What Effects Does Reading Recovery Have on Student Learning - Research Paper Example

What Effects Does Reading Recovery Have on Learning Introduction Reading Recovery programs have assumed greater significance ever since MarieM. Clay designed an early intervention program with a view to uplift the standards of first graders who experienced difficulty in learning to read and write. The effectiveness of Reading recovery programs stem from their individualized one to one tutoring whereby the slow learners are specially trained to develop a self-extending system whereby they can be brought into the average level of the regular classroom instruction. As such these programs call for trained and experienced teachers who can bring about accelerated learning through a variety of strategies. This paper seeks to explore what effects Reading Recovery has on student learning with special reference to the significance of reading recovery intervention and the various approaches employed by specialist instructors. Definition of Reading Recovery: Reading Recovery is understood as a supplementary education program for the lowest-achieving first-grade children. For Dr. Marie Clay, reading is “a message-getting, problem-solving activity which increases in power and flexibility the more it is practiced” and “that within the directional constraints of the printer’s cue, language and visual perception responses are purposefully directed by the reader in some integrated way to the problem of extracting meaning from cues in a text, in sequence, so that the reader brings a maximum of understanding to the author’s message” (Clay, 1991, p. 6). As the quotation makes it clear, the first grade learner should be trained to acquire the message behind the reading process and it is the duty of the instructor to identify the stumbling blocks before the learner and to help him for problem solution. Goal and specifics of Reading Recovery: According to Wilson and Daviss, “the goal of Reading Recovery is to dramatically reduce the number of first-grade students who have extreme difficulty learning to read and write and to reduce the cost of these learners to educational systems” (Reading Recovery: Basic Facts 2010). For this, it is essential that the instructors identify the right lowest-achieving first graders and entrust them to a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher who is able to build their confidence level and enable them to work independently in the regular classroom. The selected students are offered a half-hour lesson each school day for 12 to 20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher and their lessons are discontinued as soon as the teacher feels that they have reached the average levels and are able to pursue their regular studies independently. Rational: Studies and researches on Reading Recovery programs have proved its significance and role in primary teaching. Studies conducted in New Zealand, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada have clearly demonstrated that “Reading Recovery enables most students who are experiencing difficulties in literacy learning to make the accelerated progress necessary to read at the grade level of their peers in an average of 15 weeks” (How are students identified for Reading Recovery?). It has also been found in London that children made little progress in such schools where there was no access to reading recovery programs. Similarly, the efforts made by the NCLB have proved to be highly beneficial for Reading Recovery programs as it upholds school interventions to make sure that no child is left behind. As already mentioned, the purpose of Reading Recovery programs is to bring the lowest achievers in the first grade to the mainstream and it is the duty of the Reading Recovery teachers to ensure that the child does not suffer from the adverse effects of higher expectations either from the school or from the family members. Literature Review The primary aim of Reading Recovery programs is to teach the young learners the skills needed to become fluent readers and writers. The role of the Reading Recovery instructor is pivotal in this regard. Gallant and Schwartz (2010) analyze the nature of expertise in reading instruction. Reading recovery instruction, being a complex process, necessitates “a teacher to use a variety of skills flexibly in order to scaffold the learning of a wide range of learners” (Gallant & Schwartz, 2010, p. 1). Teachers of reading skills need to update the course work and the pedagogy based on their professional knowledge, experience, experiments, personal reflections and observations. The authors also argue that there should be new assessment practices and approaches that are characterized by ‘ongoing and comprehensive multiple assessment measures, in contrast to the traditional single high stakes tests that are often solely used at the end of teacher preparation programs to award certification” (Gallant and Schwartz, p. 2). No doubt, these assessment practices are most likely to develop expertise in both pre-service and in-service teachers and these will also help to modulate instructional resources in tune with student needs, to monitor and to screen students. The authors conclude by stating that expertise in reading instruction calls for professional knowledge, professional development opportunities, advanced knowledge acquisition related to literacy instruction and a thorough mastery over the concepts, principles and instructional procedures (Gallant and Schwartz, 2010, P. 16-17). Similarly, a study conducted by Fitzharris, Jones and Crawford (2008) among teachers whose experience ranged from 7 to 20 years showed that even though all the teachers received the same support at the school, “the teachers’ overall acquisition of new knowledge was affected by their educational background, years and level of teaching experience, involvement with special education, and previous coaching experiences” (2008, p. 390). The study also showed that teachers’ educational level, educational experiences and the scope of professional requirements add to the professional development of the teacher. For this, it is essential to design a developmental rubric and there should be provisions to assess the knowledge and skill levels of each