Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Author: Guth, Anna, C Title: Reading Intervention Effectiveness: An Analysis of Reading Recovery The accompanying research report is submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Stout, Graduate School in partial
completion of the requirements for the
Graduate Degree/ Major: MS School Psychology
Research Advisor: Judy Gifford
Submission Term/Year: Summer, 2013
Number of Pages: 31
Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition
I understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University Library website
I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office.
My research advisor has approved the content and quality of this paper. STUDENT:
NAME Anna Guth DATE: 7/31/2013
ADVISOR: (Committee Chair if MS Plan A or EdS Thesis or Field Project/Problem):
NAME Judy Gifford DATE: 7/31/2013
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section for MS Plan A Thesis or EdS Thesis/Field Project papers only Committee members (other than your advisor who is listed in the section above) 1. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:
2. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:
3. CMTE MEMBER’S NAME: DATE:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This section to be completed by the Graduate School This final research report has been approved by the Graduate School.
Director, Office of Graduate Studies: DATE:
2
Guth, Anna C. Reading Intervention Effectiveness: An Analysis of Reading Recovery
Abstract
Reading ability is a critical component to students’ overall academic success.
Effective early interventions in the area of reading can help students achieve their full
academic potential by providing them with a strong foundation of knowledge and skill.
Reading interventions, such as Reading Recovery, utilize one-on-one tutoring in order to
cater to student’s specific reading needs.
School psychologists need to be able to evaluate and determine the potential
effectiveness and efficiency of an intervention in order to help their school districts make
decisions about whether or not a specific intervention meets evidence-based practices and
can be utilized within a Response to Intervention system. By evaluating reading
interventions for format, cost, and effectiveness in the specific reading skills of
phonological/phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text
comprehension, school psychologists may improve their evidence-based decision-making
when it comes to selecting an intervention.
3
Acknowledgments
I would first like to thank my parents, Jill and Gerhard, and my boyfriend, Alex, for their
love and support throughout my educational career.
Next, I would like to acknowledge all my professors at the University of Wisconsin-
Stout, specifically Dr. Chris Peterson and Amy Zimmerman for their guidance and support
throughout my first year in the School Psychology program. I would also like to thank Professor
Wendy Stuttgen, for teaching me the tools and background knowledge I needed in order to do
effective research on reading interventions. Finally, I would like to thank Judy Gifford for being
my thesis advisor. Thank you for all the time and effort you put forth in helping me write my
thesis and fostering my love of education and early childhood. Your comments and feedback
were truly valued.
4
Table of Contents
............................................................................................................................................. Page
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter I: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 8
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................ 9
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 9
Definition of Terms ......................................................................................................... 9
Assumptions and Limitations of the Study ..................................................................... 10
Chapter II: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 12
History of Reading Recovery ......................................................................................... 12
Early Literacy Instruction .............................................................................................. 13
Intervention Format ....................................................................................................... 15
One-On-One Tutoring ........................................................................................ 15
Cost Effectiveness .............................................................................................. 16
Intervention Effectiveness ............................................................................................. 18
Phonological/Phonemic Awareness .................................................................... 18
Phonics .............................................................................................................. 19
Fluency .............................................................................................................. 21
Reading Comprehension: Vocabulary & Text Comprehension ........................... 22
Chapter III: Summary, Critical Analysis, and Recommendations ............................................... 25
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 25
Critical Analysis and Recommendations for Future Research ........................................ 26
5
Recommendations for School Psychologists .................................................................. 28
References ................................................................................................................................ 29
6
Chapter I: Introduction
According to the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achieving (CIERA) and
the National Institute for Literacy (2003) reading is critical to every student’s academic success.
Without establishing literacy skills early in their academic careers, students’ reading and writing
deficiencies greatly impact their ability to learn across all subject areas (National Institute for
Literacy, 2003). In addition, according to Shanahan & Barr (2001), low levels of literacy have
also been linked to lower overall self-esteem, increased disciplinary problems, and lower
likelihood of graduation from high school. In order to address the nationwide problem of reading
failure for early readers, the National Reading Panel Report strongly supports the breakdown of
reading instruction into five key areas, including: phonological/phonemic awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension (National Institute for Literacy, 2003).
Additionally, according to Hurry & Sylva (2007), evidence has shown early intervention
in these reading skills can be an effective method to addressing at-risk readers’ academic
concerns. By addressing concerns up front we can help prevent “Matthew effects,” otherwise
known as the widening gap between poor readers and their peers as they progress through their
academic careers. Through early intervention, students can begin to achieve at the level of their
same age peers, despite initial delays in performance. According to Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes &
Moody (2000), one-on-one interventions focus all the efforts of a trained reading teacher on the
specific needs of the at-risk student in order to target individual needs and skill deficits in a
meaningful way.
