AN EVALUATION OF ANINSTRUCTI ONALINTERVENTIO N PROGRAMBASED ONCLAY'SREADI NG RECOVERYPROGRAM FOR ELEMENTARYSCHOOL
STUDENTS
by
Audrey M. Swain, B.A . (Ed), B.ISp.Ed .)
Aches i s subm i t ted to thescbooj, of Gr a duate Studies in par tial fulfilment of th e
re.quirementsfor cb edegreeof Masterof Educa tio n
Depa r tm e nt of Curriculumand Ins truction Memo r i al Unive rs i tyof Newfoundland
Decemb e r 1997
St.John's Newf o und l and
ABSTRACT
This study was des igned to ev aluate the effects of an instruc tional in t e rven t.ion programbasedon t.heprinciples of Clay's (1 98 5) -Readi ng RecoveryProgram- fornineelement.ary sc h ool st.uden t.s wh o were experienc i ng dif fi cult. i es wit.h reading _ The st.udy was implement.ed in an elementary grade Special Educat.i onclassroombythe specialeduca tion t.eacher wh o was als o the research e r. The nine st.udents. fromgrades four throu g h si x. who part ic i pated in the st udy rece i v ed in s t ruc t i o n in four smal lgroups for four forty-minuteperiods in a six day cyc le.
Th e researcher designed the program around current.
res earch on t.he -Reading Re cove ry Program-. Cl a y'S (19 8 5) lesson format ....asmodi fi edto meet. t.he demands of smallgr ou p in s t ruct-i o n ofolder st u de n ts. Thego al of the program was t.o developself- ext.endi ng sy st ems that wo u l d enable st ude nts to read in d e pen d ent.ly t.o t.he best of their abi l i ty. Each stud e n t ' s prog r am was tailored to meet his/h e r indiv idual needs basedonhi s/h e r strengths rather th an weaknesses.Th e researc h erintegrat.edresearchon current. theoriesof reading.
learnin g and t.eachingto in t e rp ret and apply the procedures outlined in Clay 'S (1 9 8 5) -Rea d i n g Recovery Pro g r am -.
i i
Prior to the implementatio n of the instruct i o n a l int e rve ntion program. the researc h er admi n i ste r ed the Stiegl i t z In f ormal Re a d i n g Inventory toidentify str engthsand weaknesses of eac h st u d e n t. The Peabody Pictur e Vocabulary Test -R evis ed was al s o administered to de t ermine the students' potent ialforlangua geabili ty . Runni ngrecords andanecdotal records were tak e n reqularly at the scheduled sess i ons to monitor student s'progressin thein d e pen d e n t use of effect i v e re a d i n g strateg ies and to direct instruct i on. Pre- and posttest th e Gates-McGinitie Reading Tests util i z e d to de t e rmine gains inreadingachievement. Sc o r e s fro m the regular Se p t ember testing. whic h were available at the school. were usedto compa r e gains made fromSeptember to pre t est wi th gainsmad e frompr etest to postt.est .
Pretest scores on the Gates - McGi ni tie Rea ding Te sts reve aled that all st u d ents were below grad e lev el in vocabul aryandcomp re hension. Post t e s t scores in d i c a t edthat all students we r e sti l l below grade level on both subtests. All butone stude n t mad e pos i tive ga i n s on vocabulary. and sevenstudent:smadeposi t ive gai n s in comprehension. co mpar ed to all student s making posi t ive gai ns in vo c abu l a ry from Se p t ember to the beginning of the stud y, and five students sh o wi n g a regression in performanceon compre h e n s ion. Grou p
i i i
gains from pretest to posttest was four months (ie., 0.4) for vocabulary and eight months (i.e., 0.8) for comprehension for 0.5 of a school year. Group mean gains from September to pretest was nine months for vocabulary (i.e., 0.9) compared to a regression in performance of one month (i.e. -0.1) on the comprehension subtest for 0.4 of a school year.
Information gleaned from running records and anecdotal records revealed that, at the beginning of the study, all students used • sounding out;" to identify unknown words and there was a general overreliance on visual cues when reading connected text. By the end of the study all students exhibited some evidence of integrating semantic. syntactic and visual cues to predict and confirm their reading, and were showing varying degrees of proficiencyin monitoring and sel£- correcting.
Based on the results of this study, it was concluded that elementary school students experiencing difficulties with reading benefited from an instructional intervention program based on Clay's (1985) -Reading Recovery Program-_
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my appreciation for the guidance and support provided by Dr. Marc Glassman, supervisor of this thesis.
Additionally, I wish to thank the students who participated in the study for providing me with the opportuni ty to refine my theoretical understandings of how to support -at-risk- students.
I would also like to acknowledge my husband, Ron, and my daughters, Sara, Erin, Emily and Anna, for supporting me through this pr-oces s.
