“Literacy Lift-Off”: an experimental evaluation of a reading recovery programme on literacy skills and reading self-concept

Worldwide, considerable emphasis is currently being placed on the provision of appropriate classroom-based preventative interventions and in-class literacy support, in preference to withdrawal methods of educational support. Many schools in Ireland are currently implementing Literacy Lift-Off in their classrooms. Literacy Lift-Off is an adaption of the well-known Reading Recovery programme. The current study aims to establish whether Literacy Lift-Off improves students’ literacy skills. It further seeks to determine what impact Literacy Lift-Off has on students’ reading self-concept levels. Ninety-two students aged between five years and six years six months (52 boys, 40 girls) attending four Senior Infant classes were recruited for this study. Two class groups were randomly chosen to act as an intervention cohort (n = 47) and two class groups were randomly chosen to act as a wait-list control cohort (n = 45). This experimental study evaluated the Literacy Lift-Off intervention on students’ letter identification, word attack skills, word reading, and reading self-concept beliefs. Intervention students were compared with control students who did not receive the Literacy Lift-Off intervention at pre-test and post-test levels. Results showed that while both groups showed significant change on all dependent variables from pre-intervention to post-intervention, those in the experimental group showed significantly more improvement on word attack skills, word reading and reading self-concept beliefs. This study showed that a whole-class reading recovery programme can be effective in improving literacy skills and reading self-concept.     

The Relative Effect of a Code-Oriented and a Meaning-Oriented Early Literacy Program on Regular and Low Progress Australian Students in Year 1 Classrooms which Implement Reading Recovery

A within-school study of the effects of two different early literacy instructional programs on the reading proficiency of Year 1 students was undertaken in three schools in New South Wales, Australia all of which used Reading Recovery. The first program under examination was a "meaning"-oriented program used by six Kindergarten and Year 1 classrooms in the three schools. The second program, a "code"-oriented one, was implemented in the same six Kindergarten and Year 1 classrooms one year later. The code-oriented program, known as Schoolwide Early Language and Literacy (SWELL), stresses the explicit instruction of phonological awareness and the alphabetic code in context. All students, including both regular and Reading Recovery students, in the six non-SWELL classrooms were tested on four early literacy measures at the end of Year 1 when they had completed two years of schooling (comparison group). At the end of the following year, all Year 1 students in the six SWELL classrooms were tested on the same early literacy measures, when they had completed two years of schooling (experimental group). Results indicated that all regular and Reading Recovery students in SWELL classes significantly outperformed their regular and Reading Recovery counterparts in non-SWELL classes on tests measuring pseudoword decoding, reading connected text, invented spelling, and a standardised reading measure at the end of Year 1. However, Reading Recovery students as a group, whether in SWELL or non-SWELL classes, did not reach the average level of their peers on any of the four literacy measures used. Implications for the most effective combination of whole-class and tutorial programs for children at-risk of literacy failure are considered in the discussion.     

Addressing individual difficulties in reading: issues relating to Reading Recovery and Pause,Prompt, Praise

Recently the DfES has issued guidance on ways to address the needs of students who experience difficulties in literacy through Wave Three provision in the National Literacy Strategy ( DfES, 2002 ). This guidance raises the issue of what kind of programmes might be initiated in mainstream schools that will improve what is available generally for pupils who experience difficulties. The original Literacy Taskforce report (1997) named Reading Recovery (RR) as one programme suitable for this purpose. It is not the only programme with 'proven' efficacy, however. This article compares RR and another New Zealand‐based programme, Pause, Prompt, Praise (PPP) with which it has a number of characteristics in common, in order to examine particular issues which are important to ensure that a particular programme can meet individual children's literacy needs and also have the potential for adoption by LEAs and schools in the current national curricular context. These issues are the underpinning rationales, assumptions about the reading process and questions of resources, ownership and control ( Openshaw et al., 2002 ).     