Reading Recovery is an extremely well established international reading intervention
utilizing one-on-one tutoring methods implemented by trained teachers with at-risk first-grade
students for 12-20 weeks (Cox & Hopkins, 2006). As far as the overall purpose of Reading
7
Recovery, the intervention was introduced to the United States in 1984 and focuses on
professional development for teachers as well as helping at-risk first-graders reach grade-level
expectations for reading (Cox & Hopkins, 2006). At-risk students are those who have not
responded to quality core instruction and demonstrate delays in reading compared to their same
age peers. According to D’Agostino & Murphy (2004), Marie Clay originally developed the
intervention in New Zealand in 1976, based on a reading instruction philosophy focusing on
using multiple cues when reading in order to increase comprehension. She believed beginning
readers need to learn strategies to increase reading comprehension above all else, and word-level
cues distract from overall meaning (Chapman, Tunmer, & Prochnow, 2001). However, Clay’s
top-down approach contradicts what reading researchers have since proven to be most valuable
in reading instruction: the importance of starting with the basics of phonological awareness and
phonemic decoding to ensure long-term literacy success; in other words, a bottom-up approach
to learning to read (Mascolo, Flanagan & Alfonso, 2013).
This paper will explore the costs and benefits of Reading Recovery and the intervention’s
place in an academic setting, more specifically, where the intervention fits within a Response to
Intervention system. Reading Recovery effectiveness has been debated due to evidence regarding
benefits and cost/risks experienced by the at-risk-readers, the Reading Recovery teachers, and/or
the school systems that choose to implement the intervention. When it comes to financial cost of
the intervention, there is a debate about whether the costs of the intervention meet the rate of
success. Some researchers argue by paying for reading intervention up front with at-risk first
graders, the education system as a whole can save money that may have had to be allocated later
on to students qualifying for special education for the area of learning disabilities in reading
(Schwartz, Hobsbaum, Briggs & Scull, 2009). On the other hand, arguments have also been
8
made that the amount of resources and costs necessary to implement an intervention as intensive
as Reading Recovery are not worth the cost as determined by the effectiveness of the intervention
for at-risk readers (Baker et al., 2002). While benefits may be increased reading scores,
individualized learning plans, and increased training for teachers, costs include stigmatization of
the learners as “at-risk,” limited allocation of funds and resources in the district, and ineffective
progress monitoring or demonstration of success.
Statement of the Problem
The research behind the effectiveness of Reading Recovery as a reading intervention for
at-risk first-grade readers has yet to reach a definitive conclusion. The benefits of one-on-one
tutoring with first-grade students may appear flawless at first glance, and assumptions can be
made about the effectiveness of this method with all students. However, one must also consider
the costs and risks of intensive intervention with regard to the time and resources of the teacher,
and the costs versus the benefits to the school system overall. In addition, there is currently
limited research identifying school psychologist’s perspectives about whether or not Reading
Recovery meets evidence-based standards of practice centered on current research regarding
effective interventions, and if programs like Reading Recovery that require additional training,
costs, and resources are worthy of school psychologists’ support. Moreover, contrary to evidence
suggesting a shift in reading curriculum from support of the whole-language approach to a
phonics-based approach to learning, the Reading Recovery curriculum has not altered its
methods to match a bottom-up approach. In conclusion, research into the effectiveness of
Reading Recovery in addressing the five main areas of reading deficits is necessary to develop a
fuller understanding of the overall impact of this intervention for struggling beginning readers.
9
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify the advantages and disadvantages of Reading
Recovery as a reading intervention for at-risk first-grade readers using the standards of evidence-
based criteria for a successful reading intervention. Criteria for evaluation were derived from
recommendations of the National Association of School Psychology (NASP), the Center for the
Improvement of Early Reading Achieving (CIERA), and the National Institute for Literacy. The
ultimate goal of this research is to establish a system for school psychologists to evaluate
whether or not potential reading interventions are effective. Reading Recovery is used as a model
of a potential reading intervention. Information presented in this literature review was gathered
during Spring 2013 and Summer 2013 academic terms.
Research Questions
The following research questions will be addressed in this literature review.
1. Based on the evidence, how effective is Reading Recovery’s one-on-one tutoring format?
2. Based on the evidence, how effective is Reading Recovery relative to its cost per student?
3. Based on the evidence, how effective is Reading Recovery in the reading skill areas of
phonological/phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension?
4. What changes can be made to Reading Recovery to improve its ability to increase reading
levels of at-risk readers based on current reading research?
Definition of Terms
Reading Recovery one-on-one tutoring. “During a period of 12-20 weeks (30-50 hours
of teaching time), RR children receive individual instruction from a specially trained teacher for
30 minutes a day” (Cox & Hopkins, 2006, p. 254).
10
Phonemic awareness. “The ability to notice, think about, and work with individual
sounds in spoken words” (National Institute for Literacy, 2003, p. 2).
Phonics. “The relationship between the letters (graphemes) of written language and the
individual sounds (phonemes) of spoken language” (National Institute for Literacy, 2003, p.12).
Fluency. “The ability to read a text accurately and quickly” (National Institute for
Literacy, 2003, p. 22).
Reading comprehension. “Reading comprehension, the understanding of text that has
been read, is a complex skill that requires the use of various strategies to activate one’s prior
knowledge, monitor understanding, self-question, distinguish between the main idea and
supporting details, and summarize” (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Kouzekanani, Bryant, Dickson,
& Blozis, 2003, p. 303).
