| |
Evidence of Success
Meta-analysis
Meta-analysis of 36 studies of Reading Recovery. ‘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).’
D’Agostino, J.V., and J.A., 2004, A Meta-Analysis of Reading
Recovery in United States Schools, Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, Spring 2004, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 23-38
Longitudinal Studies
This study compared a sample
group of 56 ex-Reading Recovery children with a comparison group of 79
matched fourth graders. It found that children who had successfully
completed the RR programme in First Grade were working close to the
mean of a randomly selected comparison group spanning the whole
ability range at Fourth Grade.
Briggs, C., and Young, B.K., 2003, Does Reading Recovery work in
Kansas? A Retrospective Longitudinal Study of Sustained Effects.
Journal of Reading Recovery, Vol 3 No. 1, pp 59 – 64, Reading Recovery
Council of North America, Ohio USA.
This is a longitudinal study of children in 253 schools in Indiana. 277 children who had received Reading
Recovery in Grade 1 were monitored in Grades 2, 3 and 4, and compared with 271 control children in the same Grades who had not received Reading Recovery.
The study found that between 83% and 92% of the former Reading Recovery children were reading text at or
above their grade level and that two, three, and four 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.
Schmitt, M. C., and Gregory, A. E., 2001, The Impact of Early Intervention: where are the children now?
Paper presented to the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, Texas
This study is an evaluation of the reading skills and reading self-concept of Reading Recovery pupils in
Jersey, three and four years after completing the programme. The research sought to determine whether
ex-Reading Recovery pupils were still working within the average range in reading in Year 5. Reading
performance of 82 Reading Recovery pupils was assessed using verbal Cognitive Ability Test scores and
teacher assessment. The reading self-concept of pupils was measured using a self-completion questionnaire
and the results of these were compared to pupils with a range of ability in nine Year 5 classes across six
schools. The study indicated that a high proportion of ex-Reading Recovery pupils were achieving within
the average range in reading three and four years after receiving the programme. With regard to reading
self-concept, the results were less clear with factors such as gender appearing to have an effect on
attitude to reading and text choice. In terms of self-perceptions of skill the results of the ex-Reading
Recovery group fell between those of the Low Ability and Average Ability groups.
Whitehead, C., 2004,‘An evaluation of the reading skills and reading self-concept of successfully
discontinued RR pupils three and four years after completing the programme’.
MA Dissertation, Institute
of Education
Success in National Assessments of Literacy
This study tracked 1,500 ex Reading Recovery children
at the end of KS1 and 600 children at the end of KS2. These were the children most likely to be predicted to achieve Levels W or 1 at end of KS1, and below Level 3 at the end of KS2.
The study found that, at the end of KS1, 66% of all ex RR children (including those who had not achieved
the goals of the programme) reached Level 2 or above, and 80% of those who had achieved the goals of the
programme reached Level 2 or above.
At the end of Key Stage 2, half of the ex RR cohort, including those who had not achieved the goals of the
programme, reached level 4 and above and only 20% failed to reach Level 3. The study concludes that the
number of children failing to achieve levels of functional literacy at the end of Key Stage 2 could be
significantly reduced with Reading Recovery.
Reading Recovery National Network, 2003, Outcomes of RR children in end of Key
Stage National Assessments.
|
|
