Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract
of Contents
Introduction
Citations 24
17
3
Abstract
Introduction
In 2013, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
showed that among U.S. fourth graders, 66% of students scored
below proficient on the National Assessment of Education Progresss
reading assessment (NCES 2013). This suggests that by fourth grade,
well over half of U.S. students are not reading at grade level. For
students from a low-income background, statistics are even grimmer.
According to NCES, 80% of students in poverty scored below grade
level (NCES 2013). These statistics should concern us as a nation.
Literacy statistics show that 2 out of 3 students who cannot read
proficiently at the end of grade 4 go on to interface with the criminal
justice system or end up on welfare (Literacy Statistics).
To address this issue early on, some schools have chosen to
implement Reading Recovery. Since its inception over 30 years ago,
the Reading Recovery intervention program for struggling readers has
aimed to dramatically reduce the number of first-grade students who
have extreme difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the
cost of these learners to educational systems (Basic Facts). But the
reviews are mixed in regards to this programs effectiveness, and
research is readily available to support both the pros and cons of
Reading Recovery. For example, Reading Recoverys International Data
Evaluation Center reports that in the 2013-2014 school year, 72% of
students who received a complete intervention reached average levels
of reading and writing (of their peers in the classroom). The remainders
were referred for further assessment and support at a more intensive
instructional tier (DAgostino, Harmey 2015). However, an older study
conducted in the late 1990s suggests something different. Joseph
Haenn, in his article titled Reading Recovery: Success for How Many?
states that in one district, almost 2 out of every 5 Reading Recovery
students (179, or 60.4 percent) did not successfully complete the
program and were returned to the classroom with insufficient reading
skills. Therefore, it appears that, at least in this district, the Reading
Recovery program is successful for only 3 out of every 5 students who
receive this intensive 20-week program to develop reading skills
(Haen 2000). This discrepancy is worth considering, especially when
we consider what is at stake: money, time, and most importantly a
students academic and social success or failure.
With such mixed reviews, educators and district policy makers
are left wondering whether Reading Recovery is worth the investment
on all levels. In the United States, Reading Recovery and Descubriendo
la Lectura (the Spanish version of the Reading Recovery program)
educators have taught over 1.9 million students to date (DAgostino,
Harmey 2015). In the 2013-2014 school year alone, Reading Recovery
served over 47,000 students (DAgostino, Harmey 2015). If
intervention results in the drastic gains some research supports,
10
teacher would ask the student to re-read the sentence containing the
word like to contextualize the learning.
After word work, the teacher and students begin a natural
conversation. This conversation should lead to a student-constructed
sentence directly from the students oral language. The student and
teacher work together to write this sentence in a blank writing
notebook to develop skills such as spacing, directionality, return
sweep, punctuation, sound-spelling correspondences and sight words.
Reading Recovery teachers selectively choose one or two words to
take to fluency (practice writing repeatedly), and phonetic words to
practice using Elkonin boxes.
Elkonin boxes are sound or letterboxes drawn by the teacher,
that help students discriminate individual sounds or letters. If a student
is working on hearing sounds in the word like, the teacher would
draw a long rectangle with 3 boxes inside and ask the student to name
the sounds that go in each box. Because the word contains a silent-e,
the teacher provides this tricky letter and allows the student to rewrite
the whole word in his/her story. If the student has mastered hearing
sounds in order, teachers will choose to use letterboxes, rather than
sound boxes. In letterboxes, rather than including the number of boxes
for each sound in a word, teachers compose boxes that match the
number of letters in a word (4 boxes for the word like though there
are only 3 sounds).
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
increased their learning by nearly 30 percent more than average firstgraders in the U.S. (Sparks 2013) (Mayetal.,2013).
