Reading Recovery[R]. What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report. Updated
Author: What Works Clearinghouse (ED)
Date: 2013-07-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Grade 1,Elementary School Students,Beginning Reading,Reading Instruction,Intervention,Comparative Analysis,Tutoring,Reading Skills,Writing Skills,Literacy Education,Program Effectiveness,Program Evaluation,Alphabets,Phonemic Awareness,Reading Achievement,Reading Fluency,Reading Comprehension,Reading Difficulties,Effect Size,Writing Difficulties,Teaching Methods,Faculty Development

&quot;Reading Recovery[R]&quot; is a short-term intervention that provides one-on-one tutoring to first-grade students who are struggling in reading and writing. The supplementary program aims to promote literacy skills and foster the development of reading and writing strategies by tailoring individualized lessons to each student. Tutoring is delivered by trained &quot;Reading Recovery[R]&quot; teachers in daily 30 minute pull-out sessions over the course of 12-20 weeks. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified three studies of &quot;Reading Recovery[R]&quot; that both fall within the scope of the Beginning Reading topic area and meet WWC evidence standards. All three studies meet standards without reservations. Together, these studies included 227 students in first grade in at least 14 states. The WWC considers the extent of evidence for &quot;Reading Recovery[R]&quot; on the reading skills of beginning readers to be small for four outcome domains--alphabetics, reading fluency, comprehension, and general reading achievement. (See the Effectiveness Summary on p. 4 for further description of these domains.) &quot;Reading Recovery[R]&quot; was found to have positive effects on general reading achievement and potentially positive effects on alphabetics, reading fluency, and comprehension for beginning readers. The WWC identified 202 studies that investigated the effects of &quot;Reading Recovery[R]&quot; on the reading skills of beginning readers. The WWC reviewed 79 of those studies against group design evidence standards. Three studies (Pinnell, DeFord, and Lyons, 1988; Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer, 1994; and Schwartz, 2005) are randomized controlled trials that meet WWC evidence standards without reservations. Those three studies are summarized in this report. Specifically, these studies are: (1) Pinnell, G. S., DeFord, D. E., &amp; Lyons, C. A. (1988). &quot;Reading Recovery: Early intervention for at-risk first graders&quot; (Educational Research Service Monograph). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service; (2) Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A. S., and Seltzer, M. (1994). &quot;Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders.&quot; &quot;Reading Research Quarterly,&quot; 29(1), 8-39; and (3) Schwartz, R. M. (2005). &quot;Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the Reading Recovery early intervention.&quot; &quot;Journal of Educational Psychology,&quot; 97(2), 257-267. Seventy-six studies do not meet WWC evidence standards. The remaining 123 studies do not meet WWC eligibility screens for review in this topic area. Citations for all 202 studies are in the References section. The following are appended: (1) Research details for Pinnell, DeFord, &amp; Lyons (1988); (2) Research details for Pinnell et al. (1994); (3) Research details for Schwartz (2005); (4) Outcome measures for each domain; (5) Findings included in the rating for the alphabetics domain; (6) Findings included in the rating for the reading fluency domain; (7) Findings included in the rating for the comprehension domain; and (8) Findings included in the rating for the general reading achievement domain. A glossary of terms is included, along with charts explaining the criteria used to determine the rating of a study, the rating of effectiveness for an intervention, and the extent of evidence for an intervention. (Contains 9 tables and 7 endnotes.)