Reading Recovery has been so successful is laudatory. It has proven to be a robust program, both in terms of its consequences for student learning and in replicability across sites. Further, it has been a significant force in shaping the way we view early literacy development.” (p. 992)   Comments This review provided perhaps the most comprehensive independent evaluation of Reading Recovery up to its 1995 publication. Authors cited both caveats and challenges for consideration related to research and to practice. Authors of a statewide study (Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, & Seltzer, 1994) responded to Shanahan and Barr’s claim that half the data from the study had been lost. Pinnell explained in a letter to the editor of Reading Research Quarterly, [see 32(1), p. 114] that only 5 of the 40 schools were excluded and provided the rationale. Shanahan and Barr responded to Pinnell in the same publication.   Parts of this study abstract appear in B.J. Askew, I.C. Fountas, C.A. Lyons, G.S. Pinnell, & M.C. Schmitt (1998). Reading Recovery Review: Understandings Outcomes & Implications, p. 23. Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.
Reading Recovery in the United States: What Difference Does It Make to an Age Cohort?Heibert, E. H. Educational Researcher, 23, 15-25.1994Reviews of ResearchViewBackground The purpose of the Hiebert study was to examine available data on Reading Recovery’s effectiveness in American contexts, specifically as it influenced an age cohort. To do this, the author examined three types of data on Reading Recovery: the longitudinal study in Columbus, Ohio (DeFord, Pinnell, Lyons, & Place, 1990) the comparison study of early interventions (Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, & Seltzer, 1994) Regional trainer center reports from The Ohio State University, University of Illinois, and Texas Woman’s University.   Conclusions and Recommendations A high percentage of Reading Recovery children can read orally at least first-grade text at the end of Grade 1. Once a program is in place, there is considerable fidelity in the results. Prominent elements of the Reading Recovery program are identified as characteristics of successful beginning reading instruction. Weekly training sessions give teachers an unprecedented amount of guided observation of students. Data reviewed led the author to conclude that the effects of Reading Recovery on an age cohort are unconvincing. When cost figures are calculated on the basis of success levels of remaining students at Grade 4, the cost per successful student is higher. The author recommended studies with more comprehensive tasks that fully define the sample. She also called for exploration of effects in low-income schools and with second-language learners. It was further recommended that the underlying principles of Reading Recovery should be explored with consideration to applicability in student-teacher contexts other than tutoring.   Comments The author stated that data on many aspects of Reading Recovery implementation are inaccessible or incomplete. She cited limitations of existing data.   A response to Hiebert’s review was published in the Educational Researcher (Pinnell, Lyons, & Jones, 1996, Volume 25, No. 7, pp. 23-25). Hiebert’s response to the response was printed on pages 26-28 in the same issue.   This abstract appears in B.J. Askew, I.C. Fountas, C.A. Lyons, G.S. Pinnell, & M.C. Schmitt (1998). Reading Recovery Review: Understandings Outcomes & Implications, pp. 22-23. Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.
Preventing Early Reading Failure With One-To-One Tutoring: A Review of Five ProgramsWasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. EReading Research Quarterly, 28, 179-200.1993Reviews of ResearchViewBackground Wasik and Slavin considered the effectiveness of five tutorial programs from two perspectives: empirical and pragmatic. The authors reviewed quantitative and qualitative research on Reading Recovery, Success for All, Prevention of Learning Disabilities, Wallach Tutoring Program, and Programmed Tutorial Reading.   Findings The authors’ general conclusions across programs were these: Programs with the most comprehensive models of reading – the most complete instructional interventions – have greater impact than programs addressing only a few components of the reading process, and Reading Recovery and Success for All include several components. Using tutors is not enough; the content of the program and the instructional delivery may be important variables. Using certified teachers obtains substantially better results than using paraprofessionals.   The authors’ specific conclusions about Reading Recovery included these: Reading Recovery brings the learning of many of the lowest-achieving students up to average-achieving peers. Effects of Reading Recovery are impressive at the end of the implementation year, and effects are maintained for at least 2 years. Evaluation results on lasting effects are positive but complex. Only Reading Recovery has attempted to assess implementation and its effect on outcome data.   Comments Although the authors raised some methodological issues about Reading Recovery research and about students served, they concluded that the rapidly expanding use of Reading Recovery throughout the United States shows that the program is practical to use.   This abstract first appeared in What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery. (2002). Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.
Ten Promising Programs for Educating All Children: Evidence of ImpactHerman, R., & Stringfield, S. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.1997Reviews of ResearchViewBackground The purpose of the Herman and Stringfield review was to report information collected in a three-year study conducted by the Johns Hopkins University Center for the Social Organization of Schools designed to answer two questions:   Are there specific programs or restructuring designs that can enhance the learning of students who are at risk of school failure? What are their key characteristics and what local conditions and action required to replicate those promising programs?   Authors examined 10 different nationally known programs that were identified as holding promise for educating disadvantaged children. They reviewed 13 studies of Reading Recovery effectiveness and collected observational evidence at exemplar sites.   Conclusions and Recommendations Expectations for Reading Recovery are high, in part because the program focuses on a small number of children. The program has a reputation for producing strong, quantifiable reading gains. A potential problem noted in some sites was tendency to blame or label the child when the strategy was not effective for the student. Districts should be prepared to address some unintended consequences of the program including staff jealousies over resources, lack of coordination, and unrealistically high expectations for the program. The consistently high fidelity of program implementation across sites was an important aspect of Reading Recovery. The high quality staff development model for Reading Recovery is one of the most important aspects of Reading Recovery.   Comments Authors commended the staff development model: The intensity and methods utilized by Reading Recovery in training and the insistence on high level of Reading Recovery performance provided an almost singularly attractive model for future staff development efforts, regardless of program type. As schools systematize and create more opportunities for serious staff development, the thoroughness of the Reading Recovery model seems to be well worth emulating. (p. 86)   This abstract appears in B.J. Askew, I.C. Fountas, C.A. Lyons, G.S. Pinnell, & M.C. Schmitt (1998). Reading Recovery Review: Understandings Outcomes & Implications, pp. 22-23. Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.  
Longitudinal Study in Australia – Factors Affecting Students’ Progress in Reading: Key Findings from a Longitudinal StudyRowe, K. J. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Literacy, 1(2), 57-110.1995Continued ProgressViewBackground Rowe, an Australian researcher, studied the progress made in reading by children from school entry to Grade 6 in Victoria, Australia. The sample included 5,092 students and 256 classes in 92 schools. The researcher’s intent was not specifically to study Reading Recovery, but information on Reading Recovery’s effectiveness emerged as an outcome. The longitudinal design involved repeated measures nested within classes and schools and repeated measures on schools that were changing over time. Rowe used several measures to gather student information: Reading Achievement, Primary Reading Survey Test, Test of Reading Comprehension, English Profile, and Reading Bands.   Findings Rowe found that Reading Recovery children benefited notably from participation in the intervention. Reading Recovery appeared to be meeting its intended purpose for those children involved. By Grades 5 and 6, Reading Recovery students were distributed across the same score range as the general school population, but with fewer low scores. Rowe’s analysis provided evidence that Reading Recovery had removed the tail-end of the achievement distribution.   Download the full study (PDF)
Reading Recovery Effectiveness: A Five-Year Success Story in San Luis Coastal Unified School DistrictBrown, W., Denton, E., Kelly, P., & Neal, J. ERS Spectrum: Journal of School Research and Information, 17(1), 3-12.1999Continued ProgressViewBackground Brown, Denton, Kelly, and Neal used two standardized tests to assess California students’ continuing achievement through fifth grade. Researchers measured achievement of 760 students who were served in Reading Recovery between 1993 and 1998. Student performance in second through fifth grades was assessed using the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills and Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition.   Findings The authors reported that “more than three-fourths of the children who successfully completed Reading Recovery achieved standardized test scores in the average or above average range” (p. 10). Considering that these Reading Recovery students began at the bottom of their class in first grade, their subsequent progress through fifth grade was impressive.   This abstract first appeared in What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery. (2002). Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.
Impact in Indiana – The Impact of an Early Literacy Intervention: Where Are the Children Now?Schmitt, M. C., & Gregory, A. E. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Literacy, 10(1), 1-20.2005Continued ProgressViewBackground The purpose of this study was to contribute to and strengthen previous work that examined the long-lasting effects of Reading Recovery in statewide efforts aimed at bolstering early literacy achievement and reducing early learning difficulties. Specifically, the study explored the literacy achievement of Reading Recovery participants whose series of lessons had been successfully discontinued during their first-grade year at points 1, 2, and 3 years beyond receiving the intervention in Indiana – providing a picture in time for where the children are now. The participants included randomly selected children who had either successfully completed Reading Recovery or who had not participated in the intervention (i.e., cohort sample) from the three grade levels in 253 schools in Indiana. The two assessment instruments used to gauge literacy performance included the running record of oral text reading (Clay, 1993) and the comprehension and vocabulary subtests of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests, and the score for the total test. The fourth-grade former Reading Recovery children’s results on the state achievement test taken in third grade were collected from their school records to establish their achievement distribution 2 years beyond the intervention.   Findings  Results indicate a considerable majority of the former successful Reading Recovery children were reading text at or above their grade level and that 1, 2, and 3 years beyond the intervention, Reading Recovery children were performing roughly as well as or better than their cohort sample peers on the task of oral text reading. Analysis of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test data indicated the vast majority of the previously successful Reading Recovery children performed within the calculated average bands of the cohort sample groups at each grade level, indicating the formerly struggling learners were continuing to progress with their peers in literacy. In addition, the former Reading Recovery fourth graders achieved a normal curve distribution with a mean of the 45th percentile on the Indiana State Test of Educational Progress (ISTEP), a considerably different pattern from their first-grade 15-20% achievement range.  
Longitudinal Study in Kansas – Does Reading Recovery Work in Kansas? A Retrospective Longitudinal Study of Sustained EffectsBriggs, C., & Young, B. The Journal of Reading Recovery, 3(1), 59-64.2003Continued ProgressViewBackground Briggs and Young investigated the longer-term effects of Reading Recovery. The study compared a random sample of former Reading Recovery students (1998-1999) with a comparison group of students representing a normal range of reading and writing abilities from schools matched with Reading Recovery student schools. Comparison schools did not have Reading Recovery in 1998-1999 and were matched for size, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity. The sample included Reading Recovery students from eight Kansas school districts that had the program available in 1998-1999. Of the 195 students still in their original school, 56 were randomly selected. Students representing the average range of achievement in three comparison schools matched to Reading Recovery schools for size, socioeconomic status, and race/ethnicity, with 79 students randomly selected for the comparison group. Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, a standardized fourth-grade test measuring vocabulary, comprehension, and total reading achievement, was the measure used.   Findings “This longitudinal study of a relatively small but statistically significant number of students found that when scores for a group of students originally identified as most at-risk for learning to read in first grade were compared to scores of a randomly selected comparison group spanning all ability levels, the at-risk children who successfully finished their individual Reading Recovery programs performed at near-mean levels compared to the comparison group” (p. 62).   Authors Researchers for this study were Dr. Connie Briggs, associate professor in the Teacher’s College and director of Kansas Regional Reading Recovery Center at Emporia State University, and Brian K. Young, graduate research assistant at Emporia State University.  
Making a Case for Prevention in EducationAskew, B. J., Kaye, E., Frasier, D. F., Mobasher, M., Anderson, N., & Rodriguez, Y. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 6(2), 43-73.2002Continued ProgressViewBackground Askew, Kaye, Frasier, Mobasher, Anderson, and Rodriguez collected longitudinal data on former Reading Recovery children in 45 randomly selected schools through fourth grade. The study focused on discontinued children (those students who met the rigorous criteria for success) in order to see if children who reached average performance in Grade 1 continued to score within average ranges in subsequent years.   Findings At the end of fourth grade, a large majority of these children had scores considered to be average or meeting passing criteria on standardized (Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test) and state assessment measures, a very satisfactory outcome in their school settings. They were generally perceived by their fourth-grade teachers as performing within average ranges of their classrooms. Relatively few were placed in tertiary or remedial settings. Findings match Juel’s (1988; see Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437-447) conclusions that children who are average readers in Grade 1 remain average readers in Grade 4, supporting the need for intervention in first grade.   The abstract first appeared in What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery. (2002). Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.
Sustained Effects of Reading Recovery Intervention on the Cognitive Behaviors of Second-Grade Children and the Perceptions of Their TeachersAskew, B. J., & Frasier, D. F. S. Forbes & C. Briggs (Eds.) Research in Reading Recovery, volume two (pp.1–24). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.2002Continued ProgressViewBackground Authors of the study cited three purposes: to examine the literacy performance of former Reading Recovery children at the end of second grade and to compare that performance with a random sample of their peers to explore comprehending behaviors of both groups of children to explore classroom teachers’ perceptions of the literacy performance of both groups   The sample studied included 54 second graders who successfully completed Reading Recovery in Grade 1, and 53 random sample children from the same schools who had not had Reading Recovery lessons. The sample, from nine Texas schools, represented ethnic diversity as well as urban and suburban districts. Literacy performance was measured by three tasks including text reading, dictation, and spelling. The three indicators of comprehending behavior included running records, retellings, and fluency ratings. Classroom teacher perceptions were measured by a questionnaire.   Findings Reading Recovery students scored at slightly lower, but with average levels of their second-grade peers on all three literacy tasks. MANOVAs showed no significant difference (p<.05) between Reading Recovery and random sample children on the three retelling indices or when the indices were considered together. MANOVAs showed no significant difference (p<.05) between groups when fluency was considered as a single factor or when considering phrasing or smoothness as factors. There was a significant difference on the pacing factor, with the random sample group demonstrating a faster pace on oral text reading. In general, classroom teachers perceived former Reading Recovery children as average. In some areas, however, teacher perceptions did not match up with student performance.   Comments The authors called for the use of additional tasks in following the literacy behaviors of former Reading Recovery children, specifically standardized measures. They also called for more exploration of the mismatch between teacher perceptions and student performance. The study offered support for running records as a way to make inferences about processing the meaning of text. Difficulties encountered with retelling and fluency measures were discussed. This abstract first appeared in Schmitt, M. C., Askew, B. J., Fountas, I. C., Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. (2005). Changing Futures: The Influence of Reading Recovery in the United States. Worthington, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.
Early Intervention in Children with Reading Difficulties: An Evaluation of Reading Recovery and a Phonological TrainingSylva, K., & Hurry, JLiteracy, Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Literacy, 2(2), 49–73.0996Continued ProgressViewBackground The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of two different interventions, Reading Recovery and Phonological Intervention. Their study included almost 400 children from seven English local authorities. Although the sample was diverse, inner city children were over represented. The schools included 22 Reading Recovery schools, 23 Phonological Intervention schools, and 18 control schools. The measures used included the British Ability Scale Word Reading, Neale Analysis of Reading, Clay’s Diagnostic Survey (five tasks), Assessment of Phonological Awareness, British Ability Scale Spelling, and background information on each child.   Findings During the intervention year, the effect of Phonological Intervention was more specific than Reading Recovery and not as secure. The only area where Phonological Intervention children significantly improved compared to the control group was on the test of phonological awareness. Reading Recovery children made significantly more progress than the control group on every measure of reading. During the second year, the Phonological Intervention was less effective than Reading Recovery, and the effects narrowed.   Reading Recovery was the more powerful intervention and the more expensive. However, Reading Recovery was particularly effective for socially disadvantaged children who were overrepresented in special needs programs. While the cost of Reading Recovery was higher than of other groups, the cost gap was narrowing and predicted to narrow further.   See follow-up analysis 2 years later for more cost information. Portions of this abstract appeared in What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery. (2002). Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America, and in Schmitt, M. C., Askew, B. J., Fountas, I. C., Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. (2005). Changing Futures: The Influence of Reading Recovery in the United States. Worthington, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.
The Long Term Effects of Two Interventions for Children with Reading DifficultiesJ. Hurry & K. Sylva. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. QCA/98/165. 1998Continued ProgressViewBackground Sylva and Hurry evaluated the effectiveness of two different interventions (Reading Recovery and Phonological Training). Their study included almost 400 children from seven English local authorities. Although the sample was diverse, inner city children were over represented. The schools included 22 Reading Recovery schools, 23 Phonological Intervention schools, and 18 control schools. The measures used included the British Ability Scale Word Reading, Neale Analysis of Reading, Clay’s Diagnostic Survey (five tasks), Assessment of Phonological Awareness, British Ability Scale Spelling, and background information on each child. Findings During the intervention year, the effect of the phonological intervention was more specific than Reading Recovery, enhancing children’s phonological awareness and influencing their letter identification, dictation, and writing vocabulary, but not their text reading skills. Reading Recovery children made significantly more progress than the control groups on every measure of reading. At the end of the second year, the effects of phonological intervention were still evident in enhanced word reading scores, but there was no effect on comprehension. In comparison, the Reading Recovery children were still 6 months ahead of the control children on word and text reading. In their long-term follow up 4 years later, Hurry and Sylva (1998) concluded that Reading Recovery was still effective because almost 70% of the children who had received Reading Recovery were still within the average band of their class in Grade 6, while only 55% of those who received the phonological intervention were within the average class band. Reading Recovery was particularly effective at helping children who were most socially disadvantaged and who were the weakest readers at age 6. While Reading Recovery was more expensive than the phonological intervention in the year of delivery, over the pupils’ whole elementary school career it cost only 10% more than the general remedial support provided in control schools. The authors concluded that time-limited intervention is not so expensive in the longer term. This abstract first appeared in What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery. (2002). Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America. Portions of this abstract appeared in What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery. (2002). Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America, and in Schmitt, M. C., Askew, B. J., Fountas, I. C., Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. (2005). Changing Futures: The Influence of Reading Recovery in the United States. Worthington, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.