Assumptions and Limitations of the Study
There are several assumptions and limitations to this review of literature. First, it is
assumed the majority of the references used for this literature review are reliable, peer-reviewed,
and no more than 15 years old. Secondly, it is also assumed the term Reading Recovery, used
throughout the paper refers to the specific reading intervention developed by the Reading
Recovery Council of North America and used in the United States, rather than any of the
international Reading Recovery interventions. Thirdly, the words students and children used
interchangeably throughout the paper are in reference to first-grade at-risk readers.
This literature review also has several limitations. It is likely the majority of the sources
used in this study will be limited to the UW-Stout databases. Furthermore, the conclusions of this
study are not all inclusive or applicable to all at-risk readers, due to the confounding variables of
different educational settings, student backgrounds, Reading Recovery teachers, and other
11
factors. Finally, the final summary and recommendations are limited to the information gathered
from the research, rather than first-hand experience with the Reading Recovery intervention.
12
Chapter II: Literature Review
The purpose of this study is to explore the effectiveness of intensive reading interventions
with at-risk first-grade students. More specifically, this report will review what current literature
presents about the effectiveness of the Reading Recovery intervention to advance at-risk students
from below-grade-level reading performance to at-level performance within the suggested
intervention time-frame of 12-20 weeks. The following review of literature will address what
current research reports about the format of Reading Recovery including the one-on-one tutoring,
and the program’s cost effectiveness, as well as the effectiveness of Reading Recovery
intervention’s focus on each of the five areas of reading skills including; phonological/phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension (vocabulary & text comprehension).
History of Reading Recovery
Throughout the last 50 years, educators have become increasingly concerned about
growing numbers of struggling readers worldwide and many have determined their students need
a preventative early intervention program in order to help students read at the same level as their
same age peers. Many of these concerns are based on data from standardized reading
assessments, in which a great number of students are testing below expected reading levels. For
example, in the year 2000, 37% of fourth grade readers tested by the National Center of
Educational Statistics were reading at or below “basic” reading level, meaning their scores fell
below the 25th percentile of performance (Bonfiglio, Daly, Persampieri & Anderson, 2006).
Due to concerns about under-performing readers, Marie Clay from New Zealand
developed Reading Recovery as an early intervention for lowest achieving first-grade readers.
According to Kelly, Knein & Pinnell (1994), the intervention is designed so teachers are first
required to complete a one-year training course prior to working with students. Through the
13
training program Reading Recovery teachers learn to individualize lessons based on the specific
skill deficits of the struggling readers they are working with. They also learn how to effectively
perform the steps of the intervention. The typical format of Reading Recovery follows a series of
seven activities in a one-on-one setting with the trained Reading Recovery teacher. These
activities include: 1) reading two or three familiar books, 2) independent reading of previous
day’s new book while the teacher takes a running record of student mistakes and miscues, 3)
letter and word identification using plastic letters on a magnetic board, 4) writing a story using
the ability to hear sounds in words, 5) reassembling a cut-up story, 6) introducing a new book, 6)
reading the new book (Chapman, Tunmer, & Prochnow, 2000). Through the utilization of these
activities with struggling students, teachers work to accomplish the primary goal of creating
better independent readers. In other words, the fundamental goal of the Reading Recovery
intervention is to reduce the number of students who develop and maintain difficulties with
reading by teaching them reading and writing strategies for success (D’Agostino & Murphy,
2004). According to D’Agostino & Murphy (2004), since Reading Recovery’s initial
development in 1976, the intervention has exploded in popularity. As of 2002 over 18,000
trained Reading Recovery teachers were instructing over 146,000 students in 10,451 schools, in
3,238 school districts in the United States alone. In addition, D’Agostino & Murphy (2004)
describe the foundation of the intervention in four parts: 1) reading is a social activity, 2) reading
is more than just reading words, 3) children begin to read by attending to specific facets of
printed text, and 4) tasks require less attention as they become more fluid and automatic.
Early Literacy Instruction
According to research developed by the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading
Achievement and funded by the National Institute for Literacy, five essential components of
14
early literacy instruction can be assessed and targeted based on individual student reading
deficits. These five areas of instruction include: phonological/phonemic awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension (National Institute for Literacy, 2003). Because
Reading Recovery is an early intervention intended to help struggling first-grade readers catch up
to their peers who are reading at grade level, it can be evaluated based on how it claims to meet
the above specific areas of instruction.
This review of literature will first address the effectiveness of Reading Recovery as an
intervention for what Mascolo, Flanagan & Alfonso (2013) have determined to be the two major
components necessary for students to learn to read. The two main processes that aid students in
their methods of learning to read include: orthographically mapping language and phonetically
decoding unfamiliar words. Orthographic mapping is a process allowing students to instantly
comprehend words they hear due to sounds stored linguistically in their long-term memory. In
order to map and store linguistic knowledge, students must master sound-symbol skills, for
example, knowing what sound each letter of the alphabet makes, and phonemic awareness
(Mascolo, Flanagan & Alfonso, 2013). Phonemic awareness is defined as the auditory ability to
notice, think about and work with individual sounds in spoken words, where as phonics is the
relationship between the letters of written language and their individual sounds (National
Institute for Literacy, 2003).