Reading Recovery: Exploring the Effects on First-Graders' Reading Motivation and Achievement

ABSTRACT

This study examined the effects of Reading Recovery on children's motivational levels, and how motivation may contribute to the effect of the intervention on literacy achievement. Prior studies concluded that Reading Recovery was positively associated with increased student motivation levels, but most of those studies were limited methodologically. The achievement and motivation levels before and after the intervention of Reading Recovery students and similarly low-performing first-grade students were compared using structural equation modeling. It was found that Reading Recovery had a .31 treatment effect on achievement after controlling for baseline achievement and motivational differences among the treatment and comparison students. Reading Recovery also was associated with greater average levels of posttest motivation, and motivation was found to mediate the treatment-achievement relationship. This study highlights how important it is for early reading interventions to consider the role motivation plays in literacy acquisition.     

Reading comprehension: assisting children with learning difficulties

Abstract

In critiquing our paper on “The literacy performance of ex-Reading Recovery students between two and four years following participation in the program: Is this intervention effective for students with early reading difficulties?”, Schwartz argues that we have engaged in pursuing political and ideological agendas as part of our ongoing attacks on the Reading Recovery program. We reject his claims and argue that if we are ideological, it is related to our commitment to the use of rigorous scientific research to examine claims made in favor of the Reading Recovery program. We also argue that Reading Recovery was adopted in New Zealand largely for political reasons rather than on the basis of carefully controlled research. We stand by our interpretation of various studies in New Zealand that call into question the effectiveness of Reading Recovery in terms of the stated goals for the program.     

The effect of reading recovery® on special education referrals and placements

This study examined the effect of Reading Recovery®, an early intervention program for first‐grade children, on the rates of referral and placement in special education in New York City. Study participants consisted of students who had a complete Reading Recovery (RR) program (RR‐discontinued and RR‐recommended) and a comparison group composed of children with literacy difficulties, who were initially performing at a slightly higher level than the Reading Recovery children. The results showed that children who received the Reading Recovery program were referred for testing and placed in special education at a statistically significant lower rate. Reading Recovery is associated with a 5% reduction in estimated referral rate and a 3% decrease in placement rate. Additionally, an examination of the classification labels of children placed in special education revealed that RR‐discontinued children were less likely to be classified as learning disabled than those in both the comparison group and the RR‐recommended group. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychol Schs 39: 635–646, 2002.     

An Experimental Evaluation of Guided Reading and Explicit Interventions for Primary-Grade Students At-Risk for Reading Difficulties

Abstract

Considerable research evidence supports the provision of explicit instruction for students at risk for reading difficulties; however, one of the most widely implemented approaches to early reading instruction is Guided Reading (GR; Fountas & Pinnel, 1996), which deemphasizes explicit instruction and practice of reading skills in favor of extended time reading text. This study evaluated the two approaches in the context of supplemental intervention for at-risk readers at the end of Grade 1. Students (n = 218) were randomly assigned to receive GR intervention, explicit intervention (EX), or typical school instruction (TSI). Both intervention groups performed significantly better than TSI on untimed word identification. Significant effects favored EX over TSI on phonemic decoding and one measure of comprehension. Outcomes for the intervention groups did not differ significantly from each other; however, an analysis of the added value of providing each intervention relative to expected growth with typical instruction indicated that EX is more likely to substantially accelerate student progress in phonemic decoding, text reading fluency, and reading comprehension than GR. Implications for selection of Tier 2 interventions within a response-to-intervention format are discussed.     

Findings From a Multiyear Scale-Up Effectiveness Trial of Open Court Reading

This multiyear scale-up effectiveness study of Open Court Reading (OCR) involved approximately 4,500 students and more than 1,000 teachers per year in Grades K–5 from 49 elementary schools in seven districts across the country. Using a school-level cluster randomized trial design, we assessed the implementation and effectiveness of Open Court Reading over two years. Implementation study results demonstrated adequate to high levels of fidelity across the treatment schools. Intent-to-treat analyses revealed no statistically significant main effects on students’ reading performance in Year 1 and a small negative effect (d = – .09) in Year 2. There were positive impacts for particular subgroups, including kindergarten (d = .12) and Hispanic (d = .10) students in the first year. However, there were negative impacts for first grade (d = –.13), females (d = –.11), students who were not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (d = –.19), and non-English language learners (d = –.10) in the second year of the study. Thus, relative to the “business-as-usual” reading curricula, no positive overall impacts of OCR and mixed impacts for student subgroups were found.     

