RDG 4250 Home

Components of a One-Hour Session:
Materials

1.  Reading Recovery Article
    --Reading Recovery (Sensenbaugh)

 
                                                                                                                                     EDO-CS-95-09 June 1995
Reading Recovery
Prepared by: Roger Sensenbaugh
ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication Digest #106
                This digest discusses elements of the Reading Recovery program, describes a typical reading recovery lesson, addresses
                issues of the importance of teacher education and teacher role in those lessons, reviews the existing literature in the
                ERIC database regarding the effectiveness of Reading Recovery, and discusses the cost effectiveness of the program.
                                                                             Introduction
!
                In the often contentious world of beginning reading instruction, marked by the sharply differing opinions of advocates of
                intensive phonics instruction and those who support the whole language approach, Reading Recovery (r) appears to be
                fairly non-controversial. Combining extensive teacher education with an emphasis on the development of phonological
                awareness and the use of contextual information to assist reading, Reading Recovery seems to offer the lowest-achieving
                first -grade children an effective method of reading and writing instruction. Reading Recovery continues to generate
                interest among educators, parents, and administrators. Journal articles, conference papers, books, research reports on
                Reading Recovery continue to be added to the ERIC database. Unofficially, Reading Recovery is the topic on which this Clearinghouse's User Services specialists currently receive the most requests for information. Earlier responses by this
                Clearinghouse to this continued interest in Reading Recovery include two annotated bibliographies LS~b:~~2.4; ~.
                Introduced into the United States from New Zealand in the mid 1980s, Reading Recovery projects have been
                implemented in nearly every State. In addition, Reading Recovery is being implemented in Australia, Canada, and
                England.
                                         .
                Reading Recovery (Clay. 1985) offers daily half -hour one-on- one tutorial sessions for students who are having trouble
                learning to read after one year of formal instruction. The program is supplementary and short-term, with most students
                needing.from 12 to 16 weeks of instruction (Pollock. 19941. before they are successfully discontinued from the program.
                A combination of teacher judgment and systematic evaluation procedures identify those lowest-achieving children for
                whom Reading Recovery was designed. The program's goal is to bring students up to the level of their peers and to give
                students the assistance they need to develop independent reading strategies. Once students are reading at a level
                equivalent to that of their peers, theyare discontinued from the program.
                Reading Recovery is designed to provide the social interaction that supports the students' ability to work in their "zone
                of proximal development"--just beyond their level of actual development--with a supportive adult who helps them solve problems and to perform. Clay's theory of learning to read is based on the idea that children construct cognitive systems to understand the world and language. These cognitive systems develop as self-extending systems that generate further
                learning through the use of multiple sources of information ( Clay. 1985; Panel. 1994).

A Typical Reading Recovery Lesson

 During the daily ha1f-hour sessions, children read many small books, some of which are written in a style close to that of
                 oral language. The books also often use predictable language. Teachers keep a running record to analyze the child's
                 reading performance. Children also compose and read their own messages or stories. In addition, children read slightly
                 more challenging texts that they have not read before. Teachers provide detailed support for the children as they read
                 these more difficult texts. Magnetic alphabet letters might be used to assist in analyzing words. Reading skills are taught
                 in the context of extended reading and writing by Reading Recovery teachers who have completed a year-long in service
                 education program that focuses on moment-to-moment responses to children's actions and behavior.
                                                                                                                                            I
                                                                            Teacher's Role
                 An essential component of the Reading Recovery program is the training of the teachers who provide the tutorial
                 instruction. Reading Recovery teachers learn to observe, analyze, and interpret the reading and writing beha,iors of
                 individual students and to design and implement an individual program to meet each student's needs. Just as the
                 Reading Recovery children engage in social interaction with the teacher, Reading Recovery teachers engage in social
                 interaction with their colleagues and mentors to construct a view of learning and teaching that supports literacy learning
                 (Gaffn~. 1993).
                 Panel ( 1994)
expanded earlier research on the effectiveness of Reading Recovery by controlling for a variet.)7 of local factors at the school level and by allowing for a comparative inference in relation to traditional remedial programs
 "i, targeting at-risk first-grade children. In addition to finding that Reading Recovery was the most effective of the five
 
1 : programs evaluated. Panel found that one-on-one instruction was essential for the lowest-achieving students, and that
                 teacher training was an important factor in the success of Reading Recovery.
                                                                  Is Reading Recovery Effective1 " .
                 Reading Recovery's seemingly non-controversial nature is nowhere more apparent than in the research base examining
                 the program's effectiveness. Nearly all of the documents in the ERIC database find that the program is effective and
                 recommend the program with only minor reservations. An extended series of studies of the Reading Recovery program
                 as implemented in Ohio (one of the earliest Reading Recovery programs in the United States) find that the program is
I successful in accelerating 3 out of 4 students up to the level of their peers ~ollock. 1994). Each of the series of reports
                 ends with the recommendation that the program be continued and a list of recommendations regarding specific aspects
                 of the program that could be improved
                 Areas of criticism or need for further research include the long-term effectiveness of the program (Center, t2W, the
                 kind of reading skills to be emphasized (Chapman. 1991 ). the program's cost effectiveness (discussed below). and
                 problems of implementing the program (Panel. 1994).
                 