An Experimental Evaluation of Reading RecoveryCenter, Y., K. Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, M. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 240-263.1995Overall EffectivenessViewBackground Center, Wheldall, Freeman, Outhred, and McNaught evaluated the effectiveness of Reading Recovery schools in New South Wales. Low-achieving children were randomly assigned to either Reading Recovery (n=31) or a control group (n=39) of low-progress students who had not entered Reading Recovery by November. A third group (n=39) consisted of students from five matched schools. By the end of the study, sample sizes were 23, 16, and 32 respectively. Measures used were Clay’s Diagnostic Survey, Burt Word Reading Test, Neale Analysis of Reading Ability, Waddington Diagnostic Spelling Test, Phonemic Awareness Test, Cloze Test, Word Attack Skills Test, and Woodcock Reading Mastery.   Findings At post-test evaluation (15 weeks after the pre-test) an independent assessment showed that Reading Recovery students scored significantly higher on all tests measuring reading in context and in isolation. Of the eight measures reported, the only ones that did not differ significantly were a cloze test and a phonemic awareness measure. At short-term maintenance (15 weeks after the post-test) the Reading Recovery control group still scored significantly higher than the control group on six of the eight measures, including Clay’s test reading measure and several standardized measures of text and word reading. At this point the Reading Recovery group also scored significantly higher than the control group on phonemic awareness.   The study’s published results for medium-term maintenance (12 months after the post-test) appear to have errors. The authors report “no overall significant group effect, F(8,30) = 0.262, p = .0268)” (p. 253). There appear to be several typos and errors in this statistical statement beyond the inclusion of an additional closing parenthesis. An F value of 2.62 would match the probability level of .0268. Since the authors state that “significant multivariate results (alpha = 0.05) were followed up by univariate pairwise multiple comparisons (alpha = 0.01)” (p. 250), the conclusion should be that the MANOVA revealed an overall significant group effect in favor of Reading Recovery. Still, the only univariate result was for text reading. The authors point out that the reduced difference between the Reading Recovery and control groups found in the 12-month follow-up could be due to the fact that 15 of the 31 control group students (probably those with the lowest scores) had been eliminated from the control group to receive Reading Recovery instruction.   Importance The study provides strong, independent replication of the pattern of results found in other research and in the U.S. national evaluation data for all participating students. The authors state that their “results clearly indicate that low-progress students, exposed to 15 weeks of Reading Recovery, outperformed control students on Clay book-level and Burt Word Reading tests and on all Set 2 tests which measure reading and writing words in context and isolation” (p. 256). Despite a number of qualifications related to metalinguistic measures, the article reports independently measured and extremely large effect size for text reading, 3.05 and 1.55 for post-test and short-term maintenance respectively (p. 253).   For more information: Download Six Reading Recovery Studies: Meeting the Criteria for Scientifically Based Research (PDF)
A Meta-Analysis of Reading Recovery in United States SchoolsD’Agostino, J. V., & Murphy. J. A. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 23–38.2004Overall EffectivenessViewBackground The purpose of this study was to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of Reading Recovery in U.S. schools by using meta-analytic procedures. The meta-analysis allowed inclusion of many studies not considered in previous Reading Recovery review because of narrower guidelines. The study included two analyses: Analysis 1 included 36 studies, regardless of apparent quality, and Analysis 2 examined the 11 more rigorous studies that provided pretest and posttest scores from treatment and comparison groups. Results of the two separate analyses were compared to determine if study quality influenced the overall conclusions regarding the impact of Reading Recovery. By developing norm-referenced means and standard deviations for two distinct comparison groups, authors were able to assess discontinued and nondiscontinued Reading Recovery students’ test scores on multiple measures and at multiple points in time. (In Reading Recovery, the discontinued category means students who have successfully completed lessons.)   Conclusions and Recommendations The researchers found positive program effects for both discontinued and not-discontinued students on outcomes tailored to the program and outcomes on standardized achievement measures. Effects among discontinued children (those who successfully completed lessons) were greater. Researchers did not find large discrepancies in results between the less and more selective analyses; results on more rigorously designed studies seemed to converge with the bulk of available evidence. They found no evidence that methodological flaws or weaknesses in individual studies were responsible for previously identified effects. Analyses of follow-up studies showed that when compared to similar needy students, discontinued children widened the gap from posttest to second grade on standardized measures, and they closed the gap with average students.   Comments Results of this meta-analysis indicated a lasting program effect, at least by the end of Grade 2, on broad reading skills. Contrary to conventional belief, the researchers found no evidence that prior observed effects could be explained completely by factors resulting from methodological flaws (e.g., regression artifacts).   This abstract first appeared in Schmitt, M. C., Askew, B. J., Fountas, I. C., Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. (2005). Changing Futures: The Influence of Reading Recovery in the United States. Worthington, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.
Investing Equity Funding in Early LiteracyBatten, P. ERS Spectrum, 22(1), 40-45.2004Closing the GapViewBackground The author of this study cited three purposes: to determine the effectiveness of Reading Recovery as an appropriate early literacy intervention for children in schools receiving equity funding to see if Reading Recovery closes the literacy gap for poor minority children to determine whether the intervention is a worthwhile expenditure   Two groups of children from 15 schools in three New Jersey school districts received a full Reading Recovery program. The sample included 43 low SES African American students and 52 low SES Hispanic students. The children’s achievement was measured in fall and spring by two tasks on the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement—the Text Reading Level and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words.   Findings Both African American and Hispanic students began Reading Recovery lessons with below-grade level performance (Stanine 3 on Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words and Stanine 1 on Text Reading). At the end of Grade 1, both groups scored well within the average range on both tasks at Stanine 7.   Comments The author concluded that Reading Recovery does demonstrate an investment that reduces the achievement gap of disadvantaged urban children.   This abstract first appeared in Schmitt, M. C., Askew, B. J., Fountas, I. C., Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. (2005). Changing Futures: The Influence of Reading Recovery in the United States. Worthington, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.
Closing the Literacy Achievement Gap With Early InterventionRodgers, E. M., Wang, C., & Gómez-Bellengé, F. XPaper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA2004Closing the GapViewBackground A statewide study compared students served by Reading Recovery (n=4,764) with a random sample (n=1,038). Students were disaggregated along economic and race lines. Students served by Reading Recovery are low readers by definition. Their progress was compared to the random sample from fall to spring of first grade. The progress of low readers who were African-American or who received free school lunches was compared to the progress of a sample representing the populations of students who were White or who paid full-priced school lunches.   Findings Several broad trends emerged. First, a gap opened during first grade along race and economic lines on three measures for the random sample. This mirrors national trends. Second, for students who received a full series of Reading Recovery lessons, a gap existed in fall and remained in spring. However, these children made greater progress than the random sample on two of three measures and the effect sizes were reduced, suggesting a trend towards closing the gap. Third, for students who discontinued successfully from the Reading Recovery intervention, a gap existed in fall on all three measures. In spring, the gap was closed on two measures and reduction on the third.   Download the summary (PDF) https://readingrecovery.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/AERA2005Brief-RodgersGomez.pdf Download full text (PDF) https://readingrecovery.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/AERA2004Paper-RodgersGomez.pdf
Predicting the Literacy Achievement of Struggling Readers: Does Intervening Early Make a Difference?Rodgers, E. M., Gómez-Bellengé, F. X., Wang, C., & Schulz, M. M. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada2005Closing the GapViewPurpose This report is the second in a series of research studies that addresses whether Reading Recovery can narrow or close the literacy achievement gap that has been documented along race/ethnicity, economic status, and language lines. In order to address this question, the authors compared the text reading levels of struggling first-grade students who received Reading Recovery lessons and those who did not, and then examined whether having Reading Recovery lessons was related to their reading progress.   Method A sample of 744 students was selected at random from the 2002–2003 national Reading Recovery data sample in order to form two matched groups of low-performing students. One group of low-performing students received a full series of Reading Recovery lessons; the other group did not. Spring and fall text reading levels for both groups were disaggregated and compared along these lines: sex, race/ethnicity, native language, and economic status.   Findings The most significant finding was that having Reading Recovery lessons was more significantly related to students’ spring text reading level than any of the other factors, including economic status — long thought to be a potent predictor of reading achievement. This finding demonstrates the effectiveness of Reading Recovery to affect the literacy outcomes of struggling first-grade students and close or narrow the achievement gap.   Comments A complex response to the achievement gap is called for because the reasons for the gap are complex. Societal factors play out within and outside the school that are resistant to change and affect each child’s future. While we cannot draw a causal relationship between the teachers’ Reading Recovery professional development to the progress of the Reading Recovery students, the results of Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer’s (1994) quasi-experimental study lead us to think that the instruction, one-to-one nature of the teaching, and the teacher professional development likely account for the students’ achievement. An investment in Reading Recovery, in which teachers receive specialized preparation to work with the lowest-achieving children, may constitute a complex response to the literacy achievement gap.    
Building Bridges of Talk: Supporting English Language Learners in Reading Recoveryby Michelle Sharratt and Briare Wynn2018English LearnersViewLearning to read and write is a highly complex, intricate process. Imagine what this would be like if you were learning the English language at the same time as learning how to read and write. That’s what it’s like for many of the English language learners in our district.   We work in a very large and diverse school district that has full implementation of Reading Recovery. Almost half of our Reading Recovery students are at various points along the continuum of learning the English language, while also learning to read and write in English. Even though our English language learners generally achieve grade one standards in reading and writing and successfully discontinue from Reading Recovery, they still face many barriers as they take on the English language. We need to think carefully about the specific supports and ‘bridges’ needed to overcome these barriers.   Clay states that “above all, through all the detail of these early intervention procedures, teachers must remember that the child’s ultimate resource for learning to read and write is spoken language: all his new learning becomes linked in his brain with what he has already learned about the language he speaks” (Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals, Second Edition, p.24). Clay reminds us that oral language is the foundation of literacy and that it truly is a child’s first self-extending system.   By supporting the development of talk, Reading Recovery teachers can help English language learners build strong bridges to overcome some of the barriers they face when learning to read and write. The following key ideas are critical to oral language development of all children:   Know and observe the learner’s current oral language structures. Know what structures are already known by the learner, in order to lift a child’s language within the cusp of his/her learning. Learn about their home language. Knowing the variation between a child’s home language and the English language (eg: structure, directionality, alphabet, intonation, etc.) can help you anticipate possible confusions or barriers. Have true conversations throughout the entire lesson. Active participation by both teacher and student in authentic, meaningful conversation should happen throughout the entire lesson, not just before the writing component. Research has shown that children learn language through conversations with literate adults so we need to arrange for this to happen across all lesson components. Reformulate and rephrase within genuine conversation. This is key to lifting a child’s oral language. Within genuine conversation, the teacher listens, takes on and reformulates, rephrases or extends the child’s ideas and language. The child then takes in the teacher’s language and continues the conversation. He may or may not take on the new language structures, but the more conversations that occur, the more possibility there is for lifting the child’s language. Find shared territories to discuss. Pursue common topics that allow for a shared understanding between teacher and child in order to continue to build complexity within the conversation. Conversations about shared books and experiences allow for a common vocabulary, structure and topic.   There are many more strategies and ideas to support English language learners, (which we will be exploring in our RRCNA Conference session) however; it must be noted that oral language is the foundational cornerstone over which the rest of the structure will be laid. As Clay brilliantly reminds us, let’s all “put our ears closer, concentrate more sharply, smile more rewardingly and spend more time in genuine conversation, difficult though it is. To foster children’s language development, create opportunities for them to talk, and then talk with them (not at them)” (Becoming Literate, p. 69).   Additional resources: Clay, M.M. (2015). Becoming Literate: The Construction of Inner Control (Rev ed). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.  Clay, M.M. (2016). Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals. Second edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.   Michelle Sharratt is a Reading Recovery Teacher Leader in York Region District School Board, Ontario, Canada. Briare Wynn is a Reading Recovery Teacher in York Region District School Board, Ontario, Canada. Michelle Sharratt and Briare Wynn will be speakers at the 2019 National Reading Recovery & K-6 Literacy Conference, February 9-12, in Columbus, OH. Their session is titled: “English Learners: Breaking Barriers by Building Bridges”.
Descubriendo la Lectura: An Early Intervention Literacy Program in SpanishEscamilla, K. Literacy, Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Literacy, 1(1), 57-70.1994Descubriendo la LecturaViewBackground The purpose of this study was to determine if Descubriendo la Lectura (DLL) achieved results with Spanish-speaking first graders that were equivalent to outcomes for Reading Recovery in English. Participants included all Spanish-speaking first graders receiving literacy instruction in Spanish in six elementary schools in an urban Arizona city (N=180). Four schools had DLL and two did not. Subjects for the study fell into three groups: (a) 23 DLL children; (b) a control group of 23 children who needed DLL but did not receive the intervention; and (c) a comparison group of all 134 children remaining in the sample. Measures included the Spanish Observation Survey and the Aprenda Reading Achievement Test administered in fall and spring.   Findings At the end of first grade, DLL children had not only caught up to the comparison group on the Spanish Observation Survey, but surpassed them. Differences were significant on all tasks except Text Reading. DLL students also significantly outperformed the control group on all measures. On Aprenda, when standard scores were connected to percentiles, only the DLL and control groups made gains. In May, the DLL group was at the 41st percentile, the comparison group at the 31st percentile, and the control group at the 28th percentile.   Comments The study provided positive evidence for the potential of the Descubriendo la Lectura (Reading Recovery in Spanish) intervention. Annual national data on DLL outcomes supported Escamilla’s findings. The author identified sample size as a limitation of the study and encouraged additional studies. She also concluded that while findings were encouraging for DLL students, the study raised questions about Spanish reading instruction within regular bilingual classrooms.  
The Success of Reading Recovery for English Language Learners and Descubriendo la Lectura for Bilingual Students in CaliforniaNeal, J. C., & Kelly, P. R. (Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 4(2), 81-108.1999Bilingual Student SuccessViewBackground The purpose of the study by Neal and Kelly was to determine if Reading Recovery and Descubriendo la Lectura interventions resulted in reading and writing success for two groups of bilingual children: (a) English language learners receiving Reading Recovery instruction (first-grade children acquiring English as a second language concomitantly with developing literacy in English through instruction provided in English-speaking classrooms), and (b) Spanish-speaking children receiving the Descubriendo la Lectura intervention who were in first-grade bilingual classrooms that provided language instruction.   Pretest and posttest data for the two target populations of first-grade children in California were compared with data for the total English-speaking population of children in Reading Recovery in California for three academic years, 1993-1996, and with end-of-year data from random samples of first-grade children.   Findings Results of the study indicate that statistically significant progress was made by both target populations of children, indicating that the interventions enabled low-performing English language learners and Spanish-speaking children to improve their performance on selected indicators of literacy acquisition. The proportion of these children’s success rates compared favorably with that of the total population involved in the interventions, and they achieved scores within the average range of a cohort of their peers drawn from a random sample of first graders.  
Is Early Literacy Intervention Effective for English Language Learners? Evidence from Reading RecoveryAshdown, J., & Simic, O. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 5(1), 27-42.2000Overall EffectivenessViewBackground Ashdown and Simic examined the literacy achievement of 25,601 first-grade students who received Reading Recovery tutoring services from school year 1992-1993 to 1997-1998 in order to evaluate the performance of children in the group who were English language learners. The children in the Reading Recovery group were compared with a random sample group of 18,363 first graders drawn from the classroom population of children not identified as needing assistance and with a comparison group of 11,267 first-grade children who were in need of Reading Recovery but did not receive it because of a lack of resources. Contingency tables were used to examine program delivery, completion rates, and outcome status for three language groups. In addition, analysis of variance procedures were used to examine reading achievement measures by language group and three comparison samples.   Findings Results of the study provide evidence that Reading Recovery tutoring produces similar outcomes for students with different levels of English proficiency and offers an appropriate solution for first graders experiencing problems in reading and writing.  
Learner Outcomes for English Language Learner Low Readers in an Early InterventionKelly, P. R., Gómez-Bellengé, F. X., Chen, J., & Schulz, M. M. TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 235-260.2008Overall EffectivenessViewBackground This U.S. national study compared the literacy outcomes of English language learners (ELLs) enrolled in Reading Recovery during the 2002-2003 school year with the literacy outcomes of their native English-speaking peers, also enrolled in Reading Recovery. The study also examined the relationship between initial oral English proficiency of ELLs and their success on literacy tasks and end-of-program status outcomes (whether the learner successfully completed the intervention and was at average reading and writing levels).   The study used data collected by the National Data Evaluation Center as part of the ongoing annual program evaluation. Data collected included background information, intervention status outcomes, length of intervention, fall oral English proficiency measures of ELLs, and fall and spring literacy measures. The two literacy measures examined in the study were Text Reading Level (TRL) and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (HRSW) from An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 2002, 2005). The first is a measure of oral reading, while the second is an assessment of phonological awareness. These measures provide an indication of students’ abilities to read and write.   Results Analysis showed that 76.4% of native English-speaking children (NES) and 69% of ELLs were successfully discontinued from the intervention. Results of literacy measures for children whose lessons were discontinued were similar for both ELLs and NES: The mean TRL for ELLs was 18.33; the mean for NES was 19.09. The mean HRSW for ELLs was 35.79; the mean for NES was 35.91. Program lengths for children whose lessons were discontinued were comparable: ELLs averaged 16.55 weeks, while NES averaged 15.64 weeks. Further analysis disclosed that average lengths of the intervention by fall oral proficiency levels did not differ statistically.   Analysis conducted to explore how fall oral English proficiency of discontinued ELLs related to spring literacy levels showed that ELLS with differing levels of English proficiency had comparable performance on both literacy measures at end of Reading Recovery intervention in spring. However, fall oral English proficiency levels for ELLs were related to discontinuation rates. Children with higher levels of English proficiency (Levels 4 & 5) had discontinuation rates of 71.2% and 74.7%, respectively, while children with low levels of oral proficiency (Level 1) had a discontinuation rate of 60.6%. Additionally, of the 39.4% of students who did not meet the stringent criteria for discontinuation, over 9% reached a text level of 16 or higher at the end of the year.   The authors concluded that this study confirms earlier findings that Reading Recovery is effective in accelerating the progress of the lowest-achieving first-grade children. The results support the expansion of Reading Recovery with first-grade ELLs who are having difficulty learning to read, regardless of their proficiency in English.