The effects of Reading Recovery on children’s literacy progress and special educational needs status: a three-year follow-up study

Reading Recovery (RR) is an intensive one-to-one reading intervention programme designed for five- to six-year-old children who are the lowest literacy achievers after one year of formal tuition. RR has been shown to have impressive effects in the short-term, particularly on those measures tailored to, and designed for, the programme. However, less is known about the programme’s long-term effectiveness. The present study followed up at the end of Year 4: 120 comparison children, 73 children who had received RR three years earlier, and 48 children in RR schools who had not received RR. We found that the children who had received RR achieved an average National Curriculum (NC) level of 3b in reading which indicates being on track for Level 4 at the end of Key Stage 2. The comparison children were on average at Level 2a in reading, significantly lower than the RR. RR children were also significantly less likely than comparison children to be identified as having a special educational need at the end of Year 3. These findings indicate that effects of the RR programme are still apparent three years post-intervention.     

Guided Reading: A Research-Based Response to the Challenges of Early Reading Instruction

The purpose of this article was to illuminate for early childhood teacher practitioners how guided reading, as a research-based approach to reading instruction, could address the challenges of early reading instruction. The early years are the focus for the prevention of reading difficulties and research conducted over the past two decades has produced extensive results demonstrating that children who get off to a poor start in reading rarely catch up (Lentz, 1988; Neuman & Dickinson, 2001; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Torgesen, 1998; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). One particular research-based strategy, guided reading, is an important “best practice” associated with today’s balanced literacy instruction. The National Reading Panel (2000) argued that balanced approaches are preferable when teaching children to read, based on their review of scientific research-based reading instructional practices used by teachers in classrooms across the country. Additionally, guided reading practices as part of a balanced literacy program conforms to the recommendations on literacy as suggested in position statements by the International Reading Association/The National Association for the Education of Young Children (1998), and the National Council of Teachers of English (2002).     

Reading Recovery in Context: implementation and outcome

Reading Recovery is a school‐based preventive strategy designed to reduce the number of children with reading and writing difficulties. This study evaluated the implementation of Reading Recovery in 12 New Zealand schools. Target (Reading Recovery) and Comparison pairs of children were identified through the Reading Recovery procedures operated by each school. Results indicated that very few schools adhered closely to all recommended entry and discontinuation criteria. Results for Target and Comparison children's reading progress up to the time of discontinuation are highly consistent with results reported by Clay (1985), with clear gains in favour of Target children. However, these gains had reduced considerably by the time of follow‐up. Data suggest that programme gains were greatest for children entering the programme at the lowest reading levels. Outcomes are discussed in terms of the need for better articulation between Reading Recovery teachers and regular classroom teachers.     

Examining the Sustained Effects of Reading Recovery

Though 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 .51, and by third grade, the effect was .16 on the state reading test. The overall effect completely diminished by fourth grade, but it was significant (.35) for the most eligible students in reading, and for moderately eligible (.34) and most eligible students (.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.     

Reading Intervention for Poor Readers at the Transition to Secondary School

This study evaluated two 20-week reading interventions for pupils entering secondary school with reading difficulties. The interventions were delivered by trained teaching assistants (three 35-min sessions per week). 287 pupils (ages 11–13) from 27 schools were randomly allocated to three groups: reading intervention (targeting word recognition and decoding skills), reading intervention plus comprehension, or a waiting list control group. Neither intervention produced statistically significant gains in word reading but the reading intervention plus comprehension intervention produced significant gains in reading comprehension (d = 0.29) and vocabulary (d = 0.34). Further evaluations of methods to improve word reading in this population are needed.     

教师支持对中学生阅读素养的影响:阅读投入、阅读兴趣的中介作用

为探讨阅读投入、阅读兴趣在教师支持与中学生阅读素养中的中介作用,研究采用阅读素养测验、阅读调查问卷与教师支持问卷对559名初中生进行调研,并运用结构方程模型进行数据建模分析.结果 发现:教师支持通过阅读投入和阅读兴趣的链式中介影响学生阅读素养.建议教师在阅读教学实践中要改革教学方法,从情感关怀、学习指导、能力指导等多方...     