Next, this review of literature will briefly address the effectiveness of the Reading
Recovery program in addressing students whose skill deficits relate to the more advanced reading
skills including fluency, and reading comprehension (a combination of vocabulary and text
comprehension skills). Fluency involves reading with accuracy and speed (National Institute for
15
Literacy, 2003), whereas reading comprehension is the complex understanding of the text using
cues (Vaughn et al., 2003).
Intervention Format
The intervention format refers to the teacher to student ratio and can vary by design to be
any of the following: one-on-one, paired peers, one-to-three, small group, or large group.
One-on-one tutoring. The format of the Reading Recovery intervention follows a model
of one-on-one tutoring with a trained reading teacher and a struggling first-grade student.
Research supports one-on-one tutoring due to several important factors, including: the benefits of
high-quality conversations between students and adults, the importance of rapport and trust for
teaching and maintaining a skill, and the ability to create self-sustaining readers through
supported guidance. In addition, when compared to classroom instruction, research clearly
supports one-on-one instruction as more effective (Tunmer & Chapman, 2003). According to
Kelly, Klein, & Pinnell (1994) Reading Recovery is an intervention designed around
opportunities for teachers and students to build a strong relationship through talking together
while they remain actively engaged in reading and writing. Conversation is the key to Reading
Recovery success. In addition, Marie Clay, the developer of Reading Recovery, stated the
connection between student and teacher in a one-on-one setting provides students with the
highest quality instruction. The intervention supports the student’s learning through establishing
a constant and familiar trusting partnership with their Reading Recovery teacher whom they meet
with on a regular basis (Kelly, Klein, & Pinnell, 1994). Furthermore, one-on-one lessons help
create self-sustaining independent readers by tailoring instruction to the student’s individual
needs and teaching them strategies about how to self-monitor, check their understanding of the
reading, and how to predict and confirm what will come next. By working with the student one-
16
on-one, teachers help students develop and make use of meta-cognitive strategies in their reading
(Hurry & Sylva, 2007).
Although the original Reading Recovery intervention is based on a one-on-one model,
research has also suggested pairs as well as one-to-three ratios can have similar effectiveness.
According to Iversen, Tunmer & Chapman (2005) many schools may face practical limitations
such as funding or resources making the ability to provide one-on-one interventions for
struggling readers nearly impossible. In these cases, they may consider using paired or small
group instruction in order to decrease the cost of the intervention while increasing the number of
students who can benefit from increased reading support. Iveren, Tunmer & Chapman (2005)
found Reading Recovery lessons could be adapted for teaching pairs of struggling students
without compromising the integrity of the lessons as long as the average lesson time was
increased from the original 30-minute lesson to a 41-minute lesson (Iversen, Tunmer, &
Chapman, 2005). Vaughn et al. (2003) also studied the effectiveness of grouping students for
reading instruction compared to one-on-one lessons. Their findings suggest students in one-on-
one instruction do not make statistically higher gains in ability compared to their peers who
learned in a one-to-three setting. In fact, one-to-three groupings allow more students to receive
instruction and the same number of students to receive additional time and practice.
Cost effectiveness. Various researchers have estimated what they believe is a near
accurate cost of the Reading Recovery intervention per student. Many factors play into
calculating cost, some of which include; teacher’s salaries and on-going training, the number of
students tutored by each teacher, cost of materials, start up costs, and any additional costs. For
this reason, multiple researchers have estimated variable costs of the intervention per student.
According to Hiebert (1994), a low-end estimate of the cost of Reading Recovery using an
17
average student to Reading Recovery teacher ratio of 11:1 the cost of tutoring per student comes
out to around $3,000. By comparison, Shanahan & Barr (1995) estimated if an average of about
ten students are worked with per year the average cost per student would be $4,625, a number
decreases to $2,890 per student if the student teacher ratio is 16:1. Based on these two estimates,
it appears the average cost of Reading Recovery intervention per student falls in the range of
about $2,900 to $4,600. Compared to other reading interventions utilizing small groups,
volunteers, or free/low cost materials, Reading Recovery is an overall highly expensive
intervention for school districts.
Although Reading Recovery has more associated costs than other interventions, it has
continued to be utilized across the United States due to the following factors: the intensity of its
presentation for struggling readers, its foundation in evidence-based practices, regular progress
monitoring, and the use of a problem solving approach to determine what students need to learn
on an individual level (Reynolds, Wheldall & Madelaine, 2009). Due to these aforementioned
factors, Reading Recovery can work effectively within a Response to Intervention system.
