Reading Recovery

Reading Recovery is a school-based, short-term intervention designed for children aged five or six, who are the lowest literacy achievers after their first year of school. These children are often not able to read the simplest of books or even write their own name before the intervention. The intervention involves intensive one-to-one lessons for 30 minutes a day with a trained literacy teacher, for an average of 20 weeks.

The intervention is different for every child, assessing what the child knows and what s/he needs to learn. The focus of each lesson is to understand messages in reading and construct messages in writing; learning how to attend to detail without losing focus on meaning. A combination of teacher judgment and systematic evaluation procedures identify those lowest-achieving children for whom Reading Recovery was designed. The intervention goal is to bring children up to the level of their peers and to give them the assistance they need to develop independent reading and writing strategies. Once they are reading and writing at a level equivalent to that of their peers, their series of lessons is discontinued.

The intervention is not an alternative to good classroom teaching, but is complementary to enable children to engage in their classroom program. The lowest performing children (the bottom 5-20% depending on the context) are identified using the Observation Survey (Clay, 2002), a multi-faceted series of assessment tools covering early reading and writing. The Observation Survey has been standardized in the UK (http://readingrecovery.ioe.ac.uk) and US (http://www.readingrecovery.org/) to determine its validity and reliability.

"Reading Recovery" is a registered trademark held by the Marie Clay Trust in New Zealand, with Ohio State University in the US and the Institute of Education in the UK.

Contents

Reading Recovery lesson

Daily 30 minute lessons are individually designed and delivered by specially trained teachers. Drawing from their training, Reading Recovery teachers make moment-to-moment decisions to support the child's learning. During each lesson, children read many little books. These include two to three familiar books, a rereading of the previous day's new book and the introduction and reading of a new story. Teachers take a running record of the previous day's new book to analyze the child's independence and reading behaviour. Children also compose, write and read their own messages or stories. In addition, children read a new text each day. Magnetic alphabet letters are used for sorting, to assist visual discrimination, and to analyze words. Reading skills, including phonetic skills, are taught in the context of extended reading and writing by Reading Recovery teachers who have completed a year-long inservice education program that focuses on moment-to-moment responses to children's actions and behavior.

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 behaviors 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. Reading Recovery has one of the best professional development protocols in the field of beginning reading.

Brief history

The program was developed in the 1970s by New Zealand educator Dr. Marie Clay. After lengthy observations of early readers Dr. Clay defined reading as a message-getting, problem-solving activity, and writing as a message-sending, problem-solving activity. Dr. Clay suggested that both activities involved linking invisible patterns of oral language with visible symbols (Clay, 2005).

Reading Recovery internationally

Reading Recovery New Zealand

The National Reading Recovery Centre is located at The University of Auckland Faculty of Education, Epsom Campus. Website: http://www.readingrecovery.ac.nz/

Reading Recovery Council of 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. Website: http://www.readingrecovery.org/

Institute of Education, University of London

The European Centre for Reading Recovery (http://readingrecovery.ioe.ac.uk/) is located at the Institute of Education, part of the University of London. There are over 75 Reading Recovery centres throughout the UK, Republic of Ireland and in Denmark. Website: http://www.ioe.ac.uk/

Canadian Institute of Reading Recovery (CIRR)

The Reading Recovery network in Canada operates under the Canadian Institute of Reading Recovery (CIRR) on three levels: schools, districts, and regional divisions. The CIRR oversees and supports the operations of Reading Recovery, including training and supporting training, and upholding the Standards and Guidelines. Website: http://www.readingrecovery.org/reading_recovery/canada/index.asp

Reading Recovery in Australia

Reading Recovery operates through state and territory departments of education as well as catholic education offices. These comprise:

• New South Wales (http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/earlyyears/reading/index.htm)

• Victoria (http://www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/teachingresources/english/readingrecovery/)

• South Australia (http://www.earlyyears.sa.edu.au/pages/Programs)

• Tasmania (http://www.education.tas.gov.au/school/curriculum/literacy/recovery)

• Western Australia (http://cms.ceo.wa.edu.au/religious_education_curriculum/curriculum_k12/curriculum/initiatives.jsp)

Research

Reading Recovery has been widely researched throughout the world (http://readingrecovery.ioe.ac.uk/reports/36.html and http://www.readingrecovery.org/research/research_intro/index.asp). Research has investigated effectiveness, cost benefits, continued progress and self-esteem.