TAB LEorCOBTDI'l'S
ABSTRACT••.0• • •• • •••••••• • •• •0•• •••• • •••• •0••••••••0••• ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ... . . ... . . ...•... ....0• •••••0•
LISTOFTABLES.0•••0•000• • • ••0•0•• • •00•0• • ••0• ••0• •0•00 ix CHAPTER
IoNATURE OF THESTUDY••0 . 0•••••••0• • •••• •0 . 0 .0.0 0.0
Intr oduc t i o n... • . . .0••••0••••• •••0•• • • • •• •
Page
Backgroundtothe study 0••••0• ••• • •••••0• •• •
Statementof thepr o b l em 00... .. ... ... ... 10 Significance of the st u dy..0••••••••••••••••••••• 11 Limita ti o nsof the st u dy 0 0.. . .... 13
II. REVI EWOF RELATEDLITERATURE.000 14
In troduction.•0• •0 14
Tra d i t i onal Appro ac hesfor ·A t- Risk~ Students.0. 0 15 Reading Rec ove ry00••••••••••••0•••••••••• ••0• • ••• 23 Prog r amDescr iption.... •• •00••• •0•0•• •0••••• 24 Th eor e ti c al Fr amewor k .. ...00• • •••••• ••0.•••• 27 Mode l ofRead i n g... . . . . • • . ....0•• 27 Theo ry of Learningand Teachin g. . . .0•• • 31 Re a d ing Re c ov e ryTraining.0•0••0•••0• •• •0• ••
Evalu ation ofRe a d i n g Reco very.0
III .METHODOLOGY.0•00••0••0•••••••••0••0
vi
35 40 50
Introduction __... . . 50
Subjects .
Ba sisof Selection..
Test and Measurement Procedures . Gates-McGinitie Reading Tests .. ...
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised..... InformalAs s e s s men t s .
Stieglitz InformalReading Inventory .
Anecdotal Records .
Running Record _ .
Collectionof Data .
Tr eatmentof Data .
Procedure. _ .
Ove rv i e w .
Planning the Sessions . Runningthe Sessions.
Discontinuance .
IV. EVALUATION .
Introduction..
Gates-McGinitie Reading Tests . Student Pr o fi l e s .
V. SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS. AND IMPLICATIONS . Surnrnary. . _. _ . . .. . _ .
vii
50 51 52 52 53 54 55 58 59 61 62 63 63
64 65 72
74 74 75 77 112 112
Conclusions . Impl i c a t i o n s. .. . .
REFERENCES. . . .
APPENDIXA ..
APPENDIXB . APPENDIXC . APPENDIX D .
viii
120 123 12. 151 152 153 155
LIST OF TABLES Table
1. Gains in Reading Achievement.on t.he nat.es - Mc Ginit. i eRe a d i n gTe s t.s , Fo rms 4and 3, Levels 4 and 5/6 ..
2. Gains in Reading Achievement on the Gates- McGi n itie ReadingTests, Fo rms 3 and 4.
Levels 4 and 5/6 ..
3. Indivi dual Scoreson the Pe a bo d y Picture vocabul a ryTest.-Revised . 4. Swmnary of Ben'sRunning Records ....
5. Swnmary of Alice' s Running Records ..
6. Swranary of Michael's Running Records.
7. Summary of Jane's Running Records . 8. Summa ryof Nancy'sRunningRecords ..
9. Summaryof Molly'sRunning Records . 10. Swmnary of Gail's Running Records . 11. Swmnary of John's Running Records .
12. Swmnary of Jill's Running Records .
ix
Page
157
160
163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172
CBAP'l'ER I NATURE OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Modern society is drivenbythe ·creation, manipulation.
and conununication of Informet.Lon " (All i n g t o n . 1995. p.9 1 . To prepare students to effectively participate in this information age, schools place a high priority upon teaching students to read beyond the level of minimum competency.
Roots of literacy development are established before formal schooling begins. as children engage in functional speaking, listening, reading and ...riting activities to make sense of their world (Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Harste, Woodward&Burke, 1984). These roots are nourished during the preschool years as parents engage their children in meaningful literacy-related experiences (Lyons, Pinnell. &DeFord, 1993).
As children interact with adults within socially mediated activities there evolves an awareness that print is a meaningful, communicative process (Goodman, 1984). They develop a strong knowledge of oral language, a schema of story and concepts knowledge about how print works (Clay, 1985;
Teale& Sulzby, 1986). The foundations for learning to read are laid.
un fo r t una t ely,no t al l childrencome tosch oo l with the vari ed experie nc e s necessa ry to ensuresuccesswith learnin g to read. Some come trom l i te r acyitnpoverishedhome s and have had few experiences withbooks. They are limited in language deve lopment, li t e r a cy developmentand world knowl edg e IKl e s ius
&:Gri f fi t h, 199 6 ). Othe r children ar e unable to re spond to
inst ruc t i o n, are unfami liar with the ki n ds of in t e r act ions that occur in the classroom or theyare justnotinterested in re a d i n g (Spiegel, 1995 ; Stanovich, 198 6 ) . These children are unable to con s tructth e irownpersonal unde rs t and i n g sof print an d perform po o r ly co mp a red to the i r classma t e s (Al li ngt o n, 199 4 1.