The Impact of Reading Recovery on Students’ Self-ConceptsRumbaugh, W., & Brown, C. Reading Psychology, 21, 13-30.2000Overall EffectivenessViewBackground Rumbaugh and Brown studied the effects of Reading Recovery participation on students’ self-concept. The treatment group was comprised of 57 students from nine elementary schools who were selected for Reading Recovery instruction in the first week of school. The 46 students in the control group had diverse reading and writing abilities and were not enrolled in any reading intervention or in special education. The control group came from a single elementary school.   All participants were administered the Joseph Pre-School and Primary Self-Concept Screening Test in early September prior to the treatment and again in mid-December.   Findings There were statistically significant differences between Reading Recovery students and control students on the Global Self-Concept and Significance domain scores. Hence, the authors concluded:   Reading Recovery participation does affect positively students’ Global Self Concept scores. The meaningful effect of Reading Recovery participation on students’ self-concept is related to the additional attention, or Significance domain, that students receive during several months of Reading Recovery. The initial positive effect on students’ self-concept cannot be attributed to increased growth in independence or cognitive factors.   Comments Based on their results, Rumbaugh and Brown concluded:   School districts that choose to implement and maintain a Reading Recovery program would reap considerable benefits. One of the systemic advantages could be that the districts gain students who experience improved self-concepts due to enhanced feelings of significance. Not only will the Reading Recovery participants most likely become independent readers, they will also most likely become more confident, positive, self-accepting, proud, adaptable, and eager to complete tasks. (p. 28)   This abstract first appeared in What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery (2002). Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.
Self-Perceptions of At-Risk and High Achieving Readers: Beyond Reading Recovery Achievement DataCohen, S. G., McDonnell, G., & Osborn, B. Cognitive and Social Perspectives for Literacy Research and Instruction: Thirty Eighth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference.1989Overall EffectivenessViewBackground Cohen, McDonnell, and Osborn studied the impact of Reading Recovery on students’ beliefs regarding their competence and capacity to direct their own learning activities. They used causal attribution (Weiner, 1972) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) to support the theoretical framework. Participants included 138 first graders divided among the following groups: 50 were in Reading Recovery, 48 were in remedial reading groups of five or six students each, and 40 were randomly selected from their higher-achieving classmates. After the interventions, children were tested on two scales to measure attributions and self-efficacy.   Findings Results demonstrated that successful Reading Recovery children had profiles similar to high-achieving students, and they more readily attributed their success in school to ability, effort, and mood than did the students in the remedial groups. The Reading Recovery students also judged themselves to be more competent on school-related tasks (self-efficacy) than the other low-achieving students.   Comments These results support the notion that children have positive self-esteem when they leave Reading Recovery.   This abstract first appeared in What Evidence Says About Reading Recovery (2002). Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America.
Effects of Teacher-Student Ratio in Response to Intervention ApproachesSchwartz, R. M., Schmitt, M. C., & Lose, M. K. The Elementary School Journal, 112(4), 547-567.2012Overall EffectivenessViewBackground This study used a randomized experimental design to examine the relationship between teacher-student ratio and literacy learning outcomes for experienced intervention teachers working with the most at-risk first-grade students. Eighty-five Reading Recovery teachers, working with 170 students, each taught in a 1:1 and a small group instructional format with teacher-student ratios of 1:2, 1:3, or 1:5. The at-risk students were assessed at pretest and posttest with the six subtests of An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 2002, 2005), the Slosson Oral Reading Test-Revised (SORT-R), and two spelling measures.   Findings The 1:1 instruction yielded significantly higher outcomes than the combined small group conditions on eight of the nine measures. The small group conditions did not differ significantly from one another, but a trend analysis indicated a reduction of literacy performance as group size increased.   To evaluate acceleration across the ratio conditions, the percentages of children reading at Level 10 or above at the end of the intervention period were identified. For the 1:1 teacher-student ratio instructional context, 61% of the students were reading at Level 10 or above. For the other treatments, the percentages are 38%, 26%, and 19%, respectively, for the 1:2, 1:3, and 1:5 groups. Based on this analysis, it appears that the 1:1 treatment is the only condition that reduces the percentage of students who are at risk by reducing the gap between these initially low-performing students and their average peers.   The authors conclude that a mix of individual and small group services should be sufficient to reduce the achievement gap across first grade for 70– 80% of the students who would struggle to make progress in the classroom context alone. This requires careful monitoring of outcomes at the end of first grade and, if necessary, action to implement more-intensive and effective systems of early intervention services. Using local data in this way, schools and districts may find it necessary and efficacious to invest in additional professional development and staffing to support early intervention services. The question is not whether individual, small group, or classroom instruction is most effective; it is clear that all are essential. Rather, an RTI approach should focus on how best to achieve optimum literacy outcomes for all learners in a timely manner and based on their individual needs.
The Stories We Tell Ourselves: Reading Recovery and the MSV MythJeffery Williams2019Overall EffectivenessViewEvery culture across time has developed a set of stories, tales, and myths that were designed to help explain the complexities of the world.  Such lore is handed down across generations to explore how human strive for love, what happens when jealousy takes over, or to try to make sense of natural disasters or phenomena.  These stories, usually orally presented and often borrowed from others, evolve and change over time, helping to bring the wisdom of the ages to those who have had less time to ponder or less experience to gather from to understand the complexity around us.   We, as a Reading Recovery community, have one such tale in the oft cited myth that there are three cues readers use, meaning, structure, and visual, or that Marie Clay herself created this theory and the corresponding three-circle depiction that is familiar to most teachers.  Perhaps it originally was used to water down the complexity of the reading process for new teachers, in classrooms and in Reading Recovery, to make it easier to understand.  The purpose of this blog is to explore what Clay actually said and to remind us that such myths, though they may have been purposefully utilized at one time, also need to be checked against reality and not just adhered to because it is a story we have heard before that must be true.   “Three Cueing Systems” Though other researchers have pondered the proliferation of the three cueing systems model, the most notable and thorough pondering came from Marilyn Adams’ 1998 chapter called, The Three-Cueing System.  In this piece, Adams examines the origins of the theory (finding that idea did not originate with Clay) and also discusses the pervasive misunderstanding that the three cues are not equal or that the visual system is somehow less important than meaning or structure. I agree that the view presented with the “three cueing systems” is limited for several reasons. Firstly, Clay did not advocate the idea that there are only three sources of information:   “According to the theory of reading behind these recovery procedures there are many sources of information in texts” (Clay, 2016).  Furthermore, she did not advocate the use of any one source as the sole basis of reading or making a word attempt, stating: “Different kinds of information may be checked, one against another, to confirm a response or as a first step towards further searching.” A careful reading of this statement uncovers that one source may be a first step towards further searching and that searching would always involve a close look at letters and sounds.   According to Adams (1998), the notion that the reader constructs the meaning of the text as jointly determined by lexical, semantic, and syntactic constraints had been a theme of the reading literature since the late 1970s.  She found that the problem was not with the three cueing systems schematic but with some interpretations that had become attached to it. For example, a common misinterpretation is that the position of graphophonic information in the Venn diagram with 3 circles as below the other two somehow diminishes the value and use of such information while reading. From a Reading Recovery perspective, we disagree with this interpretation and Clay spends an entire chapter on learning to look at print and states vociferously in the opening that:   Reading begins with looking and ends when you stop looking. Reading begins with passing information through the eyes to the brain. But the eyes do not just take a snapshot of the detail of print and transfer it to the brain, The child must learn to attend to some features of print, the child must learn to follow rules about direction, the child must attend to words in a line in a sequence, and the child must attend to letters in a word in left-to-right sequence. (Clay, 2016, p. 46)   Although Reading Recovery teachers analyze daily running records using meaning, structure, and visual, our analyses go well beyond MSV as we closely examine the records to better understand students’ strengths, to identify teaching goals, and plan the next lesson. To learn how to do this, as Reading Recovery teachers, we take weekly graduate coursework for an entire year during initial training and continue our learning through ongoing annual professional development six times per year. The depth of this training and the ongoing nature of a university support system enables us to identify the complexity of student behaviors and plan precise teaching to support increasingly complex reading and writing that goes well beyond just MSV.   Teaching Phonemic Awareness and Phonics Perhaps because of the myth of the three-cueing system, critics have often supposed that visual information is not emphasized or taught in Reading Recovery lessons. This is quite untrue and is supported by nearly four decades of empirical research which show Reading Recovery’s strong effects across all domains, including phonics, phonemic awareness, and comprehension. For more information on some of these studies, please see the What Works Clearinghouse website. Also, on the What Works website is a recent 2016 publication from IES, Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade, with Barbara Foorman as the chief author. It was commissioned to present recommendations “…that educators can use to improve literacy skills in the early grades…based on the best available research, as well as the experience and expertise of the panel members” (Foorman et al., 2016, p. 1). Research from Reading Recovery is cited 117 times by the authors in support of the panel’s four recommendations.  To demonstrate the alignment of some of Foorman’s key recommendations with typical Reading Recovery lessons, citations from Foorman (2016) and Clay (2016) are shown below:                                        Foorman Recommendations Foorman Citations Clay Citations Using Elkonin boxes in writing to develop phonemic awareness pp. 24, 26, 27 pp. 98, 100, 107 Procedures for learning letter-sound relationships through segmentation p. 19 pp. 58, 98, 100, 106, 107, 173 Procedures for using manipulatives such as magnetic letters for learning how words work pp. 19, 24 pp. 40, 58, 63, 68, 72, 91, 149, 151, 175 Teaching breaking words by syllables pp. 15, 16 pp. 95, 107, 149, 173 Teaching onset/rimes pp. 15, 16, 19 pp. 58, 107, 150, 153, 156, 160, 173 Teaching meaningful parts pp. 27 pp. 73, 107, 152 Teaching how to isolate and blend word parts smoothly p. 24 p. 96 Using writing to help with analogies with spelling patterns p. 26 pp. 90, 105 Within text blending by chunking or in smaller units within text p. 23 pp. 96, 144, 175 Avoiding guessing strategies p. 34 pp. 48, 101, 118 Reading connected text daily pp. 1-3, 22, 28, 32 pp. 20, 110-165   Interestingly, the Foorman document states, “When students encounter words that they find difficult to read, remind them to apply the decoding and word-recognition skills and strategies they have learned and to then reread the word in context … using prompts such as: ‘Look for parts you know.’ ‘Sound it out.’ ‘Check it! Does it make sense?’” (p. 34). These prompts are almost verbatim to Reading Recovery prompts (Clay, 2016) and seem to suggest that research favors using multiple sources of information to cross-check one against another and does not favor the use of any one source solely.    A recent document for parents from RRCNA (2019), outlines how phonemic awareness and letter/sound relationships are taught in Reading Recovery:   Phonemic awareness is initially established with structured instruction during the writing component of the lesson. Letter identification is taught using multisensory approaches and reinforced throughout the series of lessons to ensure fast, accurate recognition and discrimination. Applying known letter sound associations and linking sound sequences to letter sequences is addressed in both reading and writing. All new learning is applied and observed/analyzed in reading and writing every day. Fast visual processing is supported as the child analyzes unknown words in stories by taking them apart on the run. Your child will develop the advanced analysis skills needed for decoding multisyllabic words and will profit from classroom word work and study. The teacher monitors your child’s daily progress in word analysis and re-teaches as needed. Many opportunities for applying new skills are provided daily across multiple reading and writing activities. (p. 3)   These references might clear up misunderstandings about Reading Recovery, particularly for those who think that Reading Recovery students are not taught phonics or phonemic awareness.   Value of Reading Connected Text Reading Recovery’s daily use of connected, continuous text, where children cannot afford to rely on any one source of information entirely, is clearly an advantage  and is supported by Foorman’s report on the research: “Having students read connected text daily, both with and without constructive feedback, facilitates the development of reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension and should begin as soon as students can identify a few words” (p. 32).  Two other recent publications—one from the International Literacy Association (ILA) and another from the International Dyslexia Association (IDA)—also offer suggestions that are supportive of the idea that reading continuous text daily, again because it demands that the reader not be able to rely solely on any one source of information, may be advantageous: Students progress at a much faster rate in phonics when the bulk of instructional time is spent on applying the skills to authentic reading and writing experiences, rather than isolated skill-and-drill work. At least half of a phonics lesson should be devoted to application exercises. For students who are below level, the amount of reading during phonics instruction must be even greater. (Blevins, et al., p. 6)   And, in discussing the problem of “treatment resistant literacy difficulties” for students who have had a structured literacy approach and not shown evidence of success, IDA offers the following recommendation:   Another way to address this problem could involve placing a greater emphasis on text reading in intervention, which scientific investigators widely agree is an important aspect of intervention (e.g. Brady, 2011; Foorman et al., 2016; Kilpatrick, 2015), to help increase children’s exposure to real words.  This last idea might be effective if done early, before decoders have accumulated the enormous gap in reading practice characteristic of older poor readers in the upper elementary grades and adolescence (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998; Torgesen, 2004).” (International Dyslexia Association, 2019, p. 13)   Reading Recovery Research While no single approach works for every child, Reading Recovery has the strongest evidence base of any of the 228 beginning reading programs reviewed by the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse. Because of Reading Recovery’s impressive research base spanning decades, in 2010 the Department of Education provided $46 million to fund a 5-year scale up of Reading Recovery in schools across the U.S. In 2016, an independent research study of this scale-up was published by the Center for Policy Research in Education. The study was the largest randomized controlled trial “and one of the most ambitious and well-documented expansions of an instructional program in U.S. history” (May et al., 2016).   The results demonstrated Reading Recovery’s impressive effect sizes on comprehension and overall reading achievement. These effect sizes were replicated four years in a row and authors noted that “these are large relative to typical effect sizes found in educational evaluations. This benchmark suggests that the total standardized effect sizes…for Reading Recovery of 0.37, was 4.6 times greater than average for studies that use comparable outcome measures” (May et al., p. 42). This has been proven in both urban and rural settings, as well as with English learners. School districts invest in Reading Recovery training for teachers because of these documented successes for the past 35 years.   Myth or Reality? The myth that Marie Clay was the origin of the three-cueing system model is certainly false as the readings of Clay demonstrate and as Adams confirmed.  And, the myth that Reading Recovery does not teach phonics or phonemic awareness, because the visual system is somehow less important, is also false.  So why then are these stories so closely linked to Reading Recovery?  I know that I saw a diagram of the three-cuing systems in my training nearly two decades ago.  I know that I have used a similar diagram when introducing running record analysis with classroom teachers.  I never intended it to supplant the idea of complexity, but perhaps had forgotten the essence of Clay’s warning when she wrote, “If literacy teaching only brings a simple theory to a set of complex activities, then the learner has to bridge the gaps created by the theoretical simplification” (2015, p. 105).  She was not only talking about children’s learning but our learning as well.  When diagrams or explanations water-down the complexity, we run the risk of learners ‘bridging the gaps’ on their own—filling in what is unclear with their own thinking or ideas that were never intended and that may or may not be helpful.  Clay believed that teachers wanted and needed exposure to the complexity of theory and research and once said, “…the challenge for me is to write those theoretical ideas for the academics and researchers but also for the teachers. I think they have a right to be able to read those in terms that they understand.  This has been one of my particular challenges…”  We must likewise refrain from over-simplifying the complexity of becoming literate with myths and stories for our explanations.   References Adams, M. J. (1998). The three-cueing system. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (pp.73-99). New York: Guilford Press. Clay, M. M. (2016). Literacy lessons designed for individuals (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M. M. (2015). Change Over Time in Children’s Literacy Development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov. International Dyslexia Association (2019). Structured literacy: An introductory guide.  Retrieved from the International Dyslexia Association website: https://dyslexiaida.org/structured-literacy-works-but-what-is-it-introducing-idas-new-structured-literacy-brief/ International Literacy Association. (2019). Meeting the challenges of early literacy phonics instruction [Literacy leadership brief]. Newark, DE: Blevins, et al. Retrieved from the International Literacy Association website: https://www.literacyworldwide.org/get-resources/position-statements Reading Recovery Council of North America (2019). How Reading Recovery helps your child learn. Retrieved from the RRCNA website: https://readingrecovery.org/supporting-struggling-readers/   August 21st, 2019
The Investing in Innovation Fund Summary of 67 Evaluations: Final ReportBoulay, B., Goodson, B., Olsen, R., McCormick, R., Darrow, C., Frye, M., Gan, K., Harvill, H., & Sarna, M. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. 2018Overall EffectivenessViewA 2018 U.S. Department of Education agency report finds that 49 of the first 67 completed i3 grant evaluations met What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards and that 9 of the evaluations — including the Reading Recovery Scale-Up — found evidence of adequate implementation fidelity and positive impacts on student academic outcomes. In addition to consistency with WWC evidence standards, goals set for the evaluations included independence, high-quality implementation measurement, and a sample that adequately represents those served under the grant.   Of the four scale-up interventions in the report, only Reading Recovery met both short and long-term goals of i3 and adequately represented the population served.   This report, prepared by the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), summarizes the findings of all i3 grant evaluations completed by May 2017.   See the full report here. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184013/pdf/20184013.pdf
National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII)NCIIUS Department of EducationViewNational Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII) NCII, supported by the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, has recognized the evidence-proven effectiveness of Reading Recovery for students who struggle in learning to read and write. NCII’s academic screening and intervention tool charts allow educators and decision makers to select tools and programs that display expert ratings on technical rigor. Screening tools identify students in need of intensive intervention. Intervention tools charts include programs and corresponding research studies documenting effectiveness and designed for use in an intensive intervention context. The charts offer information on the quality and results of the studies, implementation requirements, and descriptions of additional research. As explained on the NCII website, “Assessment is an essential part of the data-based individualization (DBI) process and a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS). Without technically sound assessment, which provides accurate, meaningful information, a teacher has no objective method for determining what a student needs or how to intensify instruction to meet those needs. The close connection between assessment and intervention is at the foundation of the DBI process. This connection is what drives teacher decision making. With the right assessment tools and guidance on how to use them, teachers can make sound, data-based decisions about who needs intensive intervention, when to make instructional changes, and what skills to focus on.” An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, the screening tool central to Reading Recovery’s evaluation and instruction and used widely by classroom and specialist teachers and researchers, again received the highest possible ratings in the most recent review. The Observation Survey showed classification accuracy in identifying at-risk students in the fall or winter of first grade based on a nationally representative sample. The assessment also demonstrated strong reliability and validity. The current Academic Screening Tools Chart  updates a 2011 review by the National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI), when the Observation Survey also received high ratings. In fall 2012, the NCII Technical Review Committee reviewed Reading Recovery research and reported large gains based on a 2005 study by Robert Schwartz. Other studies include Center, Wheldall, Freeman, Outhred, & McNaught (1995), and Iversen & Tunmer (1993). The 2016 final evaluation of the 4-year i3 scale-up by May, Sirinides, Gray, and Goldsworthy was added in the most recent update of the Academic Intervention Tools Chart.
