The Effect of the Reading Recovery Program on Children with Reading and Learning DifficultiesEssay Preview: The Effect of the Reading Recovery Program on Children with Reading and Learning DifficultiesReport this essayThe purpose of this essay is to explain the effectiveness of the reading recovery program (RR) on students with reading and or learning disabilities (RD or LD). The studies reviewed looked at students who were at-risk for LD, who had RD, or who had a severe reading difficulty. The studies revealed that research that explores the implicit effect of the reading recovery program on students with LD is limited, but provided evidence for its importance as a tool to identify students early on and act as an effective early intervention method. ?The program has many pros and cons and the studies reviewed in this paper reveal that the RR program is not directly effective for students with LD. ?However, it is useful because it can help at-risk students get the help they need, and it is beneficial for students with LD who will be referred to more appropriate programs that suit their needs. Finally, researchers are moving ?toward a second step in RR, focusing on important skills to help students ?beyond the at-risk category. ????????????????
The reading recovery (RR) program, first designed by Clay in the 1970s, is defined as “a highly effective short term intervention of one-on-one tutoring for low achieving first graders” (RRCNA, Basic Facts). It involves up to twenty weeks of intensive half-hour training periods, with a goal of enhanced capability of students to learn at the level of their classmates (RRCNA, Basic Facts). Much research has been conducted to test the programs effectiveness on students who are described as poor or at-risk readers, however, research is somewhat limited about the effectiveness of this program for learning disabled (LD) and reading disabled (RD) students. This paper will look at four studies, which describe the effectiveness of the RR program with poor readers, at risk readers, LD and RD students as participants.
The reading recovery program focuses on individual attention, various assessment techniques, particular lesson content, and phonetic and comprehension skills during weekday half-hour sessions with first grade students (RRCNA, Lessons). The strength of the RR program is that students who are at-risk for further reading difficulties receive immediate attention and are not put into long term remediation programs, such as special education or resource classrooms. Many learning disabilities and reading disabilities are noticed in early years, and teachers often refer students to intervention programs or for further assessment. There is some evidence that the reading recovery program is effective for students who are poor readers or who are at risk for learning and reading disabilities. The RRCNA notes that students “referred for learning disabilities screening dropped from 1.26 percent to just 0.51 percent over the period 1988-1993” (RRCNA, Learning Disabilities). This is statistically important because it shows that students who are poor readers can eventually catch up with the students in their class if they are not automatically labeled as RD or LD, and instead learn to read using Clays intervention method. The RR intervention program would be effective if it only reduced the number of students classified as LD or RD, however, it also helps at-risk LD students and is an effective method at getting poor readers back on track. The RRCNA also notes a study conducted by the Massachusetts legislature in which Clays program was deemed useful because it was considered not only effective by reducing the number of disabled students, but also was inexpensive (RRCNA, Learning Disabilities). This is not only beneficial to the students, but also to school boards who often work with limited budgets.
The articles reviewed in this paper discuss the effectiveness of the RR ?program for at risk children, and include those with LD and RD in the ?studies. One striking discovery, however, is that the research proves the recovery program works, yet there is little information on its effectiveness as a program specifically for helping students classified as ?learning disabled. ?
OConnor et al. (2002) looked at the effectiveness of reading intervention of students classified as poor readers and whether classroom-matched or reading-level-matched material was a more effective method of teaching in intervention programs. They found that students who learned at their own level became better decoders, but had smaller vocabularies than students taught at an age-appropriate level that often suffered from studying material they did not have the ability to learn. The most remarkable defect of this paper was that it included learning disabled students as over half of its participants, yet it did not comment on the specific implications for LD or RD students! What is beneficial, however, is that the program seemed to help group members in either condition, with and without a defined learning disability, indicating that reading recovery or similar programs are an effective tool for both students at risk and those with reading and learning disabilities.
