Reading Recovery

Last updated

Reading Recovery is a short-term intervention approach designed for English-speaking children aged five or six, who are the lowest achieving in literacy after their first year of school. For instance, a child who is unable to read the simplest of books or write their own name, after a year in school, would be appropriate for a referral to a Reading Recovery program. The intervention involves intensive one-to-one lessons for 30 minutes a day with a teacher trained in the Reading Recovery method, for between 12 and 20 weeks.

Contents

Reading Recovery was developed in the 1970s by New Zealand educator Marie Clay. After lengthy observations of early readers, Clay defined reading as a message-getting, problem-solving activity, and writing as a message-sending, problem-solving activity. Clay suggested that both activities involved linking invisible patterns of oral language with visible symbols. [1] The approach has come under increasing scrutiny in the 21st century.

Reading Recovery use and practice

"Reading Recovery" is in use in a number of English-speaking countries. The phrase "Reading Recovery" is a proprietary registered trademark held by the Marie Clay Trust in New Zealand, [2] with Ohio State University in the US and the Institute of Education in the UK. The Marie Clay Trust and the International Reading Recovery Trainers Organization (IRRTO) licenses use of the title Reading Recovery to affiliated entities around the world. [3]

Australia

In 2015, a report from the New South Wales Department of Education, [4] concluded that Reading Recovery was largely ineffective, and should not be used for most children. [5] As a result, in 2016, Reading Recovery lost its "mandated status" as part of the curriculum in NSW's more than 900 public schools, although individual schools may still opt to use it. [6] A further consequence of this shift in policy is that, in 2017, the NSW Department of Education initiated a hiring program to recruit dozens of new literacy and numeracy experts to support teachers in "evidence-based professional learning", according to NSW Minister for Education, Rob Stokes. [7]

New Zealand

After Reading Recovery was removed from the curriculum in many Australian schools, [6] its utility has been questioned by researchers and policy makers in New Zealand as well. [8] By 2019, this had led to reduction in use of Reading Recovery in New Zealand's public schools, and toward a greater emphasis on phonics-based instruction. [9] Parent activism has also contributed to a rise in phonics based instruction and a concomitant decrease in three cueing system (meaning, structural, and visual cueing) based instruction in New Zealand schools. [10]

North America

The Reading Recovery Council of North America, Inc. is a not-for-profit association of Reading Recovery professionals, advocates, and partners. It is an advocate for Reading Recovery throughout North America (United States and Canada). It publishes two journals for this purpose: The Journal of Reading Recovery and Literacy Teaching and Learning. [11]

Reading Recovery and philosophically similar programs are still used in the United States, but there has been significant push back against the approach. Several large school districts have rejected the approach in favor of phonics based instruction. These include Columbus, Ohio, and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. [12] [13]

Failures of Reading Recovery

On April 23, 2022, the Center for Research in Education and Social Policy at the University of Delaware presented the results of a study of the long-term effects of Reading Recovery. The conclusion was that the "long-term impact estimates were significant and negative". The study found that children who received Reading Recovery had scores on state reading tests in third and fourth grade that were below the test scores of similar children who did not receive Reading Recovery. It suggests three possible hypotheses for this outcome:

  1. While Reading Recovery produces large impacts on early literacy measures, it does not give students the required skills for success in later grades; or,
  2. The gains are lost because students do not receive sufficient intervention in later grades; or,
  3. The impacts of the early intervention was washed out by subsequent experiences. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

Whole language is a philosophy of reading and a discredited educational method originally developed for teaching literacy in English to young children. The method became a major model for education in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK in the 1980s and 1990s, despite there being no scientific support for the method's effectiveness. It is based on the premise that learning to read English comes naturally to humans, especially young children, in the same way that learning to speak develops naturally.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Phonics</span> Method of teaching reading and writing

Phonics is a method for teaching reading and writing to beginners. To use phonics is to teach the relationship between the sounds of the spoken language (phonemes), and the letters (graphemes) or groups of letters or syllables of the written language. Phonics is also known as the alphabetic principle or the alphabetic code. It can be used with any writing system that is alphabetic, such as that of English, Russian, and most other languages. Phonics is also sometimes used as part of the process of teaching Chinese people to read and write Chinese characters, which are not alphabetic, using pinyin, which is alphabetic.