Five-Year Study in California – Reading Recovery Effectiveness: A Five-Year Success Story in San Luis Coastal Unified School DistrictBrown, W., Denton, E., Kelly, P., & Neal, J. ERS Spectrum: Journal of School Research and Information, 17(1), 3-12.1999English Learners, Reviews of Research
Final independent research report finds i3 scale-up of Reading Recovery ‘highly successful’i3 Scale-Up EvaluationView
Innovation in Intervention: Replicating the Success of Reading Recovery – Podcasti3 Scale-Up EvaluationViewIn this podcast, CPRE senior researchers Henry May, Abigail Gray, and Philip Sirinides discuss their monumental study of Reading Recovery and how their results could be used to inform and monitor future developments in education. Their paper, “The Impacts of Reading Recovery at Scale: Results From the 4-Year i3 External Evaluation,” was published in Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis in March 2018.
4-Year Evaluation of Reading Recovery Expansion Finds Strong Gains in Student Reading AchievementUniversity of Pennsylvania Graduate School of EducationMarch 17, 2016i3 Scale-Up EvaluationViewFindings from “one of the most ambitious and well-documented expansions of an instructional program in U.S. history” show the $55 million Investing in Innovation (i3) scale-up of Reading Recovery was highly successful. Reading Recovery: An Evaluation of the Four-Year i3 Scale-Up by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) reports key findings on scale-up processes, challenges, and outcomes; immediate and sustained impacts; implementation fidelity, and implementation at both the lesson and school level. The independent evaluation examining Reading Recovery’s “impacts and execution is one of the most comprehensive evaluations ever implemented in the field of education.” The randomized control trial (RCT) study of immediate impacts in the scale-up schools—among the largest such studies ever conducted—revealed medium to large impacts across all outcome measures. Effect sizes at the end of 12- to 20-weeks of treatment ranged between 0.30 and 0.42 standard deviations. “The growth rate we observed in students who participated in Reading Recovery over approximately a five-month period was 131 percent of the national average rate for 1st-grade students. Moreover, these results were similar in two subgroups of interest to the i3 program: English Language Learners and students in rural schools.” (p. 3) A total of 3,747 teachers were trained, serving 61,992 students in one-to-one lessons. In addition, these Reading Recovery-trained professionals taught 325,458 students in classroom or small-group instruction. Background In October 2010, the USDE awarded a 5-year, $45.6 million Investing in Innovation (i3) grant to The Ohio State University. An additional $9.1 million required private sector match was also raised to support Reading Recovery training across the United States. All 19 Reading Recovery university training centers in the U.S. partnered in the project. These funds supported year-long Reading Recovery training for teachers. Although all U.S. schools were eligible for the professional development funding provided by the i3 grant, particular priority was given to very low-performing schools, schools in rural areas, and schools with high populations of English language learners. The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) was contracted to conduct an independent evaluation of the i3 scale up of Reading Recovery over the course of 5 years. About CPRE The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) brought together experts from major research universities to improve elementary and secondary education by bridging the gap between educational policy and student learning. CPRE’s member institutions are the University of Pennsylvania, Teachers College Columbia University, Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin-Madison and Northwestern University. The report was a collaboration between CPRE and the University of Delaware Center for Research in Education and Social Policy (CRESP).
Teaching Struggling Readers: Capitalizing on Diversity for Effective LearningCompton-Lilly, C.F.The Reading Teacher, 61(8), 668-6722008View
Perspectives on dealing with reading difficultiesHarmey, S.Education 3-13, 49(1), 52-622021ViewPerspectives on dealing with reading difficulties: Education 3-13: Vol 49, No 1 Skip to Main Content Log in  |  Register Cart Home All Journals Education 3-13 List of Issues Volume 49, Issue 1 Perspectives on dealing with reading dif .... Search in: This Journal Anywhere Advanced search Education 3-13 International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education Volume 49, 2021 - Issue 1: Special Issue on Reading: Multiple Perspectives Submit an article Journal homepage 960 Views 0 CrossRef citations to date 0 Altmetric Special Issue on Reading: Contents and lengths of articles Perspectives on dealing with reading difficultiesSinéad HarmeyUCL Institute of Education, London, ://orcid.org/0000-0003-2846-5064 Pages 52-62 Received 28 Feb 2020Accepted 30 Jul 2020Published online: 23 Sep 2020 Download citation https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1824702 CrossMark   Full Article Figures & data References Citations Metrics Reprints & Permissions Get access /doi/full/10.1080/03004279.2020.1824702?needAccess=true ABSTRACTABSTRACTLearning to read is an expectation rather than an exception in society today. Despite this, some children experience reading difficulties. The purpose of this article is to review recent and seminal research on reading difficulties through the lenses of three perspectives: cognitive, social and cultural and interactive. The three perspectives are reviewed and the contribution they make to our understandings of how to support children with reading difficulties are considered. The implication of these perspectives on instruction is explored by examining one contentious contemporary debate in the field of reading instruction; choice of texts to support reading development. To conclude, an argument for a more holistic approach to reading difficulties is provided with reference to two contemporary assessment tools.KEYWORDS: Reading developmentreading difficultiesreading instructionphonicsliteracy assessmentDisclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Log in via your institution Loading institutional login options... Access through your institution Log in to Taylor & Francis Online Log in Shibboleth Log in to Taylor & Francis Online Username Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in. This is a trusted computer. You will otherwise be logged out automatically, after a limited period, and will need to log in again. Log in Restore content access Restore content access for purchases made as guest Purchase options * Save for later Item saved, go to cart PDF download + Online access 48 hours access to article PDF & online versionArticle PDF can be downloadedArticle PDF can be printed USD 50.00 Add to cart PDF download + Online access - Online Checkout Issue Purchase 30 days online access to complete issueArticle PDFs can be downloadedArticle PDFs can be printed USD 200.00 Add to cart Issue Purchase - Online Checkout * Local tax will be added as applicable More Share Options   Related Research People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read. Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine. Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab. People also read Recommended articles Cited by Browse journals by subject Back to top Area Studies Arts Behavioral Sciences Bioscience Built Environment Communication Studies Computer Science Earth Sciences Economics, Finance, Business & Industry Education Engineering & Technology Environment & Agriculture Environment and Sustainability Food Science & Technology Geography Global Development Health and Social Care Humanities Information Science Language & Literature Law Mathematics & Statistics Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health Museum and Heritage Studies Physical Sciences Politics & International Relations Social Sciences Sports and Leisure Tourism, Hospitality and Events Urban Studies Information for Authors R&D professionals Editors Librarians Societies Open access Overview Open journals Open Select Dove Medical Press F1000Research Opportunities Reprints and e-prints Advertising solutions Accelerated publication Corporate access solutions Help and information Help and contact Newsroom All journals Books Keep up to date Register to receive personalised research and resources by email Sign me up Taylor and Francis Group Facebook page Taylor and Francis Group Twitter page Taylor and Francis Group Linkedin page Taylor and Francis Group Youtube page Taylor and Francis Group Weibo page Copyright © 2023 Informa UK Limited Privacy policy Cookies Terms & conditions Accessibility Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG AcceptCookie Policy We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies. Your download is now in progress and you may close this window Did you know that with a free Taylor & Francis Online account you can gain access to the following benefits? Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research Have an account? Login now Don't have an account? Register for free Login or register to access this feature Have an account? Login now Don't have an account? Register for free Register a free Taylor & Francis Online account today to boost your research and gain these benefits: Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research Register now or learn more
What Really Matters When Working with Struggling ReadersAllington, R.L.The Reading Teacher, 66(7), 520-5302013View
Reciprocity between reading and writing: Strategic processing as common groundAnderson, N.L., & Briggs, C.The Reading Teacher, 64(7), 546-5492011ViewJust a moment... ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com Checking if the site connection is secure Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding. Ray ID: 7a444c1c8b9f1b4b Performance & security by Cloudflare
Finding versus fixing: Self-monitoring for readers who struggleAnderson, N.L., & Kaye, E.The Reading Teacher, 70(5), 543-5502017View
Reading Recovery: Exploring the effects on first graders’ reading motivation and achievementBates, C.C., D'Agostino, J.V., Gambrell, L., & Xu, M.Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 21(1), 47-592016View
A multisite randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of Descubriendo la LecturaBorman, G.D., Borman, T.H., Park, S.J., & Houghton, S.American Educational Research Journal, 57(5), 1995-20202020ViewJust a moment... journals.sagepub.com Checking if the site connection is secure Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue journals.sagepub.com needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding. Ray ID: 7a446c8499a21b0a Performance & security by Cloudflare
Addressing literacy needs of struggling Spanish-speaking first graders: First-year results from a national randomized controlled trial of Descubriendo la LecturaBorman, T.H., Borman, G.D., Houghton, S., Park, S.J., Zhu, B., Martin, A., & Wilkinson-Flicker, S.AERA Open, 5(3), 1-142019View
A second lens on formative reading assessment with multilingual studentsBriceno, A., Klein, A.F.The Reading Teacher, 72(5), 611-6212019ViewJust a moment... ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com Checking if the site connection is secure Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding. Ray ID: 7a44ccc6fd57a720 Performance & security by Cloudflare
What’s possible for first-grade at-risk literacy learners receiving early intervention servicesBufalino, J., Wang, C., Gomez-Bellenge, F.X., & Zalud, G.Literacy Teaching and Learning, 15(1), 1-152010View
Evaluation of Reading Recovery in London schools: Every child a reader 2005-2006Burroughs-Lange, S.University of London: Institute of Education2006ViewEvaluation of Reading Recovery in London Schools: Every Child A Reader, 2005 ... - Sue Burroughs-Lange - Google BooksSign inHidden fieldsBooksTry the new Google BooksCheck out the new look and enjoy easier access to your favorite featuresTry it nowNo thanksTry the new Google BooksTry the new Google BooksMy libraryHelpAdvanced Book SearchGet print bookNo eBook availableAbeBooksAmazonFind in a libraryAll sellers »Get Textbooks on Google PlayRent and save from the world's largest eBookstore. Read, highlight, and take notes, across web, tablet, and phone.Go to Google Play Now »Evaluation of Reading Recovery in London Schools: Every Child A Reader, 2005-2006Sue Burroughs-LangeInstitute of Education, University of London, 2006 - Literacy - 29 pages 0 ReviewsReviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified What people are saying - Write a reviewWe haven't found any reviews in the usual places.Bibliographic informationTitleEvaluation of Reading Recovery in London Schools: Every Child A Reader, 2005-2006AuthorSue Burroughs-LangeContributorUniversity of London. Institute of EducationPublisherInstitute of Education, University of London, 2006Length29 pages  Export CitationBiBTeX EndNote RefManAbout Google Books - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Information for Publishers - Report an issue - Help - Google Home
The early intervention solution: Enabling or constraining literacy learningWoods, A., & Henderson, R.Journal of Early Childhood Literacy2008View
Comparison of literacy progress of young children in London schools: A Reading Recovery follow-up studyBurroughs-Lange, S.Retrieved from http://www.ioe.ac.uk2008View
Reading Recovery in London SchoolsBurroughs-Lange, S.Literacy Today, (55), 292008View
Literacy progress of young children from poor urban settings: A Reading Recovery comparison studyBurroughs-Lange, S., Douetil, J.Literacy Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 19-462007View
The Value of Conversations for Language Development and Reading ComprehensionCazden, C.B.Literacy Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 1-62005ViewJust a moment... www.researchgate.net Checking if the site connection is secure Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue www.researchgate.net needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding. Ray ID: 7a44ffabfb51a70e Performance & security by Cloudflare
How the Reading for Understanding Initiative’s Research Complicates the Simple View of Reading Invoked in the Science of ReadingCervetti, G.N., Pearson, P.D., Palincsar, A.S., Afflerbach, P., Kendeou, P., Biancarosa, G., Berman, A.I.Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1)2020View
Effective reading programs for Spanish dominant English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of researchCheung, A.C.K., & Slavin, R.E.Retrieved from http://www.bestevidence.org2012ViewJust a moment... journals.sagepub.com Checking if the site connection is secure Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue journals.sagepub.com needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding. Ray ID: 7a450b0bd83ca70f Performance & security by Cloudflare
Nuances of error: Considerations relevant to African American vernacular English and learning to readCompton-Lilly, C.F.Literacy Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 43-582005View
A confluence of complexity: Intersections among reading theory, neuroscience, and observations of young readersCompton-Lilly, C.F., Mitra, A., Guay, M., & Spence, L.K.Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S185-S1952020View
Reading lessons from Martin: A case study of one African American studentCompton-Lilly, C.F.Language Arts, 92(6), 401-4112015ViewReading Lessons from Martin: A Case Study of One African American Student on JSTOR journal article Reading Lessons from Martin: A Case Study of One African American Student Catherine Compton-Lilly Language Arts Vol. 92, No. 6, Insights and Inquiries (July 2015), pp. 401-411 (11 pages) Published By: National Council of Teachers of English https://www.jstor.org/stable/24577532 This is a preview. Log in through your library. Preview Journal Information Language Arts is a professional journal for elementary and middle school teachers and teacher educators. It provides a forum for discussions on all aspects of language arts learning and teaching, primarily as they relate to children in pre-kindergarten through the eighth grade. Issues discuss both theory and classroom practice, highlight current research, and review children’s and young adolescent literature, as well as classroom and professional materials of interest to language arts educators. (Published September, November, January, March, May, and July) Publisher Information The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), a not-for-profit professional association of educators, is dedicated to improving the teaching and learning of English and the language arts at all levels of education. Since 1911, NCTE has provided a forum for the profession, an array of opportunities for teachers to continue their professional growth throughout their careers, and a framework for cooperation to deal with issues that affect the teaching of English. For more information, please visit www.ncte.org. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions Language Arts © 2015 National Council of Teachers of English Request Permissions
Building on theoretical principles gleaned from Reading Recovery to inform classroom practiceCox, B.E., & Hopkins, C.J.Reading Research Quarterly, 41(2), 254-2672006ViewTheory and Research into Practice: Building on Theoretical Principles Gleaned from Reading Recovery to Inform Classroom Practice on JSTOR journal article Theory and Research into Practice: Building on Theoretical Principles Gleaned from Reading Recovery to Inform Classroom Practice Beverly E. Cox and Carol J. Hopkins Reading Research Quarterly Vol. 41, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 2006), pp. 254-267 (14 pages) Published By: International Literacy Association https://www.jstor.org/stable/4151732 This is a preview. Log in through your library. Preview Journal Information Reading Research Quarterly (RRQ) is the leading peer-reviewed professional research journal for those committed to scholarship on questions of literacy among learners of all ages. RRQ supports the spirit of inquiry that is essential to the ongoing development of literacy research, and provides a forum for multidisciplinary research, alternative modes of investigation, and variant viewpoints about the nature of literacy practices and policies of diverse groups of persons around the world. RRQ is available to individuals as a benefit of membership in the International Reading Association. Current issues are available from the association in both print and online forms. Publisher Information The International Literacy Association is a professional membership organization dedicated to promoting high levels of literacy for all by improving the quality of reading instruction, disseminating research and information about reading, and encouraging the lifetime reading habit. Members include classroom teachers, reading specialists, consultants, administrators, supervisors, university faculty, researchers, psychologists, librarians, media specialists, and parents. The Association publishes several peer-reviewed journals and numerous books, offers a range of professional meetings worldwide, and provides a variety of other services to the education community. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions Reading Research Quarterly © 2006 Wiley Request Permissions
An international meta-analysis of Reading RecoveryD'Agostino, J.V., & Harmey, S.J.Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 21(1), 29-462016ViewJust a moment... www.researchgate.net Checking if the site connection is secure Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue www.researchgate.net needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding. Ray ID: 7a8ea8f3ed22a712 Performance & security by Cloudflare
A meta-analysis of Reading Recovery in United States schoolsD'Agostino, J.V., & Murphy, J.V.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 23-382004ViewA Meta-Analysis of Reading Recovery in United States Schools on JSTOR journal article A Meta-Analysis of Reading Recovery in United States Schools Jerome V. D'Agostino and Judith A. Murphy Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis Vol. 26, No. 1 (Spring, 2004), pp. 23-38 (16 pages) Published By: American Educational Research Association https://www.jstor.org/stable/3699502 This is a preview. Log in through your library. Preview Abstract We conducted a meta-analysis of 36 studies of Reading Recovery (RR), an intensive tutorial intervention designed to develop the literacy skills of low-performing first-grade students. Few individual studies of the program have yielded conclusive evidence regarding the program's effectiveness due to various methodological limitations. We relied on specific meta-analytic strategies to combine as much available evidence as possible to study overall program effects. We also analyzed the results from the few more rigorously designed studies separately. In general, we found positive program effects for both discontinued and not discontinued students on outcomes tailored to the program and standardized achievement measures. RR effects were most pronounced, however, for discontinued students on measures designed for the program. Contrary to conventional belief, we found no evidence suggesting that prior observed effects could be explained completely by factors resulting from methodological flaws (e.g., regression artifacts). Journal Information Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (EEPA) publishes scholarly articles concerned with important issues in the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of education policy. EEPA is open to all of the diverse methodologies and theoretical orientations represented in AERA published work. We welcome submissions focused on international and comparative policy issues in education as well as domestic issues. Publisher Information The American Educational Research Association (AERA) is concerned with improving the educational process by encouraging scholarly inquiry related to education and by promoting the dissemination and practical application of research results. AERA is the most prominent international professional organization with the primary goal of advancing educational research and its practical application. Its 20,000 members are educators; administrators; directors of research, testing or evaluation in federal, state and local agencies; counselors; evaluators; graduate students; and behavioral scientists. The broad range of disciplines represented by the membership includes education, psychology, statistics, sociology, history, economics, philosophy, anthropology, and political science. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis © 2004 American Educational Research Association Request Permissions