However, because of the high cost of the intervention Reynolds, Wheldall & Madelaine (2009)
argue Reading Recovery should be reserved for only tier three students who have not
experienced success through either core instruction or a tier two small group intervention. In
some school districts, Reading Recovery in its current format may only be cost effective for those
students who qualify for special education services. Therefore, in a circumstance where Reading
Recovery tutoring is utilized only in special education, the intervention has failed to decrease
overall costs, and another tier two intervention is still needed to assist the bottom 25 percent at-
risk readers and help them “catch up” to their peers before special education becomes a
necessity.
18
Several recommendations have been made to help decrease the costs of Reading
Recovery and make the tutoring accessible for more students. For instance, one of the major
costs to school districts for the Reading Recovery intervention is the training and on-going
professional development for Reading Recovery teachers. In order to help decrease costs for
schools with limited budgets, Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes & Moody (2000) recommend using
college students and trained community volunteers, and having them work under the instruction
of a Reading Recovery teacher or a reading specialist. By bringing in volunteer community
members, schools may be able to provide more struggling readers with the one-on-one
instruction they need to advance their reading abilities. In conclusion, if the intervention was
made available with options such as plans for training volunteers or switching to a small group
format, tutoring would be able to expand to include a larger number of students and help great
numbers work towards at-level reading.
Intervention Effectiveness
The effectiveness of the Reading Recovery intervention is subdivided into the five
recommended areas of reading instruction including: phonological/phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension (which includes vocabulary and text
comprehension) in order to evaluate the potential for student success in each area using the
Reading Recovery curriculum. Due to limited research available, vocabulary has been included
in the reading comprehension section.
Phonological/phonemic awareness. With regard to phonemic awareness as well as
phonological awareness (understanding the larger parts of spoken language in order to identify
and manipulate or decode parts of speech), research reports Reading Recovery is an insufficient
intervention for addressing this ability in struggling readers. According to Chapman, Tunmer &
19
Prochnow (2001), the students who benefited most from the Reading Recovery intervention were
already proficient to advanced in phonological-processing skills prior to entering the
intervention, compared to students who lacked these skills and consequently saw little or no
benefit from Reading Recovery instruction and support. Furthermore, Iversen, Tunmer, &
Chapman (2005), report one of the major criticisms of Reading Recovery is that the intervention
does not follow current research guidelines about the most effective methods of reading
instruction. Evidence suggests the preferred method of teaching reading is to break down the
processes of phonological information, which has been determined to be a key component to
later fluency and comprehension. Reading Recovery, however, teaches students how to identify
unknown words through textual and picture clues and generate hypotheses about what will come
next. The lessons rarely if ever address how to identify words from letter-sound cues.
Overall, the research has suggested Reading Recovery is not an effective intervention for
students with phonemic awareness deficits. In fact, Tumner and Chapman’s research (2003),
found at-risk Reading Recovery students’ experiences in the program did little to nothing to
improve phonological skills. The few children who received some benefit from Reading
Recovery went into the intervention with more advanced phonological processing skills than
their at-risk reading peers. Based on these results, they recommend Reading Recovery place a
stronger emphasis on explicit instruction in phonological awareness, and focus more on directly
teaching orthographic patterns and word identification strategies rather than the current lessons
which focus on mini-lessons to correct oral reading errors (Tumner & Chapman, 2003).
Phonics. According to Mascolo, Flanagan & Alfonso (2013) phonetic decoding is a
strategy to identify unfamiliar words essential to effective reading. When it comes to phonics
instruction, the National Institute for Literacy (2003) recommends systematic and explicit
20
phonics instruction as the more effective method compared to non-systematic or no phonics
instruction. Some of the ways students can practice this skill is by being provided with books and
stories containing a large number of words students can work at decoding using the explicitly
taught letter-sound relationships they have learned and are in the process of learning.
With these recommendations in mind, as an intervention for students with phonics
difficulties, research suggests Reading Recovery was not designed to address phonics concerns.
According to Chapman, Tunmer & Prochnow (2001) in New Zealand, where the Reading
Recovery intervention was developed, the overall approach to reading instruction follows a
comprehension and full language approach. In fact, in New Zealand it is widely believed
teachings phonics explicitly is a difficult, unnecessary, and fruitless activity. The Reading
Recovery intervention follows the New Zealand perspective by focusing on comprehension and
teaching how to read context cues, rather than going back to the basics of decoding. In addition,
after evaluating the long-term effectiveness of Reading Recovery, researchers Hurry & Sylva
(2007) suggest combining the basics of the intervention with additional phonics support for the
weakest readers. Therefore, the original intervention does very little to address phonics concerns
without being paired with phonics-based interventions.
Contrary to the majority of findings, research-based evidence has come forth to suggest
potentially positive gains made in phonics through the Reading Recovery intervention. The US
Department of Education et al. (2008), determined Reading Recovery to have positive effects in
the area of alphabetics, which includes phonemic awareness and phonics. However, according to
D’Agostino & Murphy (2004), these results may be at least partially due to both a regression to
the mean and an inflation of effect size. Effect size in both findings suggest positive effects of
Reading Recovery on student phonic abilities often include only students who successfully
21
completed the program, and therefore excludes those students with severe deficits in this area
who were more likely than not referred for other services due to insufficient progress. Finally,
according to Chapman, Tunmer & Prochnow (2001) Reading Recovery does not meet the
standards for direct, explicit instruction. Although it is evidence-based, the theory behind the
intervention is constructivist. In other words, Marie Clay, a cognitive psychologist, believes
knowledge is built upon previous knowledge (schemas) accessed through exploration and active
learning, rather than direct instruction which focuses on purposeful and highly structured
instructional sequences (National Institute for Literacy, 2003). In conclusion, Reading Recovery
could benefit from a revision including more explicit and direct instruction to teach phonics in
order to better address the phonetic deficits in the lowest at-risk readers and prevent unnecessary
special education referrals.