Reading for special needs has become an area of interest as the understanding of reading has improved. Teaching children with special needs how to read was not historically pursued under the assumption of the reading readiness model that a reader must learn to read in a hierarchical manner such that one skill must be mastered before learning the next skill. This approach often led to teaching sub-skills of reading in a decontextualized manner, preventing students with special needs from progressing to more advanced literacy lessons and subjecting them to repeated age-inappropriate instruction.

The National Reading Panel (NRP) was a United States government body. Formed in 1997 at the request of Congress, it was a national panel with the stated aim of assessing the effectiveness of different approaches used to teach children to read.

Phonological awareness is an individual's awareness of the phonological structure, or sound structure, of words. Phonological awareness is an important and reliable predictor of later reading ability and has, therefore, been the focus of much research.

This is an index of education articles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Synthetic phonics</span> Teaching reading by blending and segmenting the sounds of the letters

Synthetic phonics, also known as blended phonics or inductive phonics, is a method of teaching English reading which first teaches letter-sounds and then how to blend (synthesise) these sounds to achieve full pronunciation of whole words.

The Orton-Gillingham approach is a multisensory phonics technique for remedial reading instruction developed in the early-20th century. It is practiced as a direct, explicit, cognitive, cumulative, and multi-sensory approach. While it is most commonly associated with teaching individuals with dyslexia, it has been used for non-dyslexic individuals learning to read, spell, and write. In the US, it is promoted by more than 15 commercial programs as well as several private schools for students with dyslexia and related learning disabilities.

High frequency sight words are commonly used words that young children are encouraged to memorize as a whole by sight, so that they can automatically recognize these words in print without having to use any strategies to decode. Sight words were introduced after whole language fell out of favor with the education establishment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marie Clay</span> New Zealand academic, educator, researcher (1926–2007)

Dame Marie Mildred Clay was a researcher from New Zealand known for her work in educational literacy. She was committed to the idea that children who struggle to learn to read and write can be helped with early intervention. A clinical psychologist, she developed the Reading Recovery intervention, a whole language programme in New Zealand, and expanded it worldwide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reading</span> Taking in the meaning of letters or symbols

Reading is the process of taking in the sense or meaning of symbols, often specifically those of a written language, by means of sight or touch.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evidence-based education</span> Paradigm of the education field

Evidence-based education (EBE) is the principle that education practices should be based on the best available scientific evidence, with randomised trials as the gold standard of evidence, rather than tradition, personal judgement, or other influences. Evidence-based education is related to evidence-based teaching, evidence-based learning, and school effectiveness research.

Marcia Invernizzi is an American professor, author, and researcher in the field of Reading Education. At the University of Virginia School of Education and Human Development, she teaches reading education. As founder of the Book Buddies program, she is known as a leader in early literacy intervention.

Fountas & Pinnell reading levels are a proprietary system of reading levels developed by Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell and published by Heinemann to support their Levelled Literacy Interventions (LLI) series of student readers and teacher resource products. In its marketing material, Heinemann refers to its text levelling system by the trademark F&P Text Level Gradient.

READ 180 is a reading intervention program in the USA. It was created by the Scholastic Corporation (Scholastic). Its focus is to utilize adaptive technology to improve literacy in students in Grades 4–12 who read at least two years below their grade level.

Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) was developed in 1993 by Dr. John T. Guthrie with a team of elementary teachers and graduate students. The project designed and implemented a framework of conceptually oriented reading instruction to improve students' amount and breadth of reading, intrinsic motivations for reading, and strategies of search and comprehension. The framework emphasized five phases of reading instruction in a content domain: observing and personalizing, searching and retrieving, comprehending and integrating, communicating to others, and interacting with peers to construct meaning. CORI instruction was contrasted to experience-based teaching and strategy instruction in terms of its support for motivational and cognitive development.