Current research utilizes tb e term ·at-1.isk" to referto those st u den t s who ar e in dang er ot not fulfilling th e i r academic learni ng pot.enn.ia L (Allingt on &:Cunningham, 1996) . Theirachi e v emen t levelsare below that expectedfor their age and ability (Spiege l, 19 9 5 ). Mat t h ew s, Ho n saas and Penwick {19 97 Jsu gge s t ed thatth e se ch i ldre ncomefrom urban, minority and low socioeconomic home s wh e r e they have ha d little expos u r e toschool- likel i te r a cyactivities. Whenin school, th e y are viewed as lacking in abi l i ty and experience , ph ysiologica!. matu r ity, or the perc ep tual skil ls necessary for read i n g.
Children ~a t- r i sk~ for literacy failure are oft e n identified in the first ye ar of sch ool IClay, 19851. The educational outcome s for them arenot optimistic. Re s e a r c h su g g e s t s that cnee e students wi l l most likely co n tinue to be poorreaders in la t e r grades IJuel, 198 8 1. In d e e d, ae c aii- Franz en and Allington (1991 ) report ed th a t nine outof ten children...ho have read ingpr oblems at the end of grade continue to have reading problems throughout element-ary school. Otherprob lemsar e asso c i a t ed ...i th l imit.ed readi ng ski lls. The s e st udent s deve lop10...self- esteem, do poor lyin oth e r subject areas, may cause disciplineprob lems and are le s s likelyto finishhighschool, As ad u l ts, low li teracy levels arecorrelated wit h unemployme nt, cr im e, and social problems (Shannahan" Barr, 19 9 51.
Whenstudents fai l to readon schedule they areeit he r re t a inedor arereferred to a remedi al or spe cia l edu c a t i o n program. Howev er, as the numbe r of students consid e r ed tobe
~a t-risk~ cont inu e s to grow , edu cators ar e questi oning the ef f ica cy of th es e approaches (Walms ley " All i n g t o n, 1995).
Although the negative ef f e c ts of ret.ention have been documented for over a half centu ry, its practice is s t il l ...idespread. Otto(1932) argued. that the achieveme nt le v els of st u d e nt s areno t imp r o v e d ...hen theyrepeat a grade. McGill-
Franzen and Allingto n (199 11 supported the belief that children who fai l are less like l y to ach i e v e at an average level inthei r classroomthan underachieving students wh oare promoted. As thesestud ent s progress throu g h sc h o ol theyar e ol d e r than their peers. continue to bepoorre a ders andar e potent i a ls for dropping out. In fact. chil dren who are ret aine d haveonlya 20%chance of fini s h i ng school.
Researc h on the effecti v ene ssof remedialpr ograms offers more optimism than does the re s e a r ch on rete n t i o n. Al l i ngt o n (1994) stateed that specialpr09 r ams hav e failed to acce l e rate the literacy development of children hav ing difficul t i es insc hool. Bean. Coole.Ei che lberger.Lazaz.and Zigmond (1 9 9 1 1 reported tha t. alth o ugh stud e n t s receivi ng special service s demon s trated gains standardized achi evement tests. thesegainswerenot subs t ant i a l en o ughto move th em to the lev el of the stud e n t s wh o performed wi:.hi n the ave rage range. When Carter (19 8 4J compared students receiving remedi a l se rv i c e s with th o s e whodid not.he found tha t th e former group sho wed gr eat e r improv eme nt in reading but only those students in the primary grades. This is su p port e d byKe nnedy. Birman . andDema line (l98 6 ) who no ted that remediation of learn ing problems beyond the primary grades is us u ally unsucce s sful. Carter also found th a t
stude n ts who entered th e prog r amat a near average levelof achieveme nt re s p o n d e d most to th e program wh e r e a s those students who entered at a low le v e l profited lit t le from instruct i o n.
Concerns raisedbycritics of remedial programs arewi d e ranging. They re l a te specificallyto the lack of cohesiveness betweenthe regularclassroomprogram and thereme d i a l program (Allington & McGill-Franz en, 1988), loss of in s t ruc t i o n a l time during tr ansit i o n s from the classroom to the pull-out setting (Alli ngton, Steutze l, Shake, &.Lambe, 19 8 6), andth e effects of being stigmatized and suffering fr om low self- esteem (Leinhardt&.Pallay, 1982).
The na tureof in s tru c t i o n in remedial programshas also received considerable criticism in the research. Traditionally, remedialprograms followeda "d efi c i t model "in which reading inst ruc t ionis te ac h e r-di r e c t e d and focuses on strengthening skills thr o u g h worksheets and drills . The premise for instruction takes a "reductionist perspective"
wh e r e the student takes a passive role in learning. Reading is viewed as being made up of discreet skills that are stepping stonesto higher orderskills. This approachma k e s learnin g to readmoredif f i cu lt and the problems of at-risk studentsareco mp o und ed (Mann i ng, 1995 ) .