teacher after trainings. Self-assessment by teachers and feed backs from colleagues, in this regard, play a pivotal role. For, Cox and Hopkins (2006), Reading Recovery (RR) is “designed to accelerate reading and writing instruction for children who clearly demonstrate that they are at risk for continuing low achievement in literacy learning so that they may catch up with their peers and succeed in the regular classroom program” (Cox & Hopkins, 2006, p. 254). The six measures of reading and writing under the Reading Recovery program include letter identification, word test, concepts about print, writing vocabulary, hearing and recording sounds in words, and text reading and learners for RR programs are selected after going through these six steps of evaluation (Cox & Hopkins, 2006, p. 255). Similarly, the RR instructional framework is comprised of six components which include components such as rereading familiar texts, reading the previous day’s new book, word work (letter identification, breaking words apart, and words in isolation), writing a message or story, reassembling a cut-up story, and introducing and reading a new book (Cox & Hopkins, 2006, p. 256). The RR program for any student can be discontinued when the instructor feels that the learner is able to cope up with his peers and learn independently. In the same way, the four theory-based instructional assumptions of RR program view reading and writing as learned behaviors, stress systematic observation and accelerated learning and exhorts teachers to build on the learners’ strengths. As far as the Reading Recovery programs are concerned, it is the duty of the Reading Recovery professional to instill in the minds of his/her learners phonemic awareness, knowledge of sound-letter relationships, fluency, reading comprehension, and spelling ability. The results of the pilot study conducted by Iversen, Tunmer, and Chapman (2005) showed that “the RR lesson format could be adapted for teaching pairs of struggling readers without compromising the integrity of the lesson content, provided that the average duration of the lesson was increased to 41 min” (Iversen, Tunmer & Chapman, 2005, p. 470). The authors also argued that teaching in pairs could bring out the best in the child by effectively employing group dynamics such as competition, cooperation, and support. Fitzgerald and Ramsbotham (2004), in this respect, argue that the “ key focus of Reading Recovery instruction is the development of cognitive and strategic processing systems that integrate meaning, visual, and sound cues while reading” (2004, p. 1). It was MacKenzie (2001) who postulated that Booster groups were an effective component of literacy programs for primary students whereby “former Reading Recovery students receive extra support to maintain and extend literacy progress” (2001, p. 222). The author found that there was still the need for follow up and continued contact with those who discontinued the reading recovery program at the average level. The primary duty of the Booster groups was to monitor student progress and to assist them whenever they encountered any learning difficulties. The literacy Booster Groups seek to offer maintenance for first grade students by assisting them to select appropriate books (two familiar and two new books), and by helping teachers in the preparation of mini-lessons. The mini-lessons for the first graders include “self-monitoring using multiple cue sources, self-correction, using known information to assist with new text, comprehension and fluency” and the topics for the mini-lessons include “using common spelling patterns to assist with writing new words, spacing between words, letter formation, punctuation, capitalization, and recording complete ideas on paper” (MacKenzie, 2001, P. 227). The evaluative study conducted by the author in the Landon Elementary school showed that literacy Booster groups increased the confidence of the learners considerably; the testimonies offered by the teachers, students and the parents at Landon Elementary is a proof for this. Lane et al (2009) conducted some seminal studies on the early literacy intervention, the University of Florida Literacy Initiative (UFLI) and identified that among the 100 first-grade students who were evaluated on factors such as phonological awareness, sight word knowledge, decoding and word attack children who received all of the tutoring components performed better than those in the control condition (2009, p. 277). Hicks and Villaume (2001) made some remarkable studies on why certain reading recovery learners fail to acquire the desired levels of reading mastery. The authors critically evaluated the literacy development of two Reading Recovery children, Haley and Will, and found that Will failed to reach the average level as the discrepancy between the reading recovery program and the regular classroom instructions were confusing to him. The authors rightly identified that Cynthia, as a trained Reading Recovery teacher focused on both phonological information (visual cues) and contextual information (meaning and structure clues); however, many reading recovery teachers stressed on the “development of children’s psychological understandings (e.g., phonemic awareness, knowledge of letter names, and knowledge of sound-spelling correspondences)” (Hicks & Villaume, 2001, 402). Even though literacy development needs to be constructive, integrated, and self-extending, one should always keep in mind that children respond in different ways to instruction. Approaches to Teaching Reading Skills: There are conflicts among scholars, researchers, and experts in determining the best approach to teaching reading skills. In the initial stages of the Reading recovery programs, the phonics based approach to teaching reading was thought to be the most effective method. In the phonic based approach, the primary duty of the Reading Recovery specialist was to make the students familiar with the various sounds associated with letters and combinations of letters and to train them to utter myriads of words by blending various sound combinations. However, years of Reading recovery practices made it clear that the phonics based approach was not always beneficial for the learners. It has been identified by many that