Teachers College Reading and Writing Project was founded and directed by Lucy Calkins, The Robinson Professor of Children's Literature at Teachers College, Columbia University. Its mission was to help young people become avid and skilled readers, writers, and inquirers through research, curriculum development, and in-school professional development. TCRWP developed methods and tools for the teaching of reading and writing through research, curriculum development published through Heinemann, and professional development with teachers and school leaders. TCRWP supported the Reading Workshop and Writing Workshop approaches through its Units of Study curriculum. The project involved thousands of schools and teachers in New York and around the country in an ongoing, multi-faceted in-service community of practitioners engaged in the application and continual refinement of approaches to helping children become effective writers and readers.

Laura M. Justice is a language scientist and expert on interventions to promote children's literacy. She is the EHE Distinguished Professor of Educational Psychology at Ohio State University, where she also serves as the Executive Director of the A. Sophie Rogers School for Early Learning.

Emily Hanford is an American education reporter who hosted the APM Reports podcast Sold a Story. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel called her "the most prominent figure in advocacy for big changes in reading instruction."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of learning to read</span>

The history of learning to read dates back to the invention of writing during the 4th millennium BC.

References

  1. Clay, Marie (1977). Reading: The Patterning of Complex Behaviour. Exeter, New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books.
  2. "Marie Clay Literacy Trust". irrto.org. Retrieved 28 August 2019.
  3. "International Reading Recovery Trainers Organization" . Retrieved 28 August 2019.
  4. Bradford, Deborah; Wan, Wai-Yin (2015). Reading Recovery: A Sector-Wide Analysis (Report). Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation, Department of Education, New South Wales, Australia.
  5. Smith, Alexandra (20 December 2015). "Reading Recovery program used in 960 NSW public schools does not work". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 19 April 2018.
  6. 1 2 Bagshaw, Eryk (21 September 2016). "Reading Recovery: NSW government ditches 30-year-old, $55m a year program". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 19 April 2018.
  7. Smith, Alexandra (30 December 2017). "New literacy teachers recruited as NSW government axes Reading Recovery". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 19 April 2018.
  8. Thomas, Rachel (13 February 2016). "Experts want 'outdated' Reading Recovery scrapped in favour of new programme". Sunday Star-Times. Retrieved 1 June 2019.
  9. Collins, Simon (19 August 2019). "Ministry of Education adds more phonics to school readers". NZ Herald. Retrieved 22 August 2019.
  10. Collins, Simon (28 August 2019). "Parents of dyslexic children campaign for phonics: "Nothing worse than watching a little boy's sparkling eyes disappear"" . Retrieved 8 September 2019.
  11. "Journals - Reading Recovery Council of North America" . Retrieved 28 August 2019.
  12. "Reading Recovery Bites the Dust in Columbus, Ohio". National Right to Read Foundation. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
  13. Hanford, Emily (2 January 2019). "Why Millions Of Kids Can't Read And What Better Teaching Can Do About It". National Public Radio. Retrieved 8 September 2019.
  14. An Efficacy Follow-Up Study of the Long-Term Effects of Reading Recovery Under the i3 Scale-Up (Report). Center for Research in Education and Social Policy at the University of Delaware. 23 April 2022.