Making the general claim that Reading Recovery is an effective program is somewhat misleading. Existing research
                 ranges from case studies of particular teachers or students all the way up to detailed analyses of state-wide programs.
                 Although "Reading Recovery" is a registered trademark of the Ohio State University, and authorized programs use
                 Marie Clay's materials. the various Reading Recovery programs in the United States differ somewhat in how they are ;
Ideveloped, implemented, and assessed. Perhaps it is more precise to say that existing research validates the effectiveness ~ of the specific Reading Recovery programs examined so far.
                 GIYM (1992). while noting the clear gains made by Reading Recovery pupils, brings up another area of concern--how to
                 coordinate Reading Recovery instruction and regular classroom instruction so that students who are successfully
                 discontinued from the program can continue to succeed on independent reading tasks in the very different environment
                 of the regular classroom.
                                                                          Cost Effectiveness
                 While only a comparatively few documents in the ERIC database address Reading Recovery's cost effectiveness, the
                program's high per-pupil cost (compared to other intervention programs) is enough to give any administrator or
              http:/ /www .indiana. edu/'""'Cric_rec/ieo/digests/dl 06.html 4/6/01 .."

          Reading Recovery Page 3 Of 3
-~ .,
  .
  " ; taxpayer pause. As JlYer (1992) points out, however, the initial high cost is offset by the money saved through (1) not having to retain low- achieving students in the first grade; (2) not having to place students in special education or
             Chapter I programs; and (3) not mislabeling a child as "learning disabled" when in fact the child needed only the brief, supplementary intervention provided by Reading Recovery.
             Dyer concludes (based on a cost-benefit analysis) that Reading Recovery is an educationally sound and cost-effective
             early intervention program for helping children who are at-risk of early reading failure.
             Center, Yoda, et al. (1992). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Reading Recove~: A Critiau~ Educational Psychology, 12 (3-4), 305-13. [EJ 478469]
             Chapman, James W., and William E. Turner (1991). "Recoverinl! Readinl! Recoverv." Australia and New Zealand
             Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 17(1),59-71. [EJ 445894]
             Clay, Marie M. (1985). The Earlv Detection of Reading Difficulties. Third Edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. [ED
             263 529]
             Dinner, Michael, Comp. (1993). ~'Reading Recoverv Research. 1986- 1992: Citation~ and ~!!a_C!S- ~~I!~ the
             Database." Bloomington,
IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. [ED 376449]
             Dyer, Philip C. (1992). "Reading Recoverv: A Cost-Effectiveness and Educational Outcomes A11al Spectrun1, 10(1), 10-19. [EJ 442889]
             Gaffney, Janet S. (1993). "Readin of Prevention for the Lowest Aclrievin Readers. Technical Reoort No.580." Urbana, n..: enter for the tu o Reading. [ED 360624]
             Glynn, Ted (1992). "Reading Recove~ in Context: Imolementation and Outcome." Educational Psychology, 12(3-4), 249-61. [EJ 478468]
             Panel, Gay Zu, et al. (1994). "Corn rin Instructional Models for the Litera Education of Hi -Risk First Grades." Reading Research Quarterly, 29(1), 8-39. [EJ 475 731]
             Pollock, John S. (1994).
             Final Evaluation Reoort. " Columbus Public Schools, Ohio. Department of Program Evaluation. [ED 376 437]
              Sensenbaugh, Roger (1994). "Effectiveness of Readinl! Recoverv Programs." Reading Research and Instruction, 34(1), 73-76. [EJ 494 625]
              Roger Sensenbaugh is CIJE Coordinator at the ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication.
                      ..
              Digest # 106 is EDO-CS-95-09 and was published in June 1995 by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English and Communication, 2805 E lOth Street. Bloornington, IN 47408-2698, Telephone (812) 855-5847 or (800) 759-4723. ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be freely reproduced. Additional copies may be ordered by contacting the ERIC Document Reproduction Service at (800)443-3742.
              This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education under contract number RR93002011. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education
              nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the u.s. Government.