X hits on this document

PDF document

Reading Recovery: A Scientifically Based Analysis - page 7 / 21

53 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

7 / 21

7

tutored students perform better than Achievement Comparison students on an oral

reading task, this difference disappears when the task is a standardized one, even one that

has the limited passages of the Woodcock Reading Mastery test-revised (p. 23). This

point to the need for additional and more complex comprehension strategies and indicates

a lack of transfer. More cognitive and metacognitive strategies are needed.

According to Glynn et al. (1992) maintenance measures comparing the

performance of students successfully graduated from RR with other low-progress

students who did not receive RR tutoring indicate that 12 months after the intervention

there are very small differences between the reading achievement of RR children and the

other low-progress children. This finding regarding the failure of the low-progress

children to respond to RR in the long run was replicated in a reanalysis of Pinnell et al.’s

(1988) data on U.S. participants in RR, once again indicating that 30 percent of the

original sample of low-progress children who were enrolled in RR failed to benefit from

the program (Center et al., 1995). Hiebert (1994) and Shanahan and Barr (1995) drew

similar conclusions.

In a study of RR conducted by Pinnell et al. (1994), including random assignment

of participants to one of five groups—RR, three other early intervention programs

(differing from one another in group size, amount of teacher training, and whether or not

they adhered to RR instructional plans), and a control group—the results indicated that

following 70 days of program intervention the students in the RR clearly outperformed

the students in the other three intervention programs on an array of measures of reading

achievement. The study being described here contained high amounts of familiar book

reading time for the reading recovery group and for one additional intervention group

Document info
Document views53
Page views53
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 03:05:50 UTC 2016
Pages21
Paragraphs462
Words5914

Comments