Cur rent.perspect.ives on li t.era cy developme n t. suppor t a
"h o Li sti.c approach- torea ding instruction for al l children (Keff e rd " Pett.igrew. 1997; Rhode s "Dudley-Harling, 19881. Ho lis t ic approaches are strongly influenced by a -s oci al constructivist- th eo ry of le a rn i n g rather than th e
"r-educ cLcn.iet;''viewsof trad i tiona l programs.The fundamental
assumptions wit hi n this frame wo r k suggest that chi ldrenare actively invo lved in constructing the ir own kno wled ge (Mc I nni s, 19 95 ; vygotsky, 1978). Learn ing is a ·s ocial ph e nom e n on- wh i c h is best co n struc t e d inholistic ac t i vitie s embedde d in functional, meaningful. authent ic contexts (Pali ns c a r " Klenk, 1993; Reid, 19 9 3 1.
A "socIej,ccns cructIvLs c " vi ewof learning scresses the impo r c anc e of socia l interaction in instructional settings.
Te a c hers support the child'slearningwithinhis/her"zone of proximaldevelopment- (Vyg o t s ky,1978). Vygot s ky definedthi s as thedif f e r e n c e betweenwhata chi ld can doonhi s/h e r own an d ....hat he/shecan do with the assistance of someone else. Within this zo n e t.e e che r-s help the child build co gni t. ive systems that le a d to further learni n g (Cl a y. 1991al .
Wi thin this theory of learning . readi ng is a -psv e bc- l inguist ic proc e s s · in ....hi ch the reader construc ts meaning from print (Goodman. 1976). It is an information-seeking.
problem solv i n g activity in which language an d vis u a l perception are coordinated to allowthe reader to construct meaning (Clay. 1985). Aschildrenlearnto read. they acquire coqnitivestra tegiesthat allow them to integrate information from diffe rentsources to construct meaning. Students need.to use and monitor cues from th e structure of sentences (e.g . syntacticcues). theme ani ng of text (e.g . semanticcues) and the vi s u a l cues of the let t e r s or let t er order (e.g.
graphophonic cues ) insear c h of meaning . Good readers ha v e discove r e d these cognitive process e s and ar e abl e to apply them to get mean i ng fromte x t. Poor readersdo not do this effectively (Sears. Carpente r. " Burstein. 1994) .
Children ",!p.ofind.iearningto read difficult are most in need of high quality instruction from which they can derive patterns and rules that they can applytotheirown learning (P i nne l l . Lyons. DeFo r d. Bryk."Seltzer. 1994). Walrr.sleyand Allington (1995) defined high quality instruction as that of f e r ed.byteachers who are knowledgeable about how reading develops and how this development is enhanced. Instructional in t e rac tions between students and teachers must ref lec t this kno wl e d g e as te a che r s makeinformedde ci s i on s on howbe s t to faci l i t a t e effe c t ive read ing de ve l op me nt.
BACKGRomm TO'I'HE STUDY
A large number of students are reading below grade level (Canning, 1996). In general, educational efforts have had only small positive effects on the achievement levels of these students (Allington, 1994). Allington et al. (1986) argued thatin order to address this problem it is necessary to investigatethe natureof instructionin remedialprograms.
Increasing the qua l ity of instruction is critical to successful reading development, whereas participation in traditional remedial programs, is likely to decrease the quality of instruction (Walmsley&Allington, 1995).
Traditional remedial programs are founded on, and sustained by th e assumption tha t students wh o do no t profit from the regular curriculum need something fundamentally different (Allington, 1983; Hiebert, 1987; Rhodes & Dudley- Marling, 1988). Beach (1997) argued that being -at-risk- is a proleptic cycle. Schools perceive these children as being different from their peers and therefore they are treet.ed dif ferently. Literacy instruction is slowed down and emphasizes drills on specific isolated skills believedtobe prerequisites for reading acquisition (Johnston&Allington, 1991). Contrary to current theories of literacy acquisition
(Clay. 19 85;Goodman.19B6; Smith. 19821.readingis viewed as effective word recognition ra t h er than the construction of meaning. Considerable t.ime is spent working in d epend e n t lyon workshe ets rather than authentic texts. St.u d e n t.s do not recei ve ins t ructio n that facil itates li t e r a cy growt h and t.her e for e co n t i n u e t.o fall behind t.heir pe e r s (All i n g t o n "
Cunningham. 1996).
Prevail inqviewsofread i ng as bein gthe const ructionof mean i n g as st u dent.s in t era c t with eexe, prior knowledge. schema and stor-y structur e. point to an inc r ea sed use of quality litera tur e as a vehic le for facilitating the development of th i s knowledge in children (Cu l l i n an. 19B1:
Funk'" Funk. 19 92: Pearson. 1985 : Suthe rland " Arbut.hnot.. 1986) . The val ue of us i n g l i terature in instruc tional programs is well document ed. Clay(19 90)and Boehnlein (198?) found that using l it e rat.ure with low ac hi evi n g studen t.s produced gains on st.anda r d i z ed tests . More impo rtan tl y. children's l itera tur e has been found to enh anc e t.he development. of background knowledge in a varietyof areas.
facilit at e vocabulary acquisition. provide exposure to differ e n t. mode l s of wri t ing . stimula t.e the imag i nat ion. and foste r a love of reading (Funk" Funk. 19921. In struct ion al programs using quali tytradebooks. and whichareimplemented
10 byte a c h ers Icnowl edgeableabout howch ildren le a rntore ad and howto facilitate lesdeve l opment. are powerfu l inte rveneions forat-ris k studen ts (Rhodes '" Dudl e y - Mar ling , 199 4 ;Silva '"
Delgado-r.a.r oc c o. 1993).
