The 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 program's 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 Clay's 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 Clay's 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...
Blachman, B.A., et al. (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for ?second and third graders and a 1- year follow- up. Journal of Educational ?Psychology, 96,444-461. Retrieved November 20, 2006, From Psych ?Articles: http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx??direct=true&db=pdh&an=edu963444.
Greaney, K.T., Tunmer, W.E., Chapman, J.W. (1997). Effects of rime-based ?orthographic analogy training on the word recognition skills of children ?with reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 645-651. Retrieved November 20,2006, from Psych Articles: "http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&an=edu894645" ?
Lyons, C.A. Reading recovery and learning disability: issues, challenges, and ?implications. (1994). Literacy, Teaching and Learning, 1, 109-119. ?Retrieved November 20,2006, From: http://www.readingrecovery.org/pdfs/LTL-CW/1.1/lyons.pdf.
?O 'Connor, R.E., et al. Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate ?grades: a comparison of text difficulty. (2002). Journal of Educational ?Psychology, 94,474-485. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from Psych ?Articles: ? http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&an=edu943474
Reading Recovery Council of North America. Index: What is Reading Recovery? Retrieved November 26, 2006. http://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/index.asp.?
Reading Recovery Council of North America. Lessons: Lesson Objective. Retrieved November 26, 2006. ?http://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/lessons.asp.?
Reading Recovery Council of North America. Learning Disabilities: Facing the Challenge of Learning Disabilities. Retrieved November 26, 2006. ?http://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/disabilities.asp.?
Schwartz, R.M. Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the reading ?recovery early intervention. (2005).Journal of Educational Psychology, ?97, 257-267. Retrieved November 20,2006, from Psych Articles: ?http://search.epnet.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&an=edu972257. ?
Please join StudyMode to read the full document