Further reading

Criticism
  1. Baker, S., Berninger, V. W., Bruck, M., Chapman, J., Eden, G., Elbaum, B., Fletcher, J. M., Fowler, C., Francis, D. J., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Greaney, K., Katz, L., Manis, F., Mather, N., McCutchen, D., Mencl, E., Molfese, D. L., Molfese, V., Morris, R., Pugh, K., Prochnow, J., Schatschneider, C., Seidenberg, M., Shaywitz, B., Snow, C., Tunmer, W., Vaughn, S., Vellutino, F. R., Wagner, R., & Wolf, M. (2002). Experts Say Reading Recovery Is Not Effective, Leaves Too Many Children Behind: An Open Letter from Reading Researchers. Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/read.rr.ltr.experts.htm
  2. Buckingham, J., Reading Recovery a Failed Investment. (2019) CIS Policy Paper. https://fivefromfive.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/PP15-RE-BRAND.pdf
  3. Center, Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, M. (1995). An Evaluation of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(2). doi:10.2307/748034
  4. Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2009). Recovering Reading Recovery. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 17(1), 59–71. doi:10.1080/07263869100034271
  5. Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (2016). Is Reading Recovery an Effective Intervention for Students with Reading Difficulties? A Critique of the i3 Scale-Up Study. Reading Psychology, 37(7), 1025–1042. doi:10.1080/02702711.2016.1157538
  6. 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. doi:10.1207/S1532799Xssr0502_2
  7. Cook, P., Rodes, D. R., & Lipsitz, K. L. (2017). The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(2), 12–23. doi:10.18666/ldmj-2017-v22-i2-8391
  8. Serry, T. A., & Oberklaid, F. (2014). Children with reading problems: Missed opportunities to make a difference. Australian Journal of Education, 59(1), 22–34. doi:10.1177/0004944114555584
Effectiveness
  1. Schmitt, M. C., (2001) 'The development of children's strategic processing in Reading Recovery. Reading Psychology, 22 (2), 129–151.
  2. Phillips, G. and Smith, P. (1997) 'Closing the gaps: Literacy for the hardest to teach'. New Zealand Council for Educational Research: Wellington, 3, 1-36.
  3. Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A. S. and Seltzer, M (1994) 'Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders'. Reading Research Quarterly, 29 (1), 8-39.
  4. May, H., Gray, A., Sirinides, P., Goldsworthy, H., Armijo, M., Sam, C., ... & Tognatta, N. (2015). Year one results from the multisite randomized evaluation of the i3 scale-up of Reading Recovery. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 547–581.
Continued progress
  1. Hurry, J. and Sylva, K. (2007) 'Long-term outcomes of early reading intervention'. Journal of Reading Research, 30 (3), 227–248.
  2. Moore, M. and Wade, B. (1998) 'Reading and comprehension: A longitudinal study of ex-Reading Recovery students'. Educational Studies, 24 (2), 195–203.
  3. Askew, B. J. and Frasier, D. F. (1994) 'Sustained effects of Reading Recovery intervention on the cognitive behaviors of second-grade children and the perceptions of their teachers'. Literacy, Teaching and Learning, 1 (1), 87–107.
Self-esteem
  1. Department for Education (2011), 'Evaluation of Every Child a Reader (ECaR)', DFE-RR114
  2. Hummel-Rossi, B & Ashdown, J (2006) 'An investigation of reciprocal effects: Literacy achievement and self-beliefs in first grade children'. International Journal of Learning, 12 (10), 269–276.
  3. Rumbaugh, W. and Brown, C. (2000) 'The impact of Reading Recovery participation on students' self-concepts'. Reading Psychology, 21 (1), 13–30.
Research reviews
  1. Schwartz, R. M., Hobsbaum, A., Briggs, C. and Scull, J. (2009) 'Reading Recovery and evidence-based practice: A response to Reynolds and Wheldall (2007)'. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 56 (1), 5–15.
  2. Shanahan, T. and 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.
Cost effectiveness
  1. Schwartz, R.M. Schmitt, M.C. and Lose, M.K. (2012), 'Effects of teacher-student ratio in response to intervention approaches' The Elementary School Journal, 112 (4), 547–567
Podcasts
  1. Hanford, Emily; Peak, Christopher. "Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong". APM Reports. American Public Media . Retrieved 12 February 2023.
  2. Hanford, Emily; Peak, Christopher (May 5, 2022). "A popular program for teaching kids to read just took another hit to its credibility". All Things Considered. npr.org.
  3. Hanford, Emily; Peak, Christopher (February 11, 2023). "How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong". Reveal. The Center for Investigative Reporting . Retrieved 12 February 2023.