SUpportproq rams forstu dentswh o fi n d le a rn i ngto read difficultdo not reflect the research on how best tosupport li t e racy dev e l opme nt (Walmsley&.Allington. 1995) . Pro b l ems of remedi alprograms cannotbeeffectivelyaddressedwithin a reductionistframework. Instructionmust be based on a model th a t reflects t.he way in whichlearningoccurs (Au " Ca r ro l. 199 7; Poplin, 1988; Rhodes r.Dud l e y- Marl in g, 198B). Reid (1993 ) arguedchatto reflecta social construc tiv i s t.viewof learn i ng, reading instruc tion must inc lude practices more consiste n t wi t h holi stic per s p e ct.i ves.
STA,'l'EMER'1' OF 'l'KBPROBLEM
Thepurpos e of t.his st.u dy was ec implement.and ev a l ua t.e an instructional intervent.ionprogram base d on t.he princ iples of Cl a y'S (1985) "Re a d i n g Reco v e ry Program". It. was implement.edwithnineelementary st.udent.swho were iden t. i f i ed ashavingreadingdif f icul t.ies.
11 The major questionto be invest igated in this stu dy is: 1. will the interventi onprogramImpLemented inth i s study
improve st u d e n t s ' readingability in the following
(a) vo cabu laryand comprehension . as measured by the Gate s - Mc G init i e ReadingTests, SecondCana d i an Edi t ion . (1 9 92)?
(b) independentuseof eff ec tivereadi n g str a t e gi es, measured byth e dai ly -Runn i n g geco.rds" and anecdo tal records?
Since man y t raditi o n al reme di al pr og rams have no t been eff ect ive in res o l v i ng the probl ems of slow to de velop reader s, educators ha ve so ugh t al te rnate ap p roa c h es to impr ovin gli ter a c y development. Inthe pas t dec ade, rese arc h hasfoc u s edon th e development ofearly int e rve ntion programs for kin d e r g a r t e n and fi r st gra d e st u d e nts. These pr o grams polarizearoundthe argumentth at since successin readi ng is essential for school achievement, the ke y moment for interven t ion is after the firs t ye ar of scho o l i n g before
12 students with reading problems have developed strong. but ineffective, literacy habits (Slavin&Madden. 1989; spiegel.
1995). The basic premise behind these interventions is that educat.ors need to interrupt a -Matthew effect- in reading.
That. is, the problems of slow-to-develop readers are compounded as they receive less and less exposure to print (S t ano v i c h , 1986).
One very promising intervention program model is Clay'5 (1985) -Reading Recovery Program". It has been widely implemented in New Zealand, Australia, the United States.
Canada and the United Kingdom. I t is based on a theory of learning and teaching consistent with ·social constructivist- views. The high le v e l of success this program has attained suggests that i tis an effective solution to the problem of early reading failure (Center, Wheldall, Freeman, ouctrred , &:
McNaught. 1995) . Lyons et al. (1993) suggested that this intervention program provides a model for enhancing the literacy development for all students at risk of failure in school. Investigationsinto the instructional practices and student-teacher interactions of the program indicates that this intervention has implications for other educational efforts designed to provide the quality instruction that these students need.
13
LDD:TATXONS OFTHE:S'1"1JDr
Clay's (19 8 5 ) "Rea d i n g Recovery Program"is designed to be impleme n t e d by te ac he rs who have rece i ved spe c ialized training for on e ye a r in procedures specif ic to Reading Rec overy. The researcherha s notreceivedthistraining ,but she has read widely th e relevant li terature in this area.
Also. alim i t e d number of students (i.e.• nine).participated in this study and rand o m sampli ng was no t utilized with a control group.
:In t roduc t ion
Proficiency in reading is essential.both in school and later in life.Attaining literacy empowersstudents toacquire knowledge and understanding throughout their lives.
Children acquire the foundations of literacybefore they come to school as they interact with their environment (Te a l e
&. sulzby, 1986). on entry into schooL each child brings
unique characteristics which have been influenced by family.
personal factors and prior learning experiences.The nature of these differences often puts some children at-risk for li t e r a c y failure {Ma yr.. Kundert. 1997}. Traditionally, "a t - risk" students have been identified because of personal and familial characteristics such as membership in a raci al or ethnic minority , low socioeconomic status, belonging to a singleparent family, or having parents withlow educational att a i nme n t {Pallas, Natriello,&McGil l, 19891.
