Year One Results From the Multisite Randomized Evaluation of the i3 Scale-Up of Reading Recovery

May, Henry; Gray, Abigail; Sirinides, Philip; Goldsworthy, Heather; Armijo, Michael; Sam, Cecile; Gillespie, Jessica; Tognatta, Namrata

doi:10.3102/0002831214565788

Cited by 24 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The context for the present research was Reading Recovery, a literacy intervention for struggling first‐grade students (see May et al., ). We collected 20 videos from 10 teachers and 85 of their students as they read a new, unfamiliar book to their teacher.…”

Section: Insights From a Recent Scaffolding Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaffolding Word Solving While Reading: New Research Insights

Rodgers¹

2016

Read Teach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For many teachers, the term scaffolding has come to mean providing just the right amount of help when a student encounters difficulty. However, there is another facet of scaffolding that has been largely ignored, and that is making decisions about what to focus on to help the student. In this article, new research findings are shared about both types of scaffolding and the role they play in helping beginning readers solve new words while reading connected text. Suggestions are provided for how teachers can use these findings to more effectively scaffold young students’ word solving attempts as they read a new book with teacher help.

show abstract

Section: Insights From a Recent Scaffolding Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaffolding Word Solving While Reading: New Research Insights

Rodgers¹

2016

Read Teach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are research results showing that RR meets the needs of some students (e.g. Pinnell et al., ; D'Agostino & Murphy, ; Schwartz, ; U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse, 2007, 2013, 2014; May et al., ; D'Agostino & Harmey, ; D'Agostino et al., ; Shanahan, ). Many studies and reviews, however, cast considerable doubt on the effectiveness of the programme (e.g.…”

Section: The Goals Of Reading Recoverymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A US$55 million ‘scale‐up’ study funded mostly by the US Department of Education as part of the 2010 Obama administration economic stimulus package, involved more than 1400 schools with targeted assistance for over 88,000 students. The authors of the study (May et al., ) described a two‐tier process for selecting students into the RR programme. They drew attention to the requirement of the RRCNA Standards and Guidelines (Reading Recovery Council of North America, ) that schools select ‘the lowest achieving first‐grade students'and serve the ‘lowest scorers first’ (May et al., , p. 24).…”

Section: Does Reading Recovery Always Select the Lowest Achieving Chimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors of the study (May et al., ) described a two‐tier process for selecting students into the RR programme. They drew attention to the requirement of the RRCNA Standards and Guidelines (Reading Recovery Council of North America, ) that schools select ‘the lowest achieving first‐grade students'and serve the ‘lowest scorers first’ (May et al., , p. 24). The May et al.…”

Section: Does Reading Recovery Always Select the Lowest Achieving Chimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues

Chapman

Tunmer

2018

Review of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reading Recovery (RR) was developed in New Zealand in the early 1980s to provide 30 minutes of daily individualised literacy instruction over 20 weeks for students struggling with learning to read after one year of formal schooling. Considerable research has been undertaken on the RR programme. While results indicate short-term success for some students, each year 15-30% of students do not successfully complete the programme and are therefore 'unrecovered'. Research on the characteristics of these unrecovered students is sparse. This review examines findings on the characteristics of unrecovered students. These RR students typically have limited phonemic awareness and phonemically based decoding skills, and lower scores on RR screening measures on entry to RR than 'recovered' students. In New Zealand, unrecovered students tend to be enrolled in schools serving lower socio-economic neighbourhoods, and tend to be from M aori or Pasifika (Polynesian Pacific Island heritage) backgrounds. These students typically receive more RR lessons than recovered students. We conclude that RR does not tailor instruction to meet the needs of individual students, as claimed. The RR instructional model, developed in the 1970s, fails to recognise the importance of explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and the use of letter-sound relations. Such instruction is essential for most students who struggle with literacy learning during their early years of schooling and especially important for students who experience the most difficulty with learning to read. Suggestions are presented for strengthening the RR programme and for reducing the number of unrecovered students.

show abstract

“…This variability was in READING RECOVERY: An Evaluation of the Four-Year i3 Scale-Up | 15 May, 2015) Percent ELL large part due to the significant differences in regional early-literacy infrastructures. We found that several regions enjoyed significant state-level political support for Reading Recovery and early-literacy programming.…”

Section: Recruitment Strategies: Varied and Context-drivenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reading Recovery: An Evaluation of the Four-Year i3 Scale-Up

May¹,

Sirinides²,

Gray³

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CPRE released its evaluation of one of the most ambitious and well-documented expansions of a U.S. instructional curriculum. The rigorous independent evaluation of the Investing in Innovation (i3) scale-up of Reading Recovery, a literacy intervention for struggling first graders, was a collaboration between CPRE and the Center for Research on Education and Social Policy (CRESP) at the University of Delaware.The CPRE/CRESP evaluation revealed that students who participated in Reading Recovery significantly outperformed students in the control group on measures of overall reading, reading comprehension, and decoding. These effects were similarly large for English language learners and students attending rural schools, which were the student subgroups of priority interest for the i3 scale-up grant program.The study included an in-depth analysis of program implementation. Key findings focus on the contextual factors of the school and teachers that support the program's success and the components of instructional strength in Reading Recovery. Disciplines Curriculum and Instruction | Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research | Educational Methods | Education Policy | Elementary and Middle and Secondary Education Administration | Elementary Education and Teaching | Reading and Language CommentsView on the CPRE website.This report is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/81 CONSORTIUMforPOLICYR ESEARCHinEDUCATION A R E S E A R C H R E P O R T About the Center for Research in Education & Social Policy (CRESP)The Center for Research in Education and Social Policy (CRESP) within the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Delaware conducts rigorous research to help policymakers and practitioners in education, health care and human services determine which policies and programs are most promising for improving outcomes in children, youth, adults and families.Although research in prevention sciences and health care have long used rigorous designs to assess the effectiveness of programs, it was not until the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 that we witnessed a dramatic increase in the quantity and quality of research to evaluate the effects of education programs and policies. The education community began to focus on research that could measure the impact of these programs through randomized experiments and other research designs that support causal conclusions and can determine whether, how well, for whom, and why new programs and interventions work.CRESP specializes in experimental and quasi-experimental research that uses quantitative and mixed methods to evaluate how and how well programs and interventions work to improve educational, family, and health outcomes in schools and communities.

show abstract

Year One Results From the Multisite Randomized Evaluation of the i3 Scale-Up of Reading Recovery

Cited by 24 publications

References 24 publications

Scaffolding Word Solving While Reading: New Research Insights

Scaffolding Word Solving While Reading: New Research Insights

Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues

Reading Recovery: An Evaluation of the Four-Year i3 Scale-Up

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About