Examining the sustained effects of Reading RecoveryD'Agostino, J., Lose, M.K., & Kelly, R.The Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 22(2), 1-122017ViewERIC - EJ1137243 - Examining the Sustained Effects of Reading Recovery, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2017 NotesFAQContact Us Collection Thesaurus AdvancedSearch Tips Peer reviewed only Full text available on ERIC Collection Thesaurus BrowseThesaurus Include Synonyms Include Dead terms Peer reviewedDirect linkERIC Number: EJ1137243Record Type: JournalPublication Date: 2017Pages: 12Abstractor: As ProvidedISBN: N/AISSN: ISSN-1082-4669EISSN: N/AExamining the Sustained Effects of Reading RecoveryD'Agostino, Jerome V.; Lose, Mary K.; Kelly, Robert H.Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, v22 n2 p116-127 2017Though the immediate effect of Reading Recovery (RR) is both strong and well established, the longer term or sustained effect has been less studied and the evidence regarding it has been less conclusive. Michigan Reading Recovery students (n = 328) were compared to control students (n = 264) while in first (2009-2010), third (2011), and fourth grades (2012), using propensity score matching to generate 3 levels of eligibility. Although the immediate effect measured at mid-year of first grade on the Observation Survey was large (1.17), the effect by the end of first grade on the same measure was 0.51, and by third grade, the effect was 0.16 on the state reading test. The overall effect completely diminished by fourth grade, but it was significant (0.35) for the most eligible students in reading, and for moderately eligible (0.34) and most eligible students (0.35) in writing. The sustained effect overall was present but diminished by third grade, and was sustained into fourth grade for those students at greater risk. The findings suggest that RR instruction should be better tailored to the initial literacy profiles of individual students to maximize the longevity of the effect for all participants.Descriptors: Reading Programs, Reading Instruction, Control Groups, Experimental Groups, Grade 1, Grade 3, Grade 4, Elementary School Students, Observation, Program Effectiveness, Reading Tests, Writing Tests, At Risk Students, Scores, Student Characteristics, Statistical Analysis, Pretests Posttests, Multivariate AnalysisRoutledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsPublication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - ResearchEducation Level: Grade 1; Primary Education; Elementary Education; Early Childhood Education; Grade 3; Grade 4; Intermediate GradesAudience: N/ALanguage: EnglishSponsor: N/AAuthoring Institution: N/AIdentifiers - Location: MichiganGrant or Contract Numbers: N/A Privacy | Copyright | Contact Us | Selection Policy | APIJournals | Non-Journals | Download | Submit | Multimedia | Widget
Effective teacher professional developmentDarling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M.E., & Gardner, M.Learning Policy Institute2017View
Literacy progress of young children from poor urban settings: A Reading Recovery comparison studyBurroughs-Lange, S., & Douetil, J.Literacy, 12(1), 19-462007View
Marie M. Clay’s theoretical perspective: A literacy processing theoryDoyle, M. A.Theoretical models and processes of literacy, (pp. 84-100), Routledge2018View
Improving Reading in the Primary GradesDuke, N., & Block, M.K.The Future of Children, 22(2), 55-722012ViewImproving Reading in the Primary Grades on JSTOR journal article Improving Reading in the Primary Grades Nell K. Duke and Meghan K. Block The Future of Children Vol. 22, No. 2, Literacy Challenges for the Twenty-First Century (FALL 2012), pp. 55-72 (18 pages) Published By: Princeton University https://www.jstor.org/stable/23317411 This is a preview. Log in through your library. Preview Abstract Almost fifteen years have passed since the publication of the National Research Council's seminal report Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, which provided research-based recommendations on what could be done to better position students in prekindergarten through third grade for success in grade four and above. This article by Nell Duke and Meghan Block first examines whether specific key recommendations from the report have been implemented in U.S. classrooms. They find that recommendations regarding increased access to kindergarten and greater attention to and improvement of students' word-reading skills have been widely adopted. Others have not. Vocabulary and comprehension, long neglected in the primary grades, still appear to be neglected. Contrary to the report's recommendations, attention to building conceptual and content knowledge in science and social studies has actually decreased in the past fifteen years. In other words, the easier-to-master skills are being attended to, but the broader domains of accomplishment that constitute preparation for comprehension and learning in the later grades—vocabulary knowledge, comprehension strategy use, and conceptual and content knowledge—are being neglected. Near stagnation in fourth-grade students' comprehension achievement is thus unsurprising. The authors then turn to research and reviews of research on improving primary-grade reading published since 1998, when Preventing Reading Difficulties was issued. They discuss several instructional approaches identified as effective in improving word-reading skill, vocabulary and conceptual knowledge, comprehension strategies, and reading outside of school; they discuss advances in interventions for struggling readers, and in whole-school literacy reform. Duke and Block then identify three key obstacles that have prevented widespread adoption of these best practices in teaching reading. The first obstacle is a short-term orientation toward instruction and instructional reform that perpetuates a focus on the easier-to-learn reading skills at the expense of vocabulary, conceptual and content knowledge, and reading comprehension strategies. The second is a lack of expertise among many educators in how to effectively teach these harder-to-master reading skills, and the third is the limited time available in the school day and year to meet unprecedented expectations for children's learning. Policy makers, the education community, and parents must attend to these three challenges if they wish to see meaningful improvements in the reading skills of American children. Journal Information The Future of Children journal offers comprehensive, cross-disciplinary articles focusing on issues related to children. Published twice per year, it seeks to promote effective policies and programs for children by providing policymakers, service providers, the media, and others interested in children's issues with timely, objective information based on the best available research. Each journal issue examines a single topic of importance to children from a multidisciplinary perspective. The first issue was released in 1991 by the Packard Foundation. Since 2004, Princeton University and the Brookings Institution have been publishing The Future of Children. All journal articles are available on the The Future of Children website at http://www.futureofchildren.org. Publisher Information The Future of Children is published by Princeton University, based in Princeton, NJ. Production and implementation of producing the journal is overseen by the Office of Communications at Princeton University. Princeton Communications manages the content of the University's official print publications, the main website, the release of University news and the use of Princeton's name. It also provides a variety of communications services to faculty and staff. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions The Future of Children © 2012 Princeton University Request Permissions
Response to Intervention and reading difficulties: A conceptual model that includes Reading RecoveryDunn, M.Learning Disabilities, 8(1), 21-402010View
The search for inclusion: Deficit discourse and the erasure of childhoodsDyson, A. H.Language Arts, 92(3), 199-2072015View
Every child a reader: The results of the first year…2006View
Every child a reader: The results of the second year…2007View
Preparing Literacy Professionals: The Case of DyslexiaGabriel, R.Journal of Literacy Research, 50(2), 262-2702018View
The Future of the Science of ReadingGabriel, R.The Reading Teacher, 74(1), 11-182020ViewJust a moment... Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
End of intervention Reading Recovery decisions and subsequent achievementGapp, S.C., Zalud, G., & Pietrzak, D.Reading Improvement, 46(1), 9-182009ViewEnd of intervention Reading Recovery[R] decisions and subsequent achievement - Document - Gale Academic OneFile Gale Academic OneFile includes End of intervention Reading Recovery[R] decisions and s by Susan C. Gapp, Garreth Zalud, and Dale . Click to explore."/> Use this link to get back to this page.Copy For the best user experience on this site, you should have JavaScript enabled in your browser.Skip to Content Google Scholar Discovery PartnerCloseLibrary InformationLibrary WebsiteView Gale Product Menu Sign in barLibrary Menu: Google Scholar Discovery Partner English Select Language EnglishAfrikaansالعربيةBahasa IndonesiaBahasa MalaysiačeskyCymraegDanskDeutschEnglishEspañolFrançaisGaeilgeHrvatskiItalianomagyarខ្មែរNederlandsPolskiPortuguêsRomânăSlovenščinaslovenskýsuomisvenskaTagalogTiếng ViệtTürkçeРусскийΕλληνικάবাংলাहिंदीதமிழ்ไทย中文(简体)中文(繁體)日本語한국어 Sign in with GoogleSave documents, citations, and highlights to Google Drive™Sign in with MicrosoftSave documents, citations, and highlights to Microsoft OneDrive™Items in Highlights & Notes may not have been saved to Google Drive™ or Microsoft OneDrive™. Are you sure you want to logout? Gale Academic OneFile Toolbar Please select the search indexBasic SearchAdvanced Search Cite Send to...DownloadPrintGet LinkHighlights and NotesYour session has timed out after 20 minutes of inactivity. If you do not click continue session, you will be logged out in 60 secondsYour session has timed out after 20 minutes of inactivity. If you do not click continue session, you will be logged out in 60 seconds End of intervention Reading Recovery[R] decisions and subsequent achievement Citation metadata Authors: Susan C. Gapp, Garreth Zalud and Dale Pietrzak Date: Spring 2009 From: Reading Improvement(Vol. 46, Issue 1) Publisher: Project Innovation Austin LLC Document Type: Report Length: 3,444 words Lexile Measure: 1610L Document controls TranslateDocument Translation Format Options:Save to Google Drive™Save to OneDrive™HTML Translate ArticleSet Interface LanguageDecrease font sizeIncrease font sizeDisplay options Colors:Font:Open SansEB GaramondOpen DyslexicNoto SansDefaultMoreMostLine SpacingLetter SpacingWord SpacingBack to Default SettingsDoneListen ListenLarger documents may require additional load time.  Send to Google Drive™ Send to Microsoft OneDrive™EmailDownloadPrint Main content Full Text:  This research investigated the relationship between end of Reading Recovery intervention decisions and predicting later reading achievement. Regression analysis was used to determine if the decision to end intervention could be used to predict (a) student performance-level categories [below basic, basic, proficient, advanced] and (b) student reading achievement on Normal Curve Equivalency (NCE) scores in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades. The findings showed that end of intervention decision did predict performance level categories and reading achievement on NCE scores at 3rd and 4th grades but not at 5th grade. The descriptive data demonstrated that students who successfully discontinued the need of the Reading Recovery intervention tended to perform in the proficient to advanced levels in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades. ********** Districts, schools, administrators, and teachers are frequently required to demonstrate and account for reading achievement in order to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind (United States Department of Education, 2002). Administrators are forced to make decisions on programs that will best serve students. Therefore, it is critical for stakeholders to obtain evidence that the programs in which they invest create benefits for students. Many schools use Reading Recovery[R] as a first grade early intervention to meet the needs of children who are most at-risk of literacy failure. Reading Recovery is a supplementary pull-out intervention designed to provide special individualized reading and writing instruction for students in order to accelerate their learning so they may be able to profit from classroom instruction (Clay, 2006). According to Clay (2006): The Reading Recovery early intervention was designed to accelerate literacy acquisition for most of the children falling into the lowest 20 percent of literacy learners after a year at school. It also acts as a pre-referral intervention and provides a diagnostic period of teaching to identify a small residual group of children who still need extra help and probably further specialist guidance. (p. 18) A typical series of lessons in Reading Recovery is generally completed in a 12-20 week period (Askew, Fountas, Lyons, Pinnell, & Schmitt, 2000). During this time children receive daily 30 minute lessons from a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. Reading Recovery Training Sites, which may include several schools, are typically served by a single teacher leader. The Training Site provides professional support to teachers in several different schools and districts that are affiliated with it. A standardized set of procedures are used to select students for Reading Recovery. This includes review of recommendations from the classroom teachers and the students' performance on The Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 2002). The Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement is a battery of six tasks: Letter Identification, Word Test, Concepts About Print, Writing Vocabulary, Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words, and Text Level Reading. At the end of the Reading Recovery intervention there are two possible outcomes: a) The series of lessons is discontinued because the child is performing at or near average levels for his/her peers b) a recommendation is made to provide the child with additional literacy support based on his/her needs (Jones, N., Johnson, C., Schwartz, R., & Zalud, G., 2005). Examination of the relationship between the end of intervention decision and later literacy achievement seems warranted. One might assume that children who successfully complete a series of lessons and discontinue their need for Reading Recovery would be expected to continue to benefit from classroom instruction without additional literacy support for years subsequent to the time they were in Reading Recovery. One might also assume that those children who did not succeed in Reading Recovery would likely show signs of reading failure in years subsequent to the intervention. Both these hypothesized scenarios are important considerations for school districts. Numerous studies have documented the initial success and sustained gains of Reading Recovery (Askew, Fountas, Lyons, Pinnell, & Schmidt, 1998; Briggs & Young, 2003; Brown, Denton, Kelly, & Neal, 1999: Forbes & Szymczuk, 2003; Homan, P., 2002: Jaggar & Simic, 1996; Lyons, Pinnell, & DeFord, 1993; Lukas, 2001; Ruhe & Moore, 2005; Schmitt & Gregory, 2005). These studies demonstrate that students who successfully complete their series of lessons and discontinue the need for Reading Recovery as an intervention tend to remain within average performance of their peer groups in subsequent years. Because of the investment to implement an individualized intervention with specially trained teachers, researchers have called for continued research regarding Reading Recovery student performance in the years following intervention to provide evidence of program quality and efficiency (Hiebert, 1994; Shannahan & Barr, 1995). This study was designed to analyze the later impact of the end of intervention decision. To what extent could the end of intervention decision in 1st grade serve as a predictive measure of future literacy performance? Method The purpose of this study was to analyze the relationship between the end of Reading Recovery intervention decisions and predicting later reading achievement determined by their performance on the Dakota STEP, the South Dakota statewide assessment, in 3rd, 4th, & 5th grade. This study further examined the performance-level categories (below basic or unable to perform grade-level content standards, basic or performing below grade-level expectations, proficient or meeting grade-level expectations, and advanced or exceeding grade-level expectations) assigned in 3rd, 4th and 5th grades to the students in the successfully discontinued end of intervention decision group and the students who were recommended for further action after completing a full series of Reading Recovery lessons. Research Questions Three questions guided this research. 1. Does the decision to discontinue the Reading Recovery intervention significantly predict performance level categories (proficient and higher versus less than proficient) for 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades? 2. Does the end of intervention decision significantly predict reading achievement scores for 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades? 3. What number and percent of the students who successfully completed their lessons and discontinued their need for the Reading Recovery intervention and the students who were recommended for further literacy support are at below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced level categories in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade? Participants Study participants consisted of 176 former Reading Recovery students from six school districts in one Reading Recovery Training Site. The students included in the study either, (a) successfully completed their series of Reading Recovery lessons and discontinued their need for this intervention or (b) were recommended for further literacy support following 20 weeks of Reading Recovery Lessons because they had not demonstrated accelerative progress. To select participating schools, the researcher obtained a list of schools affiliated with a selected Reading Recovery Training Site that had implemented Reading Recovery during 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003 school years. Schools were selected that had consistently implemented Reading Recovery across all three years. Out of 22 schools affiliated with the site, six schools were identified as meeting the criteria and were part of this study. The demographic information for each school is reported in Table 1. The students were placed into three groups according to their first grade year in which they were served in Reading Recovery (See Table 2). The years each Cohort was instructed in Reading Recovery and the subsequent years they were assessed with the Dakota STEP are illustrated in Table 2. Group A received Reading Recovery in the 2000-2001 school year (their first grade year) so subsequent STEP scores were available for their 3rd, 4th and 5th grade years. Group B received Reading Recovery in the 2001-2002 school year so subsequent STEP scores were available for their 3rd and 4th grade years. Group C received Reading Recovery in the 2002-2003 school year so subsequent test scores were available for their 3rd grade year. The performance level category (below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced) and the Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) from the Dakota STEP were collected for each student by grade level available. Design of Study The research design that was used in this study was a causal-comparative design, comparing the end of intervention status decision (either discontinued or recommended for further literacy support) to later reading achievement. This design was necessary because the subjects have already received the intervention and, therefore, were not randomly assigned (Gay, 1996). This study also combined descriptive statistics with regression. This combination allowed the researchers to examine the strength of any relationship and assign an error estimate to a prediction model. Further, the total variance accounted for can be used to estimate practical significance (Hair et al., 1998). Measurement The Dakota State Test of Educational Progress (Dakota STEP) was used as the instrument to assess reading achievement. The Dakota STEP is the statewide assessment used in South Dakota to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. The Dakota STEP uses the Stanford Achievement Test Series, Tenth Edition, Abbreviated Battery, Form D (Stanford 10) as its basic platform. It was developed by selecting items from the Stanford 10 and combining those items with additional items written to specifically assess state content standards not covered by the norm-referenced assessment. The Dakota STEP is a standards-based test, which incorporates both norm-referenced and criterion-referenced elements. The reading assessment reliability is reported as 0.89 for grade 3,4, & 5. Content related validity is reported in the manual. The Dakota STEP is administered to students in grades 3-8 and 11 in the spring of each year, and yields individual total reading performance data, which consists of word study skills, reading vocabulary, and reading comprehension subtests, in the form of mean scaled scores and mean national normal curve equivalents (NCE) (Harcourt, 2005a). The total reading mean scaled score and the mean national NCE were used to determine students' later achievement for this study. The mean scaled scores were used to rank a student's performance level as below basic or unable to perform grade-level content standards, basic or performing below grade-level expectations, proficient or meeting grade-level expectations, and advanced or exceeding grade-level expectations. A normal curve equivalent is a standard score derived from the percentile rank that ranges from 1 to 99, with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 21.06. The mean NCE is an indicator of performance of the typical student in the group in terms of percentile rank. Since percentile ranks cannot be averaged, all of the percentile ranks are converted to NCEs; the NCEs are averaged, and the mean NCE is converted to a percentile rank (Harcourt, 2005b). Results Two different measures were examined. One was the categorical performance level and the second was the NCE scores. Logistic regression was used to determine if (a) the decision to discontinue the Reading Recovery intervention could be used to predict Dakota STEP student categorical performance levels in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade, and linear regression was used to determine if (b) end of program intervention decision could be used to predict Dakota STEP student reading achievement on the NCE reading scores in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade. Performance level numbers and percentages in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade were also reported for students that had formerly successfully discontinued their series of lessons or were recommended for further literacy support following their first grade intervention. Research question one was examined using logistic regression. The state criteria to code performance level as proficient and above and less than proficient was used as the dependent variable. The independent variable was end of intervention status. End of intervention status was coded using successfully discontinued versus recommended action for 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders. As there were no students who scored in the below basic level and few in the advanced level, performance categories were combined to create a below basic/basic category and a proficient/ advanced category. When examining categorical performance levels, the end of intervention status decision did predict categorical (grouped as below basic/basic and proficient/advanced) performance levels in 3rd (LR= -92.12, df=1, p< .01) and 4th grade (LR=-61.44, df=1, p<.05) but not 5th grade (LR=-30.024, df=1, p>.05). The results of logistic regression revealed a significant difference of reading performance between the two end of intervention status groups (students who successfully completed their series of lessons and discontinued the need for intervention and the students who completed a full series of lessons but were recommended for further action) in 3rd and 4th grades. A significant enough number of the students that were recommended for further action were falling into basic and below basic categories while the students who successfully completed their series of lessons and discontinued their need were mostly falling into the proficient and advanced categories in the 3rd and 4th grades demonstrating that the end of intervention status decision did predict reading achievement for those grade levels. However, there were not significant differences in performance categorical scores between the two end of intervention decision groups in 5th grade. Both the students who had successfully completed their series of lessons discontinuing their need for intervention and the students who were recommended for further action were mostly categorized in the proficient and advanced levels their 5th year. This high level of performance by both groups showed that the end of intervention status decision was not predictive of later reading performance at that grade level. Research question 2 was examined using linear regression to determine if the end of intervention status decision would predict later achievement when using the NCE, a continuous score. The Dakota STEP total reading NCE score was used as the dependent variable and end of intervention status (successfully discontinued versus recommended action) as the independent variable. The end of intervention status decision was a significant predictor of later achievement in 3rd grade (R =.255, p <.01) and 4th grade (R =.363, p <.01) but not 5th grade (R =.21, p >.05). The students who successfully completed their series of lessons and discontinued their need for intervention were performing at higher levels when compared to a national average norming curve than students who were recommended for further action in their 3rd and 4th grade year. However, by the fifth grade year the end of intervention status decision showed no significant difference between the groups because both groups were performing with in average levels or higher. Research Question 3 was examined by the number and percent of students at each level of proficiency for each grade level on the Dakota STEP. Figure 1 reports the numbers and distributions of 3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-grade students by performance level categories according to the Dakota STEP between the two end of intervention status groups (successfully discontinued and recommended for further action). Descriptive data revealed that a large percentage of students that were discontinued from their lessons were in the proficient or advanced levels in subsequent grades 3, 4, and 5 following the intervention. However, many students that had received a full 20 weeks of lessons but were recommended for additional support were also in proficient and advanced levels, especially by grade 5. Seventy-two percent of the students who were discontinued were proficient or above in their 3rd grade year compared to 49% of students who were recommended for further action. Seventy-eight percent of students who were discontinued were proficient or above in their 4th grade year compared to 58% of students who were recommended for further action. Eighty-four percent of the students who were discontinued were proficient or above in their 5th grade year compared to 72% of students who were recommended for further action. None of the students fell in the below basic category. Discussion The study examined the relationship of the end of intervention decision to later reading achievement using both the performance level categories and the NCE scores from the Dakota STEP. Regardless of the score used to predict later reading achievement, results suggest that the decision made at the end of a student's Reading Recovery Intervention (successfully discontinued or recommended for further literacy support) is a good predictor of subsequent reading performance in 3rd and 4th grades but by 5th grade the predictability diminished. While it seemed logical to find discontinued students in the proficient and above performance levels and performing in the average or above ranges when using a national average norming curve, the results showed the majority of students in both end of program intervention groups (discontinued and recommended action) were at the proficient or above performance levels and performing average or above on the norming curve by their 5th grade year. However, sample sizes decreased across the grade levels. The diminished predictability at grade 5 could have been a factor of decreasing sample sizes. The study focused attention on the appropriateness of the end of intervention decision indicated by revealing the subsequent reading performance results on a standardized test. The researchers anticipated that children who successfully discontinued from the intervention would perform better--attain higher ranking and higher scores--than those children who were recommended for further literacy assistance. This did hold true when examining the subsequent achievement of these students in their 3rd and 4th grade year. Therefore, school districts may use Reading Recovery end of intervention decision as an early predictor of later achievement. An unexpected outcome of the study was that both the students that successfully discontinued and the students that were recommended for further literacy support seem to have profited when examining their reading achievement scores in their 5th grade year. This could be attributed to the fact that the research design could not account for classroom instruction the years following the intervention (Shanahan & Barr, 1995; Wahlberg & Reynolds, 1997). It could also be attributed to the decreased sample size by year 5. Recommendations for Further Research The phenomenon that both end of intervention decision groups, successfully discontinued and students recommended for further action, performed at or above average levels by 5th grade should be studied further. Also, additional research may be needed to identify classroom actions following end of intervention decisions that promote or hinder reading achievement. Further study is also needed to see how students who were recommended for further literacy support perform in different interventions: Title 1, special education, small literacy groups, after-school programs, etc. References Askew, B.J., Fountas, I.C., Lyons, C.A., Pinnell, G.S., & Schmitt, M.C. (2000). Reading Recovery review: Understandings, outcomes, and implications. Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America. Briggs, C., & Young, B.K. (2003). Does Reading Recovery work in Kansas? A retrospective longitudinal study of sustained effects. The Journal of Reading Recovery, 3(1), 59-64. Brown, W., Denton, E., Kelly, P.R., & Neal, J. C. (1999). Reading Recovery effectiveness: A five year success story in San Luis Coastal Unified District. ERS Spectrum, 17(1), 3-12. Clay, M.M. (2002), An observation survey of early literacy achievement (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M.M. (2006). Literacy lessons designed for individuals: Part one why? when? and how?. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Forbes, S., & Szymczuk, M. (2003). Iowa study of sustained effects of the Reading Recovery intervention. Purdue University Reading Recovery[R] Training Center. Gay, L.R. (1996). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application fifth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis fifth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Harcourt, (2005a). South Dakota State Test of Educational Progress (Dakota STEP): Interpretive guide for educators and parents. San Antonio, TX, Harcourt Assessment, Inc. Harcourt (2005b). South Dakota State Test of Educational Progress (Dakota STEP) technical report: 2005 spring administration. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment, Inc. Hiebert, E.H. (1994). Reading Recovery in the United States: What difference does it make to an age cohort? Educational Researcher, 23(9), 15-25. Homan, P. (2002). Reading Recovery longitudinal analysis (Technical report). Sioux Falls, SD. Retrieved from http://www.rrcna.org/sections.reading/sustaine d.asp. Jaggar, A.M., & Simic, O. (1996). A four-year follow-up study of Reading Recovery children in New York state: Preliminary report (Technical Report). New York: New York University, School of Education. Jones, N., Johnson, C., Schwartz, R., & Zalud, G. (2005). Two positive outcomes of Reading Recovery: Exploring the interface between Reading Recovery and special education. The Journal of Reading Recovery 4(3), 19-34. Lukas, B. (2001). Plainfield consortium longitudinal study shows sustained gains. Journal of Reading Recovery, 36-39. Lyons, C.A., Pinnell, G.S., & DeFord, D.E. (1993). Partners in learning: Teachers and children in Reading Recovery. New York. NY: Teachers College Press. Ruhe, V., & Moore, P. (2005). The impact of Reading Recovery on later achievement in reading and writing. ERS Spectrum, 23(1), 20-30. Schmitt, M.C., Askew, B.J., Fountas, I.C., Lyons, C.A., & Pinnell, G.S. (2005). Changing futures: The influence of Reading Recovery in the United States. Worthington, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America. Schmitt, M.C., & Gregory, A.E. (2005). The impact of an early literacy intervention: Where are the children now?" Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Literacy, 10(1), 1-20. Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 958-996. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). The elementary and secondary education act (the no child left behind). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/ind ex.html-123k Walberg, H.J., & Reynolds, A.J. (1997). Longitudinal evaluation of program effectiveness. In B. Spodek & O.N. Saracho (Eds.), Issues in early childhood assessment and evaluation (pp. 19-44). New York: Teachers College Press. SUSAN C. GAPP GARRETH ZALUD DALE PIETRZAK The University of South Dakota 414 East Clark Street Vermillion, SD 57069 Table 1 Demographic information on subjects in the study by school. School Student Race Gender Native African American American White Other Female Male 1 1 1 40 0 13 29 2 15 0 29 0 15 29 3 19 1 27 0 31 16 4 0 0 13 0 4 9 5 2 0 16 0 10 8 6 0 0 12 0 5 7 School End of RR Year Served in RR Intervention Status 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Discontinued Recommended 1 12 15 15 34 8 2 18 15 11 30 14 3 18 14 15 32 15 4 6 6 1 11 2 5 7 6 5 10 8 6 4 5 3 6 6 Table 2 Available STEP Test Scores for Each Group By Year of Reading Recovery Intervention Year Served In RR Number Tested Number Tested Group (First Grade) in Third Grade in Fourth Grade Disc. Rec. Disc. Rec. A 2000-2001 42 23 41 23 B 2001-2002 44 17 38 17 C 2002-2003 37 13 Number Tested Group in Fifth Grade Disc. Rec. A B 39 21 C Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2009 Project Innovation Austin LLC https://projectinnovationaustin.com/ Source Citation Source Citation    Gale Document Number: GALE|A196962247 Explore Related SubjectsAcademic achievementReading instructionReading skills   Google Drive™ OneDrive™Email Email DocumentRequired fields marked with *To:*Separate each e-mail address with a semicolonFrom:Subject line:*Message:Send As:Full TextPDFCitationCancelSend To:Subject Line:From:Message: CancelDone Footer About HelpContact UsTerms of UsePrivacy PolicyAccessibilityEnd Session
Phonological-based assessment and teaching within a first year reading program in New ZealandGreaney, K., & Arrow, A.Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 35(1), 9-322012ViewPhonological-based assessment and teaching within a first year reading program in New Zealand | SpringerLink Skip to main content Advertisement Search Go to cart Log in Search SpringerLink Search Home The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy Article Published: 01 February 2012 Phonological-based assessment and teaching within a first year reading program in New Zealand Keith Greaney1 & Alison Arrow1  The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy volume 35, pages 9–32 (2012)Cite this article Metrics details AbstractSeveral international literacy surveys since 1970 have consistently shown that while some of our top students have performed as well as those from most of the other participating countries, New Zealand has one of the longest tails of underachievement. It is suggested that one reason for this tail is that early literacy programs lack a focus on the explicit teaching of phonological-based skills. Furthermore, this tail has continued to lengthen since the introduction of Reading Recovery in the early 1980s, which suggests that this program has not been particularly effective in addressing the literacy learning needs of many students including Maori and Pasifika. This paper discusses the findings from a small-scale study that focused on the assessment and teaching of phonological-based skills and strategies within a year one class in an urban school. A key finding was that the students who had received the intervention out-performed the nonintervention control group on every assessment measure used in the study. The results also highlight the importance of early phonological-based assessments as a basis for the development of relevant and effective literacy instruction for at-risk literacy learners in their first year of school. This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution. Access options Buy single article Instant access to the full article PDF. USD 39.95 Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout. Rent this article via DeepDyve. Learn more about Institutional subscriptions ReferencesAdams, M.J., Foorman, B.R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). Phonemic awareness in young children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Google Scholar  Bauet, L.L., Repper, K.K., Piasta, S.B., & Murphy, S.P (2009). Emergent literacy intervention for prekindergartners at risk for reading failure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(4), 336–355.Article  Google Scholar  Blachman, B.A. (2000). Phonological awareness. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, (Vol 3, pp. 483–502). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar  Bowey, J.A. (2005). Predicting individual differences in learning to read. In M.J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The Science of reading: A handbook (pp. 155–172). Oxford: Blackwell.Chapter  Google Scholar  Bradley, L., & Bryant, P.E. (1978). Difficulties in auditory organization as a possible cause of reading backwardness. Nature, 271, 746–747.Article  Google Scholar  Bradley, L., & Bryant, P.E. (1983). Categorizing sound and learning to read: a causal connection. Nature, 301, 419–521.Article  Google Scholar  Chapman, J.W., Greaney, K.T., & Tunmer, W.E. (2007). How well is Reading Recovery really working in New Zealand? New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 42(1), 17–29. Google Scholar  Chapman, J.W., Tunmer, W.E., & Prochnow, J.E. (2001). Does success in the Reading Recovery program depend on developing proficiency in phonological processing skills? A longitudinal study in a whole language instructional context. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 141–176.Article  Google Scholar  Clay, M.M. (2005). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann. Google Scholar  Cunningham, P.M. (1999). What should we do about phonics? In: L. Gambrell, L. Morrow, S. Neuman & M. Pressley (Eds), Best practices in literacy instruction (pp. 68–89). New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar  Education Review Office. (2009). Reading and writing in years 1 and 2. Wellington, NZ: Education Review Office Google Scholar  Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. (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, 605–619.Article  Google Scholar  Elbro, C. & Scarborough, H.S. (2004). Early identification. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of children’s literacy (pp. 339–359). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Chapter  Google Scholar  Foulin, J.N. (2005). Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read? Reading and Writing, 18, 129–155.Article  Google Scholar  Gilmore, A., Croft, C., & Reid, N. (1981). Burt word reading test: New Zealand revision. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Google Scholar  Gilmore, A.M. (1998). School entry assessment. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education. Google Scholar  Greaney, K. (2004). First to fourth to thirteenth (and in all probability) still dropping? New Zealand’s international literacy results: some personal thoughts about the reasons for the gap. DELTA, 56(2), 53–64. Google Scholar  Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Google Scholar  Iversen, S.A., & Tunmer, W.E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery programme. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 112–125.Article  Google Scholar  Lee, M. (2009). Annual Monitoring of Reading Recovery: The data for 2008. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education. Google Scholar  Ministry of Education. (2009). Reading & Writing Standards for years 1–8. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media. Google Scholar  Ministry of Education. (2010). The Literacy Learning Progressions: Meeting the reading and writing demands of the curriculum. Wellington, NZ. Learning Media. Google Scholar  Moats, L.C. (2000). Speech to print: language essentials for teachers. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar  Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J., & Kennedy, A.M. (2003). P1RLS 2001 international report. Boston, MA: International Study Centre, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. Google Scholar  Neilson, R. (2009). Assessment of phonological awareness in low-progress readers. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14(1), 53–66. Google Scholar  Nicholson, T. (2003). Risk factors in learning to read. In B. Foorman, Ed., Preventing & remediating reading difficulties: Bringing Science to Scale (pp. 165–193). Timonium, MD: York Press. Google Scholar  Richardson, E., & Di Benedetto, B. (1985). Decoding skills test. Parkton, MD: York Press. Google Scholar  Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, D.A. (Eds.), (2000). From neurons to neighbourhoods. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Google Scholar  Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S. & Griffin, P. (Eds.), (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar  Torgesen, J.K. (2004). Lessons learned from research on intervention for students who have difficulty learning to read. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 355–382). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Google Scholar  Tunmer, W.E., Herriman, M.L., & Nesdale, A.R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134–158.Article  Google Scholar  Tunmer, W.E., Chapman, J.W., & Prochnow, J.E. (2003). Preventing negative Matthew effects in at-risk readers: a retrospective study. In B. Foorman, Ed., Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale, (pp. 121–163). Timonium, MD: York Press. Google Scholar  Tunmer, W.E., & Chapman, J.W. (2003). The Reading Recovery approach to preventive early intervention: As good as it gets? Reading Psychology. 24, 337–360.Article  Google Scholar  Tunmer, W.E., & Chapman, J.W. (2004a). Why the reading achievement gap won’t go away: Evidence from the PIRLS 2001 international study of reading achievement, DELTA, 56(2), 69–82. Google Scholar  Tunmer, W.E., Chapman, J.W. (2004b). Reading Recovery: distinguishing myth from reality. In R.M. Joshi, Ed., Dyslexia: myths, misconceptions, and some practical applications (pp. 99–114). Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association. Google Scholar  Tunmer, W.E., Chapman, J.W. & Prochnow, J.E. (2006). Literate cultural capital at school entry predicts later reading achievement: A seven year longitudinal study. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 41, 183–204. Google Scholar  Tunmer, W.E., & Greaney, K.T. (2010). Defining dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 229–243.Article  Google Scholar  Tunmer, W.E., Prochnow, J.E., Greaney, K.T., & Chapman, J.W. (2007). What’s wrong with New Zealand’s national literacy strategy? In R. Openshaw & J. Soler (Eds). Reading across international boundaries: history, policy and politics (pp. 19–42). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Google Scholar  Tunmer, W.E., & Prochnow, J.E. (2009). Cultural relativism and literacy education: Explicit teaching based on specific learning needs is not deficit theory. In R. Openshaw & E. Rata (Eds.), The politics of conformity in New Zealand (pp. 154–190). Auckland, NZ: Pearson. Google Scholar  Tunmer, W.E., & Greaney, K.T. (2008). Reading intervention research: An integrative framework. In G. Reid, A. Fawcett, F. Manis, & L. Siegel (Eds.), The Sage handbook of dyslexia (pp. 241–267). London: Sage.Chapter  Google Scholar  Tunmer, W.E., & Greaney, K.T. (2010). Defining Dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 229–243.Article  Google Scholar  Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Jaccard, J. (2003). Towards distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to read: A two-year follow-up of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers. In B. Foorman, Ed., Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 73–120). Baltimore, MD: York Press. Google Scholar  Yeh, S.S. (2003). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching phonemic awareness to children in Head Start. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 513–529.Article  Google Scholar  Download referencesAuthor informationAuthors and AffiliationsMassey University, AustraliaKeith Greaney & Alison ArrowAuthorsKeith GreaneyView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in PubMed Google ScholarAlison ArrowView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in PubMed Google ScholarRights and permissionsReprints and PermissionsAbout this articleCite this articleGreaney, K., Arrow, A. Phonological-based assessment and teaching within a first year reading program in New Zealand. AJLL 35, 9–32 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651871Download citationPublished: 01 February 2012Issue Date: February 2012DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651871Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative Access via your institution Access options Buy single article Instant access to the full article PDF. USD 39.95 Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout. Rent this article via DeepDyve. Learn more about Institutional subscriptions Advertisement Over 10 million scientific documents at your fingertips Switch Edition Academic Edition Corporate Edition Home Impressum Legal information Privacy statement California Privacy Statement How we use cookies Manage cookies/Do not sell my data Accessibility FAQ Contact us Affiliate program Not logged in - 216.137.188.152 Not affiliated Springer Nature © 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature.