some children were unable to hear and distinguish the individual phonemes in a word through the "look-say" method. Samuel L. Blumenfeld makes it clear when he states that children taught with look-say method lacked all sense of precision of letters and that children very often look at words as wholes rather than seeing ‘letters as representing sounds’ (Blumenfeld). Subsequently, there are many who advocate that the whole language approach to teaching reading became the predominant method for teaching reading. Even though, the National Reading Panel report held that it was the phonics instruction that brought about the best result in reading it maintained that “ systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a balanced reading program” (Reyhner, 2008). Thus, the whole language approach, which holds that children should focus on meaning and strategy instruction, needs attention in this regard. As per the whole language perspective, language is viewed as a complete meaning-making system. It is estimated that 75-85 percent of the lowest 20 percent of children served by Reading Recovery achieved reading and writing scores in the average range of their class and did not receive further supplemental instruction. Biblical Lens: Having gone through the major concepts associated with Reading Recovery, it is essential to view Reading Recovery program through Biblical lens. Just as the Christians belief in creation, man’s fall, his redemption through Christ’s suffering and the final consummation through Christ’s resurrection, one can notice similar parallels with regard to the reading recovery program. Reading through the Biblical lens, all students are created in the image of God, students learn at different rates with different abilities, and as such all students are redeemable. This means that even if a student is a low achiever with regard to reading potentialities, he can be redeemed through reading recovery programs. The consummation of the reader occurs when he/ she reaches to the average level and perform like the other students in the regular classroom instruction. One should always bear in mind that in reading recovery program the primary goal of education is to strengthen the reading skills of otherwise deficient students and enable them to experience successes and move them toward becoming fluent readers and writers. Similarly, viewing from an anthropological perspective, even the students who do not learn at the same rate as average students in the class have the same right to get educated as others of his/her same grade. Conclusion To conclude, it can be stated that reading recovery programs have been proved to be effective and successful and that Reading Recovery students are reported to make considerable gains in reading and writing. Moore and Wade (1998) conducted a seminal study in Australia and New Zealand whereby they compared 121 children who Recovery intervention at age 6 compared with those of a Comparison group of 121 children, drawn from the same classes who, at age 6 years, had been better performers in literacy (in their fifth and sixth years in school) and found that “five or six years after the intervention of Reading Recovery teaching, the weakest groups have overtaken initially more able readers and performed better in both reading accuracy and comprehension” (Schwartz , 2010, p. 201). This clearly shows that many of the strategies and techniques taught during Reading Recovery for independent reading have had lasting effect in those children. Thus, reading recovery programs are a necessity for those children who under perform in the first primary grades and to make the program effective there should be the right approaches and strategies practices by specially trained and experienced Reading Recovery trainers. References Blumenfeld, S.L. Children Taught With Look-Say Method Lack All Sense of Precision of Letters. Retrieved March 13, 2010 from: http://www.donpotter.net/PDF/Blumenfeld%27s%20RRF%20Speech.pdf Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fitzharris, L., Jones, M.B & Crawford, A. (Feb, 2008). Teacher Knowledge Matters in how are students identified for Reading Recovery? Reading Discovery: a research based early Intervention Program. Retrieved March 13, 2010 from: http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/earlyyears/reading_recovery/research.htm Gallant, P., & Schwartz, R. (2010). Examining the Nature of Expertise in Reading Instruction. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49 (1), 1-19. Cox, B.E & Hopkins, C.J. (Apr-Jun 2006). Building on theoretical principles gleaned from Reading Recovery to inform classroom practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (2), 254-267. Fitzgerald, J & Ramsbotham, A. (Fall, 2004). First-Graders Cognitive and Strategic Development in Reading Recovery Reading and Writing, Reading Research and Instruction, 44 (1), 1-31. Hicks, C.P & Villaume, S.K. (Dec 2000/Jan 2001). Finding our own way: Critical reflections on the literacy development of two Reading Recovery children. The Reading Teacher, 54 (4), 398-412. Iversen, S., Tunmer, W.E & Chapman, J.W. (Sep/Oct 2005). The Effects of Varying Group Size on the Reading Recovery Approach to Preventive Early Intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38 (5), 456-472. MacKenzie, K.K. (Nov, 2001). Using literacy booster groups to maintain and extend reading recovery success in the primary grades, The Reading Teacher, 55 (3), 222-234. Moore, M & Wade, B. (July, 1998). Reading and comprehension: A longitudinal study of ex-reading recovery students. Educational Studies. Dorchester-on-Thames, 24 (2), 195-203. Reading Recovery: Basic Facts. (2010). Reading Recovery Council of North America. Retrieved March 13, 2010 from Reading Recovery Council of North America website: http://www.readingrecovery.org/reading_recovery/facts/index.asp Reyhner, J. (Dec, 2008). The Reading Wars: Phonics versus Whole Language, Northern Arizona University, Retrieved March 13, 2010 from: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/Reading_Wars.html Schwartz, R.M. (May, 2005). Literacy Learning of At-Risk First-Grade Students in the Reading Recovery Early Intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology. Washington, 97 (2), p. 257. Read More