Fluency. According to DeFord (1991), fluent reading is defined as the ability to read
smoothly and with ease, without frequent pausing for word identification. Reading fluency skill
deficits are often one of the most commonly experienced by struggling readers (Vaughn et al.,
2003). Vaughn et al. (2003) also suggests decreased rate impacts overall reading performance
due to the amount of material read, processed, and understood compared to same age peers.
However, DeFord (1991) argues while accuracy (rate) is a key component to fluency, other
essential elements include juncture (pausing in voicing), pitch (rise and fall of voice), stress
(voice emphasis), and intonation based on the meaning of the passage.
In order to address fluency issues for beginning readers the following interventions are
suggested based on research: repeated reading, class-wide peer tutoring, modeled reading, and
previewing (Vaughn et al., 2003). Furthermore, the National Institute for Literacy (2003)
suggests repeated reading and monitored oral reading to address fluency concerns in addition to
22
carefully designed feedback to guide the reader’s performance. They do not endorse silent,
independent reading with minimal guidance and feedback as a method for improving overall
reading achievement. The format of the Reading Recovery intervention addresses both the
complex nature of fluency as a skill set, and the recommended instruction techniques based on
the research. According to DeFord (1991), the following factors are those most affecting fluent
oral reading. These include: the material, the reader’s strategy flexibility, the reader’s
knowledge, the match of language between text and reader, the purpose of the reader, and other
contextual factors. According to Kelly, Klein, & Pinnell (1994), the Reading Recovery lessons
follow the structure of both repeated readings of familiar books and monitored reading through
the use of a running record. Finally, a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of Reading
Recovery by the U.S. Department of Education et al. (2008) concluded in the What Works
Clearinghouse Beginning Reading report Reading Recovery has potentially positive effects on
student reading fluency after intervention. In conclusion, with regard to the area of reading
fluency, Reading Recovery has a potential for effectively addressing this skill deficit in at-risk
readers, however, adding modeled fluent reading could strengthen instruction.
Reading comprehension: vocabulary & text comprehension. When it comes to
learning to read, often times early elementary teachers end goal for their students is to understand
what they are reading. In other words, once students have acquired the beginning “learning to
read skills,” they now get to apply those skills in order to “read to learn.” According to Vaughn
et al. (2003), reading comprehension is defined as a complex skill requiring the use of various
strategies to activate one’s prior knowledge, monitor understanding, self-question, distinguish
between main and supporting details, and summarize. Many of these reading strategies are
developed through specific instruction before, during, or after reading a text.
23
Creator of Reading Recovery, Marie Clay, strongly supported the top-down whole
language approach to reading. She argued that text-based predictions were the key to successful
reading ability, and reading is largely dependent on the ability to increase one’s knowledge of
syntactical and semantic clues in order to hypothesize unknown words encountered in text
(Tunmer & Chapman, 2003). According to Tunmer & Chapman (2003), the scientific
community has rejected the whole language view of learning to read. They have proven through
overwhelming results when it comes to overall understanding, learning sound-letter cues is far
more important than focusing on syntax and semantics. Therefore, the fundamental principles
behind reading comprehension in the Reading Recovery intervention are flawed.
Furthermore, Reading Recovery teaches reading comprehension, including vocabulary
and comprehension strategies using a text-based method in which students engaged in a
psycholinguistic guessing game. According to Mascolo, Flanagan, & Alfonso (2013), the
psycholinguistic guessing game is the foundational theory behind the whole language approach
to reading instruction and a misunderstood concept behind sight-word learning. This theory
posits that skilled readers can identify thousands of words by using cues as they read through a
new text. Using this approach, decoding becomes the product of comprehension as students fill
in the blank using surrounding words and pictures. According to Hurry & Sylva (2007), Reading
Recovery lessons teach students self-monitoring by strategies such as predict and confirm to
learn new vocabulary words and comprehend new texts. Their Reading Recovery teachers
directly teach them meta-cognitive strategies in order to allow them to read more independently.
One key aspect to this form of learning, however, is the shared level of vocabulary between the
reader and the text. According to DeFord (1991), the fluency and comprehension of the reader
are likely to suffer greatly if a mismatch occurs in which they lack sufficient cues to guess the
24
unknown words. It is for this reason and others Mascolo, Flanagan, & Alfonso (2013), have
discredited the psycholinguist guessing game and whole language approach to learning to read
due to evidence that all readers develop and maintain a sight-vocabulary in their long-term
memory. They argue skilled readers are able to recognize a vast pool of different words without
any contextual cueing because of previous decoding and memorization of sound structure.