Children’s reading profiles on exiting the Reading Recovery programme: Do they predict sustained progress?Holliman, A. J., Hurry, J., Bodman, S.Journal of Research in Reading, 39(1), 1-182016ViewJust a moment... Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
Helping beginning and struggling readers to develop self-regulated strategies: A Reading Recovery exampleHorner, S. L., & O'Connor, E. A.Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 97-1092016ViewPowered by
Cost-effectiveness analysis as a decision tool in selecting and implementing instructional interventions in literacyHummel-Rossi, B., & Ashdown, J.Reading Recovery Council of North America, Worthington, OH2010View
Reading intervention at age 6: Long-term effects of Reading Recovery in the UK on qualifications and support at age 16Hurry, J., Fridkin, L., & Holliman, A. J.British Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 5-212021View
Managing risk in complex adult professional learning: The facilitator’s roleInce, A.Professional Development in Education, DOI, 10.1080/19415257.2016.11647432016ViewManaging risk in complex adult professional learning: the facilitator’s role: Professional Development in Education: Vol 43, No 2 Skip to Main Content Log in  |  Register Cart Home All Journals Professional Development in Education List of Issues Volume 43, Issue 2 Managing risk in complex adult professio .... Search in: This Journal Anywhere Advanced search Professional Development in Education Volume 43, 2017 - Issue 2 Submit an article Journal homepage 675 Views 8 CrossRef citations to date 0 Altmetric Articles Managing risk in complex adult professional learning: the facilitator’s roleAmanda Ince Learning and Leadership Department, UCL Institute of Education, London, Pages 194-211 Received 21 Oct 2015Accepted 17 Feb 2016Published online: 12 Apr 2016 Download citation https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1164743 CrossMark   Full Article Figures & data References Citations Metrics Reprints & Permissions Get access /doi/full/10.1080/19415257.2016.1164743?needAccess=true AbstractThis article reports on the recognition and management of risk within the context of an intensive literacy intervention professional development programme, designed to enable expert literacy teachers become teacher-educators. The article suggests a conceptual model for recognising risk within professional learning opportunities and skills for facilitators. Data were generated from digital audio recordings of professional development sessions and semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using a grounded theory approach. Data analysis revealed attributes for facilitators which enabled or determined their ability to manage risk. Extracts from transcripts illustrate the nature of risk and participant perception. Implications for facilitators of professional learning to support learners through their transformative learning journey are discussed.Keywords: teacher professional developmentriskcognitive dissonancetransformative learningfacilitator Log in via your institution Loading institutional login options... Access through your institution Log in to Taylor & Francis Online Log in Shibboleth Log in to Taylor & Francis Online Username Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in. This is a trusted computer. You will otherwise be logged out automatically, after a limited period, and will need to log in again. Log in Restore content access Restore content access for purchases made as guest Purchase options * Save for later Item saved, go to cart PDF download + Online access 48 hours access to article PDF & online versionArticle PDF can be downloadedArticle PDF can be printed USD 50.00 Add to cart PDF download + Online access - Online Checkout Issue Purchase 30 days online access to complete issueArticle PDFs can be downloadedArticle PDFs can be printed USD 284.00 Add to cart Issue Purchase - Online Checkout * Local tax will be added as applicable More Share Options   Related Research People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read. Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine. Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab. People also read Recommended articles Cited by Browse journals by subject Back to top Area Studies Arts Behavioral Sciences Bioscience Built Environment Communication Studies Computer Science Earth Sciences Economics, Finance, Business & Industry Education Engineering & Technology Environment & Agriculture Environment and Sustainability Food Science & Technology Geography Global Development Health and Social Care Humanities Information Science Language & Literature Law Mathematics & Statistics Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health Museum and Heritage Studies Physical Sciences Politics & International Relations Social Sciences Sports and Leisure Tourism, Hospitality and Events Urban Studies Information for Authors R&D professionals Editors Librarians Societies Open access Overview Open journals Open Select Dove Medical Press F1000Research Opportunities Reprints and e-prints Advertising solutions Accelerated publication Corporate access solutions Help and information Help and contact Newsroom All journals Books Keep up to date Register to receive personalised research and resources by email Sign me up Taylor and Francis Group Facebook page Taylor and Francis Group Twitter page Taylor and Francis Group Linkedin page Taylor and Francis Group Youtube page Taylor and Francis Group Weibo page Copyright © 2023 Informa UK Limited Privacy policy Cookies Terms & conditions Accessibility Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG AcceptCookie Policy We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies. Your download is now in progress and you may close this window Did you know that with a free Taylor & Francis Online account you can gain access to the following benefits? Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research Have an account? Login now Don't have an account? Register for free Login or register to access this feature Have an account? Login now Don't have an account? Register for free Register a free Taylor & Francis Online account today to boost your research and gain these benefits: Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research Register now or learn more
The effects of varying group size on the Reading Recovery approach to preventive early interventionIversen, S., Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 456-4722005ViewJust a moment... Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
Can gains from early literacy intervention be sustained? A case of Reading RecoveryJesson, R., & Limbrick, L.Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 102-1172014ViewJust a moment... Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
An examination of dyslexia research and instruction with policy implicationsJohnston, P., & Scanlon, D.Literacy Research Association Research Reports, Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 70, 107-1282021View
Response to Intervention in Literacy: Problems and PossibilitiesJohnston, P.The Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 511-5342011View
Taking Words A-part, Ap-art, Apar-t While ReadingKaye, E.Journal of Reading Recovery, 8(1), 5-152008View
Second graders’ reading behaviors: A study of variety, complexity, and changeKaye, E. L.Literacy Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 51-752006View
Learner outcomes for English language learnersKelly, P. R., Gomez-Bellenge, F. X., Chen, J., & Schulz, M. M.TESOL Quarterly, 42(2) 235-2602008ViewJust a moment... Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
Do children selected for Reading Recovery exhibit weaknesses in phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming?Litt, D.Literacy Teaching and Learning, 14(1), 89-1022010View
The relationship between severe oral language impairment and progress with reading interventionLukin, C., & Estraviz, L.Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 33(2), 126-1332010ViewThe relationship between severe oral language impairment and progress with reading intervention | SpringerLink Skip to main content Advertisement Search Go to cart Log in Search SpringerLink Search Home The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy Article Published: 01 June 2010 The relationship between severe oral language impairment and progress with reading intervention Christine Lukin1 & Linda Estraviz1  The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy volume 33, pages 126–133 (2010)Cite this article Metrics details This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution. Access options Buy single article Instant access to the full article PDF. USD 39.95 Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout. Rent this article via DeepDyve. Learn more about Institutional subscriptions ReferencesCatts, H.W., Fey, M.E. Tomblin, J.B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 36, 948–958.Article  Google Scholar  Education Queensland (2006). Additional Information: Identifying Students with Speech-Language Impairment. The State of Queensland (Department of Education Training and the Arts). Accessed December 12, 2008 from http://www.learningplace.com.au/deliver/content.asp?pid=18490 Google Scholar  Hurry, J., & Sylva, K. (2007) Long-Term Outcomes of Early Reading Intervention Journal of Research in Reading, 30(3). 227–248.Article  Google Scholar  Justice, L.M., Invernizzi, M.A., & Meier, J.D. (2002). Designing and implementing an early literacy screening protocol: suggestions for the speech-language pathologist. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33, 84–101.Article  Google Scholar  Metsala, J.L. (1999). Young children’s phonological awareness and nonword repetition as a function of vocabulary development. Journal of Educational Psychology 91, 3–19.Article  Google Scholar  Nathan, L., Stackhouse, J., Goulandris, N., & Snowling, M.J. (2004). The development of early literacy skills among children with speech difficulties: A test of the ‘critical age hypothesis’. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 47, 377–391.Article  Google Scholar  Reading Recovery Annual Report (Queensland Department of Education Training and the Arts, 2004) Unpublished document. Information supplied by Curriculum Division Education Queensland http://education.qld.gov.au/curriculum Google Scholar  Roth, F.P., Speece, D.L., & Cooper, D.H. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the connection between oral language and early reading. Journal of Educational Research, 95 (5). 259–272.Article  Google Scholar  Snowling, M.J. (2005). Literacy outcomes for children with oral language impairments: Developmental interactions between language skills and learning to read. In H.W. Catts, & A.G. Kahmi. (Eds.), The connection between language and reading disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar  Walsh, R. (2008). Enhancing Literacy Outcomes: Benefts and issues of including SLP’s in the literacy team. Revised March 2008 project report ‘Literacy outcomes and the role of the Speech-Language Pathologist’ (LORS) Project. The State of Queensland (Department of Education Training and the Arts). Accessed on December 12, 2008 from http://www.learningplace.com.au/deliver/content.asp?pid=32262 Google Scholar  Download referencesAuthor informationAuthors and AffiliationsDepartment of Education and Training, Queensland, AustraliaChristine Lukin & Linda EstravizAuthorsChristine LukinView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in PubMed Google ScholarLinda EstravizView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in PubMed Google ScholarRights and permissionsReprints and PermissionsAbout this articleCite this articleLukin, C., Estraviz, L. The relationship between severe oral language impairment and progress with reading intervention. AJLL 33, 126–133 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651828Download citationPublished: 01 June 2010Issue Date: June 2010DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651828Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative Access via your institution Access options Buy single article Instant access to the full article PDF. USD 39.95 Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout. Rent this article via DeepDyve. Learn more about Institutional subscriptions Advertisement Over 10 million scientific documents at your fingertips Switch Edition Academic Edition Corporate Edition Home Impressum Legal information Privacy statement California Privacy Statement How we use cookies Manage cookies/Do not sell my data Accessibility FAQ Contact us Affiliate program Not logged in - 216.137.188.152 Not affiliated Springer Nature © 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature.
Intervention program for early readers: The teething problemsMahyuddin, R., Sharifah, M. N., Roslan, S., & Elias, H.International Journal of Learning, 16(6), 169-1762009View
Reading Recovery: An evaluation of the four-year i3 scale-upMay, H., Sirinides, P., Gray, A., & Goldsworthy, H.Consortium for Policy Research in Education, March 20162016View
Looking at school improvement through a Reading Recovery lensMcNaughton, S.Literacy Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 1-172008View
Change over time in first grade readers’ strategic use of information at point of difficulty in readingMcGee, L. M., Kim, H., Nelson, K. S., & Fried, M. D.Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 263-2912015ViewAPA PsycNet --> Loading...
Supplemental instruction in early reading: Does it matter for struggling readers?McIntyre, E., Jones, D., Powers, S., Newsome, F., Petroski, J., Powell, R., & Bright, K.The Journal of Educational Research, 99(2), 99-1072005ViewSupplemental Instruction in Early Reading: Does It Matter for Struggling Readers?: The Journal of Educational Research: Vol 99, No 2 Skip to Main Content Log in  |  Register Cart Home All Journals The Journal of Educational Research List of Issues Volume 99, Issue 2 Supplemental Instruction in Early Readin .... Search in: This Journal Anywhere Advanced search The Journal of Educational Research Volume 99, 2005 - Issue 2 Submit an article Journal homepage 323 Views 7 CrossRef citations to date 0 Altmetric Original Article Supplemental Instruction in Early Reading: Does It Matter for Struggling Readers? Ellen McIntyre University of Louisville , Deneese Jones University of Kentucky , Sherry Powers Western Kentucky University , Faye Newsome Eastern Kentucky University , Joe Petrosko University of Louisville , Rebecca Powell Georgetown College & Kelly Bright National Center for Family Literacy show all Pages 99-107 Published online: 07 Aug 2010 Download citation https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.2.99-108   Original Article Supplemental Instruction in Early Reading: Does It Matter for Struggling Readers? References Citations Metrics Reprints & Permissions Get access /doi/epdf/10.3200/JOER.99.2.99-108?needAccess=true Abstract The authors compared phonics and reading comprehension achievement of 1st-grade children and reading achievement of 2nd-grade children who received daily supplemental reading instruction with the achievement of children who did not receive supplemental instruction. The authors collected data through individual administration of phonics and reading tasks, classroom observations and field notes, and teacher interviews. First- and 2nd-grade children served by models that included daily instruction as a supplement to their regular classroom reading instruction achieved significantly higher scores on the reading comprehension measure than did students in the models without this feature. Yet, authors found no significant differences between the 1st-grade students in the 2 groups on phonics measure. Findings have implications for policy making when educators decide to include supplemental instructional opportunities in their overall school literacy plan. Keywords: early readingstruggling first-grade and second-grade readerssupplemental instruction Reprints and Corporate Permissions Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content? To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below: Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions Academic Permissions Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content? Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below: Request Academic Permissions If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page. More Share Options   Related research People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read. Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine. Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab. People also read Recommended articles Cited by Browse journals by subject Back to top Area Studies Arts Behavioral Sciences Bioscience Built Environment Communication Studies Computer Science Earth Sciences Economics, Finance, Business & Industry Education Engineering & Technology Environment & Agriculture Environment and Sustainability Food Science & Technology Geography Global Development Health and Social Care Humanities Information Science Language & Literature Law Mathematics & Statistics Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health Museum and Heritage Studies Physical Sciences Politics & International Relations Social Sciences Sports and Leisure Tourism, Hospitality and Events Urban Studies Information for Authors R&D professionals Editors Librarians Societies Open access Overview Open journals Open Select Dove Medical Press F1000Research Opportunities Reprints and e-prints Advertising solutions Accelerated publication Corporate access solutions Help and information Help and contact Newsroom All journals Books Keep up to date Register to receive personalised research and resources by email Sign me up Taylor and Francis Group Facebook page Taylor and Francis Group Twitter page Taylor and Francis Group Linkedin page Taylor and Francis Group Youtube page Taylor and Francis Group Weibo page Copyright © 2023 Informa UK Limited Privacy policy Cookies Terms & conditions Accessibility Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG AcceptCookie Policy We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies. Your download is now in progress and you may close this window Did you know that with a free Taylor & Francis Online account you can gain access to the following benefits? Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research Have an account? Login now Don't have an account? Register for free Login or register to access this feature Have an account? Login now Don't have an account? Register for free Register a free Taylor & Francis Online account today to boost your research and gain these benefits: Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research Register now or learn more
Classroom instruction: The influences of Marie ClayMcNaughton, S.The Reading Teacher, 68(2), 88-922014ViewJust a moment... Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
A Synthesis of Quantitative Research on Programs for Struggling Readers in Elementary SchoolsNeizel, A., Lake, C., Pellegrini, M., & Slavin, R. E.Reading Research Quarterly, 57(1), 149-1792022ViewJust a moment... Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
Effects of explicit instruction on decoding of struggling first grade students: A data-based case studyPullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., Lloyd, J. W., Nowak, R., & Ryals, J.Education & Treatment of Children, 28(1), 63-752005ViewJSTOR: Access Check Access Check Our systems have detected unusual traffic activity from your network. Please complete this reCAPTCHA to demonstrate that it's you making the requests and not a robot. If you are having trouble seeing or completing this challenge, this page may help. If you continue to experience issues, you can contact JSTOR support. Block Reference: #a771f146-cd8d-11ed-b3d6-786477424f6e VID: # IP: 216.137.188.152 Date and time: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 17:26:20 GMT Javascript is disabled Go back to JSTOR ©2000- ITHAKA. All Rights Reserved. JSTOR®, the JSTOR logo, JPASS®, and ITHAKA® are registered trademarks of ITHAKA.