19
20
21
22
program came out in 1994, and was written by Dr. Elfrieda H. Hiebert
out of the University of Michigan. In an article published in Educational
Researcher, Hiebert examined available data from 3 Reading Recovery
training sites in an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the program,
specifically in regards to feasibility of implementation and influence on
age groups within an elementary school. One problem she points out is
the fact that Reading Recovery sites often only report means for
only those children who successfully completed the program prior to
April (considered to be those with the most robust performance) and to
exclude data on the remainder of the sample who either completed the
program after April or were not discontinued (Hiebert 1994). She also
points out that typically, the reporting system segregates data for
discontinued students (students who received the full 60 or more
Reading Recovery lessons and reached the average reading level of
their classes) and not discontinued students (students who did not
receive the full 60+ interventions or did not reach average levels of
their peers) (Hiebert 1994). Additionally, she raises several other
concerns about Reading Recovery including: overemphasis on accurate
reading and writing, exclusion of extensive comprehension and
composition, the fact that students may be dismissed by teachers from
the program mid-year due to unresponsiveness, there may be a lack of
maintenance through fourth grade, and lack of teacher retention
(Hiebert 1994). Though this study was conducted many years ago,
23
24
25
Research Question
My research will focus on the following questions:
1. Can current Reading Recovery procedures be modified to include
a larger group size (1:3 teacher to student ratio) plus
extended time, and still be effective at increasing reading
levels for our lowest performing readers compared to standard
Reading Recovery implementation?
2. Can current Reading Recovery procedures be modified to include
a systematic phonics component plus extended time, and
be more effective at increasing reading levels for our lowest
performing readers than standard Reading Recovery
implementation?
3. Can current Reading Recovery procedures be modified to include
a larger group size (1:3 teacher to student ratio),
systematic phonics component plus extended time, and be
more effective at increasing reading levels for our lowest
26
Method
In order for this study to be carried out with external and internal
validity, I propose a randomized controlled trials group study.
Participants will be the lowest performing 10% of 1st grade students
across 3 elementary schools that currently implement Reading
Recovery, and therefore already employ highly trained Reading
Recovery teachers. Intervention will last for 12-20 weeks contingent on
student progress. Once a student has reached the average of the class,
he/she will be exited from the program.
Students who qualify for Reading Recovery across these elementary
schools will be randomly assigned to either a control group receiving
regular 1:1 30 minute Reading Recovery lessons every day for 12-20
weeks, or one of the following 3 experimental groups:
1. Modified Reading Recovery Group Size + 10 minutes: In this
group, one certified Reading Recovery teacher will work with 3
students who qualified for intervention. This group will function
more like a guided reading group, but will employ Reading
Recoverys research based philosophies and typical lesson
components. One difference will be that only one running record
will be conducted per lesson (teacher rotates the student who
27
28
Measures
For this study, a pre and posttest assessment will be given to
each student. These assessments will be comprised of two parts: (1) a
Reading Recovery battery of assessments and (2) a non-Reading
Recovery associated battery of assessments. The Reading Recovery
battery will consist of all parts of the Observation Survey of Early
Literacy Achievement: Word Test, Concepts About Print, Writing
29
30
31
Citations
About the WWC. (n.d.). Retrieved November 1, 2015, from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/aboutus.aspx
Askew, B. J., Kaye, E., Frasier, D. F., Fort Bend, I. S. D., Mobasher, M., Anderson, N., &
Rodrguez, Y. G. (2003). Making a case for prevention in education. Literacy,
6(2).
Baker, S. (2015). Experts Say Reading Recovery Is Not Effective, Leaves Too Many
Children Behind - Wrightslaw. Wrightslaw.com. Retrieved 2 November 2015,
from http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/read.rr.ltr.experts.htm
Basic Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved October 31, 2015, from http://readingrecovery.org/readingrecovery/teaching-children/basic-facts
Clay, M. (1991). Introducing a new storybook to young readers. The Reading Teacher,
45(4), 264-273.
DAgostino, J. (2012). Technical Review Committee Confirms Highest NCRTI Ratings
for Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Journal of Reading
Recovery, 53-56. Retrieved November 1, 2015, from
http://readingrecovery.org/images/pdfs/Journals/JRR/Vol11_No2_Spring2012/jrr_11.2_ncrti_review.pdf
DAgostino, Jerome V., & Harmey, Sinead (May 2015). Reading Recovery and
Descubriendo la Lectura National Report 2013-2014. International Data
Evaluation Center Technical Report. Retrieved from
https://www.idecweb.us/Publications.aspx
Haenn, J. F. (2000, April). Reading Recovery: Success for how many? Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED442095)
Hierbert, E. (1994). Reading Recovery in the United States: What Difference Does It
Make to an Age Cohort? Educational Researcher, 23(9), 15-25. Retrieved
September 21, 2015, from
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/stable/1177044
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
Investing in Innovation Fund (i3). (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2015, from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html#program
Jones, N. (2002). Acceleration: The Key to Reading Recovery Benefits. Journal of
Reading Recovery.
32
33