Effectiveness

  1. What Works Clearinghouse (2008) 'Intervention report: Reading Recovery'. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences
  2. Burroughs-Lange, S. and Douetil, J. (2006) 'Evaluation of Reading Recovery in London schools: Every Child a Reader 2005-2006'. University of London: Institute of Education.
  3. North American Trainers Group Research Committee (2006) 'Six Reading Recovery studies: Meeting the criteria for scientifically based research'. Reading Recovery Council of North America: Columbus, OH, USA.
  4. Schwartz, R. M. (2005) 'Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the Reading Recovery early intervention'. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2), 257-267.
  5. Rodgers, E., Gómez-Bellengé, F., Wang, C. and Schulz, M. (2005) 'Predicting the literacy achievement of struggling readers: Does intervening early make a difference?'. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  6. D'Agostino, J.V., and Murphy, J.A. (2004) 'A meta-analysis of Reading Recovery in United States schools'. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26 (1), 23-38.
  7. Rodgers, E.M., Wang, C. and Gómez-Bellengé, F.X. (2004) 'Closing the literacy achievement gap with early intervention'. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, USA.
  8. Quay, L. C., Steele, D. C., Johnson, C. I. and Hortman, W. (2001) 'Children's achievement and personal and social development in a first-year Reading Recovery program with teachers in training'. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 5 (2), 7–25.
  9. Schmitt, M. C., (2001) 'The development of children's strategic processing in Reading Recovery'. Reading Psychology, 22 (2), 129-151.
  10. Ashdown, J. and Simic, O. (2000) 'Is early literacy intervention effective for English language learners? Evidence from Reading Recovery'. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 5 (1), 27-42.
  11. Swartz, S.L, and Klein, A.F. (Eds.) (1997). Research in Reading Recovery. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Continued progress

  1. Hurry, J. and Holliman, A. (2009) 'The impact of Reading Recovery three years after intervention'. University of London: Institute of Education.
  2. Burroughs-Lange, S. (2008) 'Comparison of literacy progress of young children in London schools: A Reading Recovery follow up study'. University of London: Institute of Education.
  3. Hurry, J. and Sylva, K. (2007) 'Long-term outcomes of early reading intervention'. Journal of Reading Research, 30 (3), 227-248.
  4. Schmitt, M.C. and Gregory, A.E. (2005) 'The Impact of an early literacy intervention: Where are the children now?'. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 10 (1), 1-20.
  5. Briggs, C. and Young, B.K. (2003) 'Does Reading Recovery work in Kansas? A retrospective longitudinal study of sustained effects'. Journal of Reading Recovery, 3 (1), 59-64.
  6. Askew, B.J., Kaye, E., Frasier, D.F., Mobasher, M., Anderson, N. and Rodriguez, Y.G. (2002) 'Making a case for prevention in education'. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 6 (2), 43-73.

Self-esteem

  1. Burroughs-Lange, S. and Douetil, J. (2006) 'Evaluation of Reading Recovery in London schools: Every Child a Reader 2005-2006'. University of London: Institute of Education.
  2. Rumbaugh, W. and Brown, C. (2000) 'The impact of Reading Recovery participation on students' self-concepts'. Reading Psychology, 21 (1), 13-30.
  3. Cohen, S.G., McDonnell, G. and Osborn, B. (1989) 'Self-perceptions of at-risk and high achieving readers: Beyond Reading Recovery achievement data'. In McCormick, S. and Zutell, J. (eds), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction: Thirty-eighth yearbook of the national reading conference. National Reading Conference: Chicago, IL, USA.

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. What Works Clearinghouse (2008) 'Intervention report: Reading Recovery'. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences
  3. Florida Center for Reading Research (2008) 'Florida Center for Reading Research: Reading Recovery'. Florida State University.
  4. Allington, R. (2005) 'How much evidence is enough evidence?'. Journal of Reading Recovery, 4 (2), 8-11.
  5. Reading Recovery Council of North America (RRCNA) (2002) 'What evidence says about Reading Recovery'. Response to internet letter distributed to members of Congress in Spring 2002.
  6. Pinnell, G.S' (2000) 'Reading Recovery: An analysis of a research-based reading intervention'. Reading Recovery Council of North America: Columbus, OH, USA.

Cost effectiveness

  1. Gómez-Bellengé, F.X. (2007) '2005-06 national data preview: Measuring the impact of Reading Recovery'. The Journal of Reading Recovery, 6 (2), 53-56.
  2. Schmitt, M. C., Askew, B. J., Fountas, I. C., Lyons, C. A., and Pinnell, G. S. (2005) 'Changing futures: The influence of Reading Recovery in the United States'. Reading Recovery Council of North America: Worthington, OH, USA.
  3. Ashdowne, J. and Hummel-Rossi, B. (2002) 'What is cost-effectiveness analysis?' The Journal of Reading Recovery, 2 (1), 44-46.
  4. Gómez-Bellengé, F.X. (2002) 'Measuring the cost of Reading Recovery: A practical approach'. The Journal of Reading Recovery, 2 (1), 47-54.
  5. Pinnell. G.S. (1997) 'Reading Recovery: A summary of research'. In Flood, J., Heath, S.B. and Lapp, D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (sponsored by the International Reading Association). USA: New York.

See also