Reading Recovery 20 years down the track: Looking foward, looking backReynolds, M., & Wheldall, K.International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 54(2), 199-2232007ViewAPA PsycNet --> Loading...
The devil is in the detail regarding the efficacy of Reading Recovery: A rejoinder to Schwartz, Hobsbaum, Briggs, and ScullReynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A.International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 56(1), 17-352009View
Viewing Reading Recovery as a restructuring phenomenonRinehart, J. S., & Short, P. M.Journal of School Leadership, 20(1), 89-1092010ViewViewing reading recovery as a restructuring phenomenon - Document - Gale Academic OneFile Gale Academic OneFile includes Viewing reading recovery as a restructuring phenomenon by James S. Rinehart and Paula Myrick Shor. Click to explore."/> Use this link to get back to this page.Copy For the best user experience on this site, you should have JavaScript enabled in your browser.Skip to Content Open Access UserCloseLibrary InformationLibrary WebsiteView Gale Product Menu Sign in barAccess through your library English Select Language EnglishAfrikaansالعربيةBahasa IndonesiaBahasa MalaysiačeskyCymraegDanskDeutschEnglishEspañolFrançaisGaeilgeHrvatskiItalianomagyarខ្មែរNederlandsPolskiPortuguêsRomânăSlovenščinaslovenskýsuomisvenskaTagalogTiếng ViệtTürkçeРусскийΕλληνικάবাংলাहिंदीதமிழ்ไทย中文(简体)中文(繁體)日本語한국어 Items in Highlights & Notes may not have been saved to Google Drive™ or Microsoft OneDrive™. Are you sure you want to logout? Gale Academic OneFile Toolbar Please select the search indexBasic SearchAdvanced Search Cite Send to...DownloadPrintGet LinkHighlights and NotesYour session has timed out after 20 minutes of inactivity. If you do not click continue session, you will be logged out in 60 secondsYour session has timed out after 20 minutes of inactivity. If you do not click continue session, you will be logged out in 60 seconds Viewing reading recovery as a restructuring phenomenon Citation metadata Authors: James S. Rinehart and Paula Myrick Short Date: Jan. 2010 From: Journal of School Leadership(Vol. 20, Issue 1) Publisher: Sage Publications, Inc. Document Type: Report Length: 6,125 words Document controls TranslateDocument Translation Format Options:Save to Google Drive™Save to OneDrive™HTML Translate ArticleSet Interface LanguageDecrease font sizeIncrease font sizeDisplay options Colors:Font:Open SansEB GaramondOpen DyslexicNoto SansDefaultMoreMostLine SpacingLetter SpacingWord SpacingBack to Default SettingsDoneListen ListenLarger documents may require additional load time.  Send to Google Drive™ Send to Microsoft OneDrive™EmailDownloadPrint Main content Abstract :This study investigated components of Reading Recovery that relate to a restructuring paradigm. Specifically, Reading Recovery was analyzed as a way to redesign teachers' work, empower teachers, and affect the core technology of teaching. Data were collected by a survey that consisted of open-ended questions and of categorical response items. These items were analyzed using the restructuring paradigm. Implications for the restructuring of schools are discussed. Get Full AccessGale offers a variety of resources for education, lifelong learning, and academic research. Log in through your library to get access to full content and features!Access through your library Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2010 Sage Publications, Inc. http://www.rowmaneducation.com/Journals/JSL/ Source Citation Source Citation    Gale Document Number: GALE|A232383057 Explore Related SubjectsEducational programsReading readiness Footer About HelpDictionaryContact UsTerms of UsePrivacy PolicyAccessibilityEnd Session
Scaffolding Word Solving While Reading: New Research InsightsRodgers, E.The Reading Teacher, (70)5, 525-5322016ViewJust a moment... Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
Extensive reading interventions in grades K-3: From research to practiceScammacca, N., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Wanzek, J., & Torgesen, J. K.Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction2007View
Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the Reading Recovery early interventionSchwartz, R. M.Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 257-2672005View
Reading Recovery and evidence-based practice: A response to Reynolds and Wheldall (2007)Schwartz, R., Hobsbaum, A., Briggs, C., & Scull, J.International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 56(1), 5-152009View
Effects of student-teacher ratio in response to intervention approachesSchwartz, R. M., Schmitt, M. C., & Lose, M. K.Elementary School Journal, 112(4), 547-5672012ViewJust a moment... Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
Embedding comprehension within reading acquisition processesScull, J.Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 33(2), 87-1072010ViewEmbedding comprehension within reading acquisition processes | SpringerLink Skip to main content Advertisement Search Go to cart Log in Search SpringerLink Search Home The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy Article Published: 01 June 2010 Embedding comprehension within reading acquisition processes Janet Scull1  The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy volume 33, pages 87–107 (2010)Cite this article 1 Accesses 3 Citations Metrics details AbstractContemporary understandings of reading development acknowledge the compilation and coordination of a range of skills and strategies (Paris, 2005). The development of both decoding and comprehension, integrated into reading acquisition processes, reflects this building of complementary reading skills. Hence, the research reported here aimed to examine early reading instruction to gain insight into how skilled teachers incorporate this duality of purposes into instructional practices. In order to closely examine students at the beginning stages of reading instruction 16 Reading Recovery teacher/student dyads were observed, with book reading interactions coded and analysed to detail teacher attention. The results reveal how teachers guide students towards the co-construction of text meanings and highlights teachers’ and students’ active engagement in talk interactions, as central to the instructional process. This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution. Access options Buy single article Instant access to the full article PDF. USD 39.95 Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout. Rent this article via DeepDyve. Learn more about Institutional subscriptions ReferencesAnderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr & M.L. Kamil (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman. Google Scholar  Biemiller, A. (2003). Vocabulary: more needed if children are to read well. Reading Psychology, 24, 323–335.Article  Google Scholar  Blachowicz, C.L.Z., & Ogle, D. (2001). Reading comprehension: strategies for independent learners. New York: The Guilford Press. Google Scholar  Bransford, J.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11(6). 717–726.Article  Google Scholar  Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1). 18–37.Article  Google Scholar  Carnine, D., Kameenui, E., & Woolfson, N. (1982). Training of textual dimensions related to text-based inferences. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(3). 335–340.Article  Google Scholar  Cazden, C.B. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Google Scholar  Chall, J.S., Jacobs, V.A., & Baldwin, L.E. (1990). The reading crisis: why poor children fall behind, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Book  Google Scholar  Clay, M.M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Google Scholar  Clay, M.M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Auckland: Heinemann. Google Scholar  Clay, M.M. (2005a). Literacy lessons designed for individuals: part one why? when? and how? Auckland: Heinemann. Google Scholar  Clay, M.M. (2005b). Literacy lessons designed for individuals: part two teaching procedures, Auckland: Heinemann. Google Scholar  Comber, B. (2001). Critical literacy: power and pleasure with language in the early years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 24(3). 168–181. Google Scholar  Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., & Petrella, J.N. (2004). Effective reading comprehension instruction: examining child x instruction interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4). 682–698.Article  Google Scholar  Department of Education, Science and Training (2005). Teaching Reading: Report and Recommendations, National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. Canberra: Australian Government. Google Scholar  Dewitz, P., & Dewitz, P. (2003). They can read the words, but they can’t understand: refining comprehension assessment. The Reading Teacher, 56(5). 422–435. Google Scholar  Downing, J., & Leong, C.K. (1982). Psychology of Reading. New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar  Duke, N.K., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective reading practices for developing comprehension. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction, 3rd edition., Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Google Scholar  Elkins, J. (2002). Learning difficulties/disabilities in literacy. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 25(3). 11–18. Google Scholar  Fisher, R. (2005). Teacher-child interaction in the teaching of reading: a review of research perspectives over twenty-five years. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 15–27.Article  Google Scholar  Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: interaction and practice. London: Sage.Book  Google Scholar  Gaskins, I.W. (2003). Taking charge of reader, text, activity and content variables. In A.P. Sweet & C.E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: The Guilford Press. Google Scholar  Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated language and learning: a critique of traditional schooling. New York NY: Routledge. Google Scholar  Hacker, D.J. (2004). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, 5th edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Google Scholar  Harrison, C. (2000). Reading research in the United Kingdom. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume 3. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar  Harrison, C. (2004a). Understanding reading development. London: Paul Chapman.Book  Google Scholar  Harrison, C. (2004b). Postmodern principles for responsive reading assessment, Journal of Research in Reading, 27(2). 163–173.Article  Google Scholar  Hughes M., & Westgate, D. (1998). Possible enabling strategies in teacher-led talk with young pupils. Language and Education, 12(3). 174–191.Article  Google Scholar  Kaye, E. (2006). Second graders’ reading behaviors: a study of variety, complexity, and change. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 10(2). 51–75. Google Scholar  Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2004). A handbook for teacher research: from design to implementation. London: Open University Press. Google Scholar  Lipson, M.Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: the role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(3). 243–261.Article  Google Scholar  Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1997). Shaping the social practice of reading. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody (Eds.), Constructing critical literacies. St Leonards, N.S.W.: Allen and Unwin. Google Scholar  Lyons, C.A. (1999). Emotions, cognition and becoming a reader: a message to teachers of struggling readers. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 4(1). 67–87. Google Scholar  McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1998). Memory-based language processing: psycholinguistic research in the 1990’s. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 25–42.Article  Google Scholar  McNaughton, S. (1988). A history of errors in the analysis of oral reading behaviour. Educational Psychology, 8(1/2). 21–30.Article  Google Scholar  Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: how we use language to think together. London: Routledge. Google Scholar  Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.Article  Google Scholar  Palincsar, A.S. (2003). Collaborative approaches to comprehension instruction. In A.P. Sweet & C.E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Google Scholar  Paris, S.G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills, Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2). 184–202.Article  Google Scholar  Paris, S.G., Carpenter, R.D., Paris A.H., & Hamilton, E.E. (2005). Spurious and genuine correlates of children’s reading comprehension. In S.G. Paris & S.A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Chapter  Google Scholar  Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Turner, J.C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume 2. New York: Longman. Google Scholar  Parkin, C., Parkin, C., & Pool, B. (2002). PROBE reading assessment. New Zealand: Triune Initiatives. Google Scholar  Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar  Pearson, P.D., & Duke, N.K. (2002). Comprehension instruction in primary grades. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: research-based best practices. New York: The Guilford Press. Google Scholar  Pearson, P.D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume 2. New York: Longman. Google Scholar  Pearson, P.D., & Hamm, D.N. (2005). The assessment of reading comprehension: a review of practices–past, present and future. In S.G. Paris & S.A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar  Pianta, R. (1990) Widening the debate of educational reform: Prevention as viable alternative, Exceptional Children, 56(4). 306–313.Article  Google Scholar  Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M.L. Kamill, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume 3. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar  Pressley, M. (2006). What the future of reading research could be. Paper presented at the International Reading Association’s Reading Research 2006 Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April 2006. Google Scholar  Raban, B. (1999). Language and literacy as epistemology. In J.S. Gaffney & B.J. Askew (Eds.), Stirring the waters: the infuence of Marie Clay. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Google Scholar  Raban, B. (2001). Talking to think, learn, and teach. In P.G. Smith (Ed.), Talking classrooms: shaping children’s learning through oral language instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Google Scholar  RAND, Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding: toward an R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Google Scholar  Rosenblatt, L.M. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, 5th edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Google Scholar  Rubman, C.N., & Waters, H.S. (2000). A, B seeing: the role of constructive processes in children’s comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3). 503–514.Article  Google Scholar  Rumelhart, D.E. (2004). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, 5th edition. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Google Scholar  Scarborough, H.S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis) abilities: evidence, theory and practice. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Google Scholar  Schwartz, R. (1997). Self-monitoring in beginning reading. The Reading Teacher, 51(1). 40–48. Google Scholar  Scull, J.A., & Lo Bianco, J. (2008). Successful engagement in an early literacy intervention. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(1). 123–150.Article  Google Scholar  Siegel M., & Fernandez, S.L. (2000). Critical approaches. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume 2. New York: Longman. Google Scholar  Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar  Singer, H. (1981). Instruction in reading acquisition. In O.J.L. Tzeng & H. Singer (Eds.), Perception of print: reading research in experimental psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar  Singer, H., and Donlan, D. (1989). Reading and learning from text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar  Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffn, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Google Scholar  Snow, C.E., & Sweet, A.P. (2003). Reading for comprehension. In A.P. Sweet and C.E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Google Scholar  Spooner, A.L.R., Gathercole, S.E., & Baddeley, A.D. (2006). Does weak reading comprehension refect an integration defcit? Journal of Research in Reading, 29(2). 173–193.Article  Google Scholar  Sportstec (2004). Studiocode. Accessed on March 2 2005 from http://www.sportstecinternational.com Google Scholar  Stanovich, K.E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: scientifc foundations and new frontiers. New York: The Guilford Press. Google Scholar  Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar  Tierney, R.J., & Cunningham, J.W. (1984). Research on teaching reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr & M.L. Kamil (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman. Google Scholar  Tracey, D.H., & Morrow, L.M. (2002). Preparing young readers for successful reading comprehension. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: research- based best practices. New York: The Guilford Press. Google Scholar  Wells, G. (1991). Talk about texts: where literacy is learned and taught. In D. Booth & C. Thornley-Hall (Eds.), The talk curriculum. Carlton: Australian Reading Association. Google Scholar  Wolf, M.K., Crosson A.C., & Resnick, L.B. (2005). Classroom talk for rigorous reading comprehension instruction. Reading Psychology, 26, 27–53.Article  Google Scholar  Wood, D. (2003). The why? what? when? and how? of tutoring: the development of helping and tutoring skills in children. Literacy, Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 7(1&2). 1–30. Google Scholar  Zammit, K., & Downes, T. (2002). New learning environments and the multiliterate individual: a framework for educators. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 25(2). 24–36. Google Scholar  Cole, B. (1988). The trouble with grandad. London: Treasure Press. Google Scholar  Giles, J. (1994). Late for football. New Zealand: Nelson Price Milburn. Google Scholar  Smith, A. (1997). Jonathan buys a present. New Zealand: Nelson Price Milburn. Google Scholar  Smith, A. (1997) Mitch to the rescue. New Zealand: Nelson Price Milburn. Google Scholar  Wilson, S. (1996). Going to the hairdresser. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia. Google Scholar  Download referencesAuthor informationAuthors and AffiliationsUniversity of Melbourne, AustraliaJanet ScullAuthorsJanet ScullView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in PubMed Google ScholarRights and permissionsReprints and PermissionsAbout this articleCite this articleScull, J. Embedding comprehension within reading acquisition processes. AJLL 33, 87–107 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651826Download citationPublished: 01 June 2010Issue Date: June 2010DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03651826Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative Access via your institution Access options Buy single article Instant access to the full article PDF. USD 39.95 Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout. Rent this article via DeepDyve. Learn more about Institutional subscriptions Advertisement Over 10 million scientific documents at your fingertips Switch Edition Academic Edition Corporate Edition Home Impressum Legal information Privacy statement California Privacy Statement How we use cookies Manage cookies/Do not sell my data Accessibility FAQ Contact us Affiliate program Not logged in - 216.137.188.152 Not affiliated Springer Nature © 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature.
Successful engagement in an early literacy interventionScull, J. A., & Lo Bianco, J.Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(2), 123-1502008ViewAPA PsycNet --> Loading...
Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesisSlavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S.Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1391-14662009View
The impacts of Reading Recovery at scale: Results from the 4-year external evaluationSirinides, P., Gray, A., & May, H.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 316-3352018ViewJust a moment... Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
Early intervention in children with reading difficulties: An evaluation of Reading Recovery and a Phonological TrainingSylva, K., & Hurry, J.Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Literacy, 2(2), 49-731996View
Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading difficultiesVaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Cirino, P. T., Carlson, C. D., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., & Francis, D. J.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(1), 56-732006View
The effects of reading interventions on social outcomes for elementary students with reading difficulties: A synthesisWanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Kim, A., & Cavanaugh, C. L.Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 22(2), 121-1382006ViewAPA PsycNet --> Loading...
The Spanish- and English-Language Literacy Impacts of Descubriendo la Lectura across Three Experimental ReplicationsTrisha H. Borman, Geoffrey D. Borman, So Jung Park, Bo Zhu & Scott HoughtonTrisha H. Borman, Geoffrey D. Borman, So Jung Park, Bo Zhu & Scott Houghton (09 Nov 2023): The Spanish- and English-Language Literacy Impacts of Descubriendo la Lectura across Three Experimental Replications, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, DOI: 10.1080/19345747.2023.2269936November 9, 2023View
Search Journal Archive

THE JOURNAL OF READING RECOVERY

Fall 2023