Therefore, when reading comprehension and vocabulary appear weaker in struggling readers
they are no longer labeled as simply “poor guessers” who need to learn better guessing
techniques, but rather, it can be determined that poor readers are those who need to develop sight
vocabulary further through decoding, direct instruction and repeated exposure/practice. In
conclusion, Reading Recovery incorrectly teaches students to guess rather than decipher
vocabulary and meaning, allowing for more frequent mistakes and misunderstanding of text.
25
Chapter III: Summary, Critical Analysis & Recommendations
This chapter will begin with a summary and critical analysis of the present literature
review’s findings. In addition, it will include recommendations for future research and
recommendations for school psychologists for selecting effective reading interventions for at-risk
readers in their districts.
Summary
In a society in which reading ability is highly correlated to academic success, it is
imperative that educational administrators, such as school psychologists, are equipped with a
system for evaluating the effectiveness of reading interventions for their districts. Due to the lack
of conclusive results regarding the effectiveness of Reading Recovery as a reading intervention
for at-risk first-grade readers, Reading Recovery was selected as a model of an intervention for
which an evaluation system could be established.
After selecting an intervention to evaluate, the review of literature explored the current
research’s essential reading skills in order to establish a system of evaluation. According to
Joseph (2008), the National Association for School Psychology (NASP) supports reading
interventions functioning within the three-tiered response-to-intervention (RTI) model.
Furthermore, the intervention must be efficient and effective at achieving students’ reading
goals; in other words, progress should be monitored in order to demonstrate an increase in
performance over the course of the intervention. Finally, the model should match instruction to
meet student needs.
In addition to meeting the criteria for an RTI model, effectiveness and efficiency, and
progress monitoring, research also supports a breakdown of specific reading skills. Joseph (2008)
and the National Institute for Literacy (2003) both support the teaching of specific techniques in
26
the areas of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. These skills
are considered to be critical to reading success.
Critical Analysis and Recommendations for Future Research
Due to the NASP recommendations for best practices on interventions for students with
reading problems, the review of literature evaluated Reading Recovery in the areas of
intervention format and intervention effectiveness in order to evaluate the overall program using
evidence-based criteria. Intervention format concentrated on the delivery model, efficiency, and
cost of the program, while intervention effectiveness evaluated whether or not each of the key
reading skills is successfully taught and monitored through the Reading Recovery intervention.
In reference to the format and cost of the one-on-one intervention design, Reynolds,
Wheldall & Madelaine (2009) recommend that Reading Recovery in its current delivery model
be reserved for students receiving services in the most intensive tier three of a Response to
Intervention system. In addition, the current intensity of the intervention, one-on-one, five days
per week for 30 minutes per day, is difficult for smaller districts with fewer resources to maintain
over a long period of time. Therefore, both Iveren, Tunmer & Chapman (2005) and Vaughn et al.
(2003) suggest modifying the format to include a one-to-three model of instruction. By
increasing the number of students per group, researchers hope to decease the cost of the
intervention per student and make Reading Recovery more accessible in a period when funds for
education are limited. Future research should look into developing accessible small group
models of delivery as alternatives to the traditional one-on-one approach. By altering the format
to a small group design, Reading Recovery may be better equipped to serve students in the tier
two level of reading intervention need.
27
With regard to the effectiveness of Reading Recovery in addressing the critical reading
skills, research demonstrates strengths in the area of reading fluency, and need for improvement
in the areas of phonological/phonemic awareness, phonics, and reading comprehension. In the
area of reading fluency, the U.S. Department of Education et al. (2008) concluded that Reading
Recovery has potentially positive effects on student reading fluency after intervention. In
addition, Kelly, Klein, & Pinnell (1994) determined that Reading Recovery lessons include both
repeated readings of familiar books and monitored reading through the use of a running record.
Both of these lesson structures are endorsed and recommended by researchers Vaughn et al.,
(2003) and the National Institute for Literacy (2003). Therefore, Reading Recovery appears to be
on track with the evidence-based practices for reading fluency; however, adding modeled fluent
reading to the lessons could further strengthen instruction.
In the area of phonological/phonemic awareness Tumner & Chapman (2003) recommend
Reading Recovery explicitly teach phonological awareness, orthographic patterns, and word
identification strategies. The current model, which simply corrects oral reading errors, is not
doing enough for the at-risk readers for whom phonological deficits are preventing from
successful reading. In fact, students who experience success with the Reading Recovery
intervention demonstrate a prior knowledge or ability with phonological awareness. In addition,
Chapman, Tunmer & Prochnow (2001) recommend more explicit and direct instruction in the
area of phonics be added to the Reading Recovery program in order to better address at-risk
readers whose delays in phonics acquisition are preventing them from fluent reading. By adding
decoding tasks and explicitly teaching phonics, researchers believe Reading Recovery will be
better able to help some of the most struggling at-risk readers who lack these basic skills. Finally,
in the area of reading comprehension, Mascolo, Flanagan, & Alfonso (2013) argue against
28
Reading Recovery’s use of the psycholinguist guessing game approach to reading comprehension
and in favor of decoding, direct instruction, and repeated exposure and practice. According to
Mascolo, Flanagan, & Alfonso’s (2013) research, the “guessing” strategies Reading Recovery
instruction teaches students leads to frequent mistakes and misunderstanding.