Allington and McGill-Franzen (1989) argued that in identifying students as being"a t - r i s k", schoolsmustco n s i d e r more than student characteristics and their background
14
"
co nditions. May and Kundert. (1 9 97 1 suggested that educators must. also recognize the reciproc al interac t ion between the chi l d andhis/he r sch oolproqramwhich may pu t a child at-risk for school fai l ure. The nature and quali ty of educationa l expe r i enc e s and suppor t systems pro v idedby the school is a cr i t ica l factor in the acquisition of lite racy and is influential ineither placing or not placinga studentac-risk (Ross, Smi t h . Slavin, &Madden , 1997). The challenge is for educato r s to assess students' dif f i cul t i esin learningto read and write and to imp l e me n t ef f e c t i v e intervention programs that will support and extendtheir learning.
When students fa i l to readon schedule. theyare placed at-risk and the edu c a t ion a l ou tco mes for them are op timi s t i c. Juel (19 88) re ported that 90 percent of the chi l dr en who were no t reading in gra d e were sti l l inef fec tiv e readers in the ele:ne n t a ry grades. Sim ilarly, Butl e r, Mars h. Sheppard. and Shepp a r d (1 9 8 5 ) found that st u d e n t s whowe r e the poorestre a d e r s inth e earlyyears of primary sc hoolremainedthe poorest read e r s duringth e first
16 six years of school. Furthermore, Badian (1988) claimed that by grade three individual reading performance is largely determined and the prognosis for improvement is bleak. Two reasons for this phenomenon are discussed in the research. First. children having difficulties with reading develop unproductive hypothesies about the reading process that become entrenched time. Second, the ~Matthew Effect;"
(Stanovich, 1986) compounds children's initial difficulties with reading (Juel, 1996). This means that children who have difficulty learning to read, read less than their successful peers and they fail to make expected progress.
Being identified as -at-risk- predisposes students for diminished ·personal, social and civic well-being- (Chall &
Curtis, p.349, cited in Matthews et al., 1997).These students develop low self-esteem, may cause discipline problems and are potential dropouts. They continue to fall behind, are likely to beunmotivated, have poor self-concepts as learners, are anxious about reading, and usually dislike reading (Slavin, 1994). As adults, low literacy levels are correlated with unemployment, crime, and social problems (Shanahan & Barr, 1995)
Children who have difficulties with learning to read are usually retained or referred to a remedial program. However,
17 as the number of students considered to be ·at-risk~ continues to grow, educators question the efficacy of these approaches (Walmsley&Allington, 19951.
Failure to learn to read is the basic causal factor for school retention (Sl a v i n , 1991). The argument for retaining students to repeat a grade is that i t provides them with the opportunity to enhance learning through the repetition and mastery of partially learned subject matter (Tanner &Galis, 19 9 7 ). Its practice has a long-standing history even though research has demonst.rated its negative impa ct. on students (Allington &McGill-Franzen. 1995).
Meisels and Liaw (1993) argued that grade retention represents one of the clearest examples of miscommunication between research and practice. As a result of their investigations into the retention of students in kindergarten th r o u g h grade eight, they concluded that retention at any point does notac h i e v eits goal of helping retained students function at gradele v e l when comparedwi,th their nonretained peers.Moreover, students who were not retained demonstrated higher academic gains than the retained students.
Peterson, DeGracie and Ayabe (1987) examined the long- term impact of retention on the academic performance of primary grade students. Results of this study indicated that
18 retainedst.ud e nts signi fican tly improved ac a demi c per formanc e bytheendof the re tai ned year andinsome cases . maintained th i s advantageove r a t ....o-ye a r period. However. af ter three ye ars.therewerenodiffe renc e sbetween retai nedandpro moted student s. Roderic k (1994) also re port ed on the lo ng- t erm effectsof retention in he r investiga tion of the ass oc i ati o n betwe e n gra de retenti on and dropout rate. Sh e found th at near l y one qua rt e r of st ude n t s who ended si x t h gradeover age for grade dropped out of school. and tho s e that remained experi ence d substant.ial disengageme n t dur ing their rema ining years in schoo l.
When Ho l me s andMatthews (198 4J ev a luated the exist ing res ear ch0::1 ee e e ne f c n , t.h ey found that not onl y is retent i on nonbene fi cialfor studentsintermsof academic ecmev eeen e, iecanbe. infa c t,harmfulbecaus e of its negaeive eff eceson self-c o nc e p t, socialadju s tme n t. and emotional edf u eceene.
Mor e r-ecen t; rese a rch report ed.byMantzicopoulo s (1997) conei nue ed eo suppo re t.he find i n g s eha e rete n eion is net;a benef ic ial educatio nal inte rven tion for -ae-risk - st.udent s de spi eetheface t.hat; it s prac tice is ong o ing.
Researchon xhe ef f e c e i v en essof remedial programsoffers no more op e i mism than researc h onreteneion. Re s e arche rs and educaeors have ra i sed conc erns aboue tihe eff eceiveness of
"
the s eprograms in addre s s i ng the needs of "at-risk"students.
Beanet al. (1 9 9 1) rep o rt edthat, althoughstudents in pulloutprog ramsshowedgreatergains thana comp a r i s o n group ona standardized test , their gainsdid not bri n g themup to the average of more advantage d childre n. Jabubowski and Ogletree (1993) argue d th a t the existing re s earch indicates t.hatindividualinstructionmakes no difference to achievement andthat students benefit e d mo re fromin-class instruction.