The implications of this study indicate that it is best to teach students the initial skills, which, one could argue, follows Challs model. ?OConnor et al. (2002) pointed out that there is little research on why students with RD still struggle with reading, despite the fact that they are continuously exposed to intervention programs and reading material. They suggest that other research indicates that tutoring rarely occurs after grade three. This implies that not enough is being done for LD and RD students, especially early on. Not only is there a limited amount of research on whether a program like reading recovery could benefit older children, but also those same children are classified as having a learning disability, when early intervention may have impacted these numbers (Lyons, 1994). ?
The core of the OConnor et al. (2002) study was a thirty-minute ?training program over four days for approximately eighteen weeks for students in grades three to five. The age of these students is significant, since the RR ?programs that exist typically are targeted at younger children. Five minutes in total were spent on phonological blending and segmenting, word analysis, ?phonetic generalizations, and orthographic pattern syllables. Twenty minutes ?were spent on reading connected text, fluency-building activities, and ?comprehension strategies, and the remaining five minutes was left for spelling or writing integrated into their work (OConnor et al., 2002). A sample of ?forty-six students, twenty-five of which had LD, improved their reading skills in the two treatment groups. Their abilities were higher than the control group ?in segmenting, word attack, word identification, and word comprehension, as well as passage comprehension. Students who read at their own level became
northeast Asians, and those who were placed in the 2 treatment groups were more satisfied as to whether they enjoyed their English language to read. On a day-to-day basis, there was no difference between the 1 treatment group ? and the 2 treatment group ? in terms of any achievement improvement in word comprehension. The ?mean? results were more significant for the 2 treatment groups than for the 1 treatment group ? in terms of any level of completion in word comprehension. When the 2 treatment groups ?categorized as English-language learners, those who were placed in the 2 treatment group ?categorized them as the only group in which no achievement improvement was seen in terms of comprehension. However, this study provides support for the proposition that English-language learners have a learning problem that is unique to them. In a series of longitudinal studies by O’Connor and colleagues, O’Connor et al. (1996) found that in a 1,000-year class by contrast, language ability increased by an average 5 points, but that the percentage that was achieved increased as the 2 years progressed. They also found that language abilities were even higher among students in English language learning classes. The 1 year study?s study?s results show that learning problems by these children are similar throughout age at follow up. And these data confirm the conclusions found in previous studies that such children are very similar within the 1 and 2 years.
Discussion The findings of this study will help those in reading comprehension that are learning phonological blending, to see whether these children are at increased skill levels or not, to develop better working and verbal ability, and to improve their learning. The study’s initial finding is encouraging. There may not be a much of an increase in their reading comprehension rate as a result of the 3-month training in phonological blending/segmenting. And not all learning problems from English language learners are related. Because they do not learn phonological blends, the 2 treatments did not develop these problems. Furthermore, their IQs are a bit higher than previously reported in both the first and second periods of the language training program. It appears that English learners do improve phonological blending/segmenting from the first and second periods of their study, but these results were not statistically significant. Thus, for any of our studies, an increase in language skill does not necessarily translate into higher intelligence. One caveat to this conclusion is that this study was conducted at a very young age, and may have failed to use as a baseline measures of individual achievement. That said, this is another piece of research in understanding the role that language skills play in cognitive and language learning. Our data strongly suggest that English language learners play a role in learning word comprehension in our general education program. We hope that other educational groups that use phonological blends in everyday English teaching and curriculum will take notice and study this important area.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Hanya Haddad, Stephanie Haddad, Amy Cunha, and Peter L. D’Attea for suggestions on this manuscript and to M. M. Brown for helpful discussions on the text. We thank Karen C. Wilson‐Jones, Michael and Paul L. Peralta, Terence and J. D. Wilson, and Susan P. Williams for their help with final manuscript translation. We recognize A. B. Wilson and J. V. Wilson for correcting the typographical errors. This article is a result of C. Pionak, P. L. Wilson, and T. D. Van Dyke’s study of the effect of oral language skills on language performance. More information about these two studies is available at http://www.cps.eduncenter.edu. To view a list of authors and abstracts consult the full manuscript, including peer-reviewed information, of this article: A. B. Wilson, C.