In conclusion, the critical reading skills of phonological/phonemic awareness, phonics, and
reading comprehension are inadequately addressed with the Reading Recovery intervention and a
shift to more direct and explicit instruction in these skill areas would greatly benefit and
strengthen the program. Future research should be conducted in order to utilize the existing
framework of Reading Recovery and alter the instruction to address these concern areas.
Recommendations for School Psychologists
Based on this current literature review, when evaluating a reading intervention for
effectiveness and efficiency, School Psychologists should consider and research the following
factors (Joseph, 2008): 1) What is the format of the intervention? In other words, will the
intervention work within a multi-tier system of delivery? 2) Is the intervention cost effective? In
other words, will the costs of implementing be worth the number of students who experience
significant progress and remain in general education? 3) Does the intervention effectively teach
specific reading skills? In other words, do the lessons teach phonological/phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension in line with the current evidence-based
approaches for teaching these skills?
29
References
Baker, S., Berninger, V. W., Bruck, M., Chapman, J., Eden, G., Elbaum, B., … Wolf, M. (2002).
Evidence-based research on Reading Recovery. Education News, 1-10. Retrieved from
http://www.educationnews.org/articles/evidence--based-research-on-reading-
recovery.html
Bonfiglio, C. M., Daly, E. J., Persampieri, M., & Anderson, M. (2006). An experimental
analysis of the effects of reading interventions in a small group reading instruction
context. Journal of Behavior Education, 15, 93-109. doi: 10.1007/s10864-006-9009-7
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(2), 141-176. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hssr20/5/2#.Ud1vD-DOx4E
Cox, B. E., & Hopkins, C. J. (2006). Building on theoretical principals gleaned from Reading
Recovery to inform classroom practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(2), 254-267.
doi: 10.1598/RRQ.41.2.5
D’Agostino, J. V., & Murphy, J. A. (2004). A meta-analysis of reading recovery in United States
schools. Educational Education and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 23-38. doi:
10.3102/01623737026001023
DeFord, D. E. (1991). Fluency in initial reading instruction: A Reading Recovery lesson. Theory
Into Practice, 30(3), 201-210. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/htip20/30/3#.Ud1zK-DOx4E
30
Dunn, M. (2010). Response to intervention and reading difficulties: A conceptual model that
includes Reading Recovery. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 8(1), 21-40.
Retrieved from http://www.ldworldwide.org/component/content/article/962
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one
tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at work for reading failure? A meta-
analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605-619.
Retrieved from http://www.deepdyve.com/browse/journals/journal-of-educational-
psychology/2000/v92/i4
Hiebert, E. H. (1994). Reading Recovery in the United States: What difference does it make to
an age cohort? Educational Researcher, 15-25. doi: 10.3102/0013189X023009015
Hurry, J., & Sylva, K. (2007). Long-term outcomes of early reading intervention. Journal of
Research in Reading, 30(3), 227-248. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00338.x
Iversen, S., Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2005). The effects of varying group size on the
reading recovery approach to preventive early intervention. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 38(5), 456-472.
Joseph, L. M. (2008). Best practices on interventions for students with reading problems. Best
Practices in School Psychology, 4, 1163-1180. Retrieved from
http://www.nasponline.org publications booksproducts ... 1163 b pv66 2 .pdf
Kelly, P. R., Klein, A. F., & Pinnell, G. S. (1994). In D. F. Lancy (Ed.) Children's emergent
literacy: From research to practice (pp. 309-324). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Mascolo, J. T., Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (Eds.) (2013). Essentials of planning, selecting
and tailoring intervention: Addressing the needs of the unique learner. New York: Wiley.
31
National Institute for Literacy. (2003). Report of the National Reading Panel. Put reading first:
The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.fredonia.edu/coe/Put%20Reading%20First%20Publilcation.pdf
Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2009). The devil is in the detail regarding the
efficacy of Reading Recovery: A rejoinder to Schwartz, Hobsbaum, Briggs, and Scull.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56(1), 17-35. doi:
10.1080/10349120802681580
Schwatz, R. M., Hobsbaum, A., Briggs, C., & Scull, J. (2009). Reading Recovery and evidenced-
based practice: A response to Reynolds and Wheldall. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 56(1), 5-15. doi: 10.1080/10349120802681564
Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of
an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly,
30(4), 958-996.
Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2003). The Reading Recovery approach to preventative early
intervention: As good at it gets? Reading Psychology, 24, 337-360. doi:
10.1080/02702710390227378
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, What Works Clearinghouse. (2008). Reading
Recovery: Beginning reading. WWC Intervention Report, 1-6.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D. P., Dickson, S., & Blozis, S. A.
(2003). Reading instruction grouping for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and
Special Education, 24(5), 301-315.
