Search

In this study, we used Reading Recovery as the context to examine the relationship between three types of contingent teaching (temporal, instructional, and domain contingency) and student outcomes in a one-to-one literacy tutoring setting. We first created a National Teacher Effectiveness Index for all Reading Recovery teachers in the country and then used that index to identify two distinct groups of teachers from an existing data repository of 38 Reading Recovery teachers in training: those whose students had either lower average gain scores at the end of the school year (n = 6) or higher average gain scores (n = 4). We coded 1,199 teacher and student moves when they interacted at difficulty while reading a new book with teacher support. Results from hierarchical linear modeling analyses showed no significant differences for instructional contingency (the amount of information provided at difficulty), no main effects, and a nonsignificant interaction. Nor did we find statistically significant differences between the two groups of teachers for temporal contingency (the frequency of help). Dramatic differences existed, however, for domain contingency (what the teachers focused on when providing help). Specifically, teachers of students with higher outcomes had 8.3 greater odds of prompting students to use sources of information that they were neglecting while trying to decode a word. These findings provide needed information about the processes of scaffolding and have important implications not only for reading instruction and intervention but also for the ways in which scaffolding is studied.

Reading Recovery is one of the most researched literacy programs worldwide. Although there have been at least 4 quantitative reviews of its effectiveness, none have considered all rigorous group-comparison studies from all implementing nations from the late 1970s to 2015. Using a hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) v-known analysis, we examined if effects differed in the United States versus other nations, if experiments yielded larger effects than quasi-experiments, if the effects changed over time, and if the type of outcome mediated the impact estimates. We also considered the sustained effects of the intervention. After reviewing 203 primary studies, we identified 16 that met our criteria, such as treatment fidelity and experimental or high-quality quasi-experimental design. Based on a random effects model, the estimated overall effect was .59, with larger effects for outcomes based on the "Observation Survey" (Clay, 2013), and stronger effects in certain literacy domains, such as text reading, print knowledge, and general literacy. Although United States studies produced a larger point estimate (0.61) compared to other countries (0.52), and experiments (0.69) yielded a larger estimate than quasi-experiments (0.43), neither difference was statistically significant. Overall, effects did not change over time, but effects based on the Observation Survey did improve significantly from earlier to later studies. We also found that the long-term effect may diminish, but there were too few studies to estimate the sustained impact with confidence. The 0.59 overall effect places Reading Recovery in the top 10% in terms of impact of early literacy programs reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse.

The purpose of this research was to analyze the performance of pupils (N = 6,023) who took part in Reading Recovery (RR) in England on a decoding test, the Phonics Screening Check (PSC), administered at the end of Year 1 when children are approximately 5 to 6 years of age. The data cover two academic years (2015/2016 and 2016/2017) and include demographic information, pre- and post-intervention achievement test scores and PSC results. Descriptive statistics and linear regression modeling (using a linear spline specification for timing) were used. Results indicated that pupils who had an RR intervention before the PSC performed better than peers who had the intervention during or after the PSC. There was a positive and statistically significant increase in PSC performance among those whose RR intervention began earlier relative to the PSC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is (1) to report on the design of the early writing observational writing rubric designed to observe and describe change over time in the writing of children emerging into conventional literacy (ages 6–7) within an instructional setting and (2) to investigate the initial reliability and validity of the rubric. We used an extant data set that included 52 videos of writing instruction in Reading Recovery lessons (approximately 520 minutes) and pre- and post-intervention test data, for 24 students, taken at multiple time points across a 20-week period. Dependent sample t-tests and HLM were used to ascertain if the rubric was sensitive to change over occasions. We also considered if the scores correlated with external literacy measures. The findings suggest that the rubric has good initial reliability and validity and is a useful tool for researchers to observe and measure change over time as young children write in an instructional setting; further validation work is required for use in other settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]