When Carter (198 4) compar edstudents in pu l l o u t programs witha compa ris o n group, he found that the students served by the remedial programshowe d improvementin grade one, two. and three, wi t h the greatest gains being made in grade one. No gains wereattainedbystuden tsin grade four, fiveand six. Furthermo re, st.udents wh o entered t.he pr o g r am at. a near average achievement. level profited most ,whilest.udent.sat. a lowle v e l of achievement.profitedl ittle , if at all.
The premise behind remed i al int.ervention is provide lo w achievi ng st.udent.s with much ne e ded additional inst.ruction. As a result.of th e ir investigations, Allington et al.(1 9 8 6) concluded t.hat co n t r a ry to intentions, remedial student.s may actually have less time available for instructional activit.ies. They noted tha t, not only do remedial students receive less regular cl assroom reading
20 in s t ru c t i o n comparab l e t.o that offe red the i r peers. bu t consid e r abl e ti me was also lo st in th e remedial setting bec a use of transitionsbet we e nclassrooms, soci algree tings, wa it. i ng.andoff -tas k behaviour. Insu pportof the s efindings, Anstrom (19 9 5 ) reportedtha t. consider ingthe time missedon requl a r cl assro o minst ruction. mostpull - o ut. mode lsadd only tenminutes of instruct ionalti meeachday.
Ot-h e r co n c e rns are as s oci a t ed wi t h pull-out model s. Se g r e g ati n g -at-risk - studentsfromthe re gularclassevenfor short periods of t.ime stigma t i z e s themand causessubs tan t i al lo s s of self-es t e em. (Wa l msley and Al l i n gton . 1995) and th e possib i lity exis ts that the ch ild, who is al r e ady having difficulty wi threading, may haveto co ntendwithconflicting met.hodolegies of reading in s t.ruct. i o n (Ju e l. 1996) . In t.his sit.uacio n. any confusions chat. t.he stu de n t has. compounded.
Thenat.ureof inst.ruct.ion in remedial reading pr og r ams is also called in t.o question. Tancock (19 94) suggested th at ineff e c t.ive readers cend ec rece i v e qua l i tativel y different.
ins t ruc t. ion than t.heirmor e ski l ledpeers.Cont r a ry tocu r ren t researc h, teaching pract.icesin reme dialprograms reflect. a -re d u c t i on i s t pe r s pect.ive- of the read ing pr o c e s s in whi c h word recognit i o n is emphasized over the con s t ruction of
21 meaning. Based on this view. readers are perceived as passive recipients of information in the text. Meaning resides in the text ieself and to reproduce that meaning, the reader has to acquire a set of hierarchically-ordered subskills. Once these skills are mastered, the student is able to recognize words accurately and is considered tobean effective reader (Dole, Duffey, Roehler, & Pearson. 1991). Instructional procedures that reflect this view polarize around the premise that students having difficulty with reading need tobeexplicitly and systematically t.aught the prerequisite skills that they
lacking (Manning, 1995).
In his observations of pull-out programs, Allington (1987) found that students being served spent only two minutes of every hour reading connected text. For the remainder of the time. students were involved with lifeless. meaningless activities that do not relate to wi th reading.
Completing workbook pages on basic skills and drill-and- practice ditto sheets were the main components of the sessions. Bean et;al. (1991) noted that a large percentage of time was spent on listening. compared to reading.
composing, or discussion activities. all of which likely to foster literacy development.
When ineffective readers do get the opportunity to read
22 connected text, Wuthrick (1990) suggested that teachers' responses to their miscues are such that students are given few opportuni ties to practice ef fecti ve reading behaviours. Allington (1980) found that teachers were more likely to correct ineffective readers' miscues that we r e semantically acceptable than when produced by good readers. Spiegel and Rogers (1980) reported that this feedback usually involved simply telling the student the word or focusing attention to the visual Hoffman and Clements (1984) found that corrective feedback was provided for ineffective readers within three seconds of the miscue. giving them no time to respond to their own miscues. Wuthrick (1990) concluded that when ineffective readers are not given the opportunity to use and le a rn strategies for self-correcting and self-monitoring, and there is continued focus accurate word identificat.ion, ineffective readers' perceptions of reading as a performing art, rat.her t.han the construct.ion of meaning. is reinforced.
This systematic differentiat.ion of reading instruction contributes to passivity and dependence on the part of ineffective readers and has detrimental effects on their school participation (Pinnell, 1989).