Reading Recovery 20 Years Down the Track: Looking forward,looking back

Reading Recovery is an intensive literacy programme designed for young students who have been identified as being at‐risk of reading failure after 1 year of schooling. The intervention was developed and trialled in New Zealand over 20 years ago and is now implemented in a number of education systems. The focus of this article is on recent research into the operationalisation of the programme with an overview of what it has done well and what it has not done so well. Reading Recovery has been very successful in bringing about change on the political and teacher training levels. In terms of efficacy in remediating literacy difficulties, however, the findings are more equivocal. What we have learned from Reading Recovery may assist in the implementation of new interventions based on more contemporary research.     

Reading Recovery in a British Infant School

Reading Recovery is an early intervention programme for children having difficulties in reading after one year of instruction, developed by New Zealander Marie Clay. In 1988, the Reading Recovery programme was demonstrated for 11 weeks with four children in an infant school in Cumbria, United Kingdom. This article discusses matters concerning the implementation of this programme in settings other than the one for which it was designed. The mean and individual reading progress of the four tutored children is reported and compared with that of an untutored reference group and an average group in the class. The tutored group made by far the largest gains on all reading‐and writing‐ related measures, and in most cases improved their levels of knowledge and skill beyond those of the average group in the class.     

Effectiveness of Four Supplemental Reading Comprehension Interventions

Abstract

This article presents evidence from a large-scale randomized controlled trial of the effects of four supplemental reading comprehension curricula (Project CRISS, ReadAbout, Read for Real, and Reading for Knowledge) on students’ understanding of informational text. Across 2 school years, the study included 10 school districts, more than 200 schools, and more than 10,000 fifth-grade students. Schools interested in implementing 1 of the 4 supplemental curricula were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups or to a control group. The impact analyses in the study's first year revealed a statistically significant negative impact of Reading for Knowledge on students’ reading comprehension scores and no other significant impacts. The impact of ReadAbout was positive and significant in the study's second year among teachers with 1 year of experience using the intervention.     

Ameliorating Early Reading Failure by Integrating the Teaching of Reading and Phonological Skills: The Phonological Linkage Hypothesis

We present a longitudinal intervention study of children experiencing difficulties in the early stages of learning to read. Our subjects, 7-year-old poor readers, were divided into 4 matched groups and assigned to 1 of 3 experimental teaching conditions: Reading with Phonology, Reading Alone, Phonology Alone, and a Control. Although the Phonology Alone group showed most improvement on phonological tasks, the Reading with Phonology group made most progress in reading. These results show that interventions to boost phonological skills need to be integrated with the teaching of reading if they are to be maximally effective in improving literacy skills.     

Promotion of Reading and Early Literacy Skills in Schools: a comparison of three European countries

This article gives a short overview based on the EU High Level Group of Experts on Literacy (HLWG) report to address issues and challenges in Europe on improving literacy competencies in schools. Furthermore, an analysis is conducted focusing on the promotion of reading and early literacy skills in schools taking into account psychological and institutional learning conditions in three countries (Denmark, Germany, and France) with different outcomes in PIRLS 2011 (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study). Country comparison is conducted using multiple groups – multilevel structural equation modelling (MG-MSEM). An important finding is that policy action taken in order to evaluate and improve school effectiveness in each country must address particular needs of its educational system. Suggestions for improving reading achievement in schools are derived from the analysis.     

国际阅读素养进步研究述评

由IEA所主持的PIRLS是国际上大规模的对学生的阅读素养进行的比较研究，阅读素养是学生在学习的初期阶段所应具备的重要能力之一，是学校各门学科学习的基础，是可以被用来学习、创造和发展．使学生充分参与的一种重要能力。文章描述了阅读素养的三个方面，即理解过程、阅读目的、行为和态度。文章还说明了试题的取样设计，并对测验的实施原则予以评速。