The failure of retention and referral to remedial pull-
23 out pr og r ams to achieve des i r edou tcomeshas ledresea rche rs tode velop newframeworks for understanding how instructional practices in in t e rve n t i o n programs can shape literacy opportuni t ies for diversele arne r s (Ra p ha e l " McMahon, 19941. To provi d e effective instruction educators ne e d to develop mode l s that reflec t current perspect i v e s on reading, learning and te aching.
cl a y (l985) sugg e s t.ed that in e f f e c t ive reade r s ar e no different asle a rne r s fromthose perceivedto be goodre a d ers. They may.however,be attending to. and using . a narrow range of strategies and applying them in rigid ways. Ineff ective reade r smust betaughtto orchestratet.heus e of a broa d ran ge of strategies when reading. They need. to use al l the inf orma ti on that is avail ab l e in flexible wa ys. -Reading Recove ry-was designedtoprovide ineffect.ivereaderswi tht.he sup po r t.i v e environme n t th e yne e dt.o develop innercontrolover t.heseproce s s e s andt.o reducereading fa ilure.
24 progr. . IMa cript ioD
The "Re a d in gRecoveryProgram- IClay . 19 8 5 1 is an early intervention program designed to acceleratethe progres s of fi r s t graderswho sc ore in the lowest 20\ of tileir clas s e s on a diagnosti c survey. It was originally developed in New Zealand. andcu r r e n t. l y . i t is being implemented in 49 U.S . states, Germany. th e Unite d Kingdom, Okina wa. the Me d iterran ean countries, Ne w Ze aland. Aust r a l ia.
Cana di an provi nces ,Great. Britai n and Ireland (Pinnell.Lyons .
&.DeFord, 19 97) . No chi ld is excluded on th e basis of 1Q,
language backgr ound , learning disability status. or et hnic background. Abasic premise of -Reading Recov e ry- is th a t chi l dr en are fa i l i ng with lit e r acy ceceuse they are not le a rn i n g toreador write. not because some t h i n g is wro n g wi t h them.Students ar e tuto r ed by certifiedceecne xs who have receivedt.rai ni ng for 2.5 ho a r s per ....ee kfo r an academic ye a r. Tutoring co nt i nues for 30 minutes ea c h day for t ....eave to
t ....enty weeks to hel p students de velop ind e p e n d e nt, self -
generating systems for developingtheir own literacy(Pinnell.
19 89).
Stud entsselectedfor MReadingRecovery"are admini stere d a -Diagnoscic Survey -priorto instruction.This includes six
25 tests focus i n gon Ca) letter id e nt i fic a t i o n . (bl word test. (e) concepts about print. (dl wri t ing vocabulary, (e) di c t a t ion task. and IfI text re a d ing le v el. All test results arebrough t toqether to describe the child's strengths and weaknesses, and thest r a t eqi es being use d or underused when rea d i n g and writing.
The first ten days of the intervention is cal led • roam ing aro un d the known'". Duri n g this period, the teacher refine s andre - e v a l ua t e s the sc o resof the diagnos tic:survey bysharingbooks and writingcollaboratelywith the student. Within a social lyand emotionallySUpPO r tive environment. th e teacher goes over what the st.uden t alreadyknows in as many dif fer e n t waysas pos sible to find ou t wha t he or shedoes wel landwhat strateg ies are bei ng used.Th e studentdevel ops confi denc e in what heorshe candoanda foundati on is formed fo r ne wle arning.
A typic a l tuto r i n g lesson has a speci f ic format and in clude s th e foll owin g five componen ts:
1. Reading famil iar text. 2 . Taking a running record.
3. working with letters.
4. Storywriting. S. Rea d ing newmat eri a l.
26 The lesson format is a structured sequence that does not change from lesson to lesson. During each session ch i l d r e n spend time engaged in reading and writing activities thatare surrounded and supportedbyinteractions between teachers and ch i l d r e n. Books are carefully selected by the teacher as being appropriate for a child at that particular time. Writing activities focus on the students writing and reading theirown messages in response to what they have read. What does change in the daily lessons are the teachers' responses as they follow students' reading and writing behaviours.Decisionsare made "on the run- in ways that support acceleration and the development of effective strategies.
"Re .ad Lnq Recovery- is meant to be temporary intervention. Students are considered to be successful in acquiring effective learning strategies and are discontinued from the program if they reach the level of performance of their peers in the middle reading group. An average level of reading is defined as a score within a 0.5 standard deviation of a random sample of students on four reading measures tL. e .•
concepts about print. writing vocabulary, writing dictation, and text reading) (Gredler, 1997). If this level is not achieved after 60 sessions students are released from the program but they are not considered discontinued. These
27 students may requir e extra t.utori ng or ar e referred for fu r t he r assessment.
Theoretical. Framework
Clay's (1 98 5 1 ~RelldingRecoveryProgram~ is groundedin theoreticalconsistency. It is influencedand guidedbysound theories of re ading. howi t is learned. and howteac h e r s can best facil itate it s development within an ins tructional framework .An in v e s t i g a tio n of its theoreticalfoundationshas implications for what educato r smust.do topro v i d e thequali t y ins t ruc t i o n that ·at.-risk~ learners requir e.
Kod..lof Re ading
Cl a y's (1 9 8 5) "Re a di ng Recovery Program" reflec t. s perspect ives that. re a din g is a far mor e complex pro c e s s t.han tha t env is i o ned by tr a d iti on a l "r ed uc t i o n ist"
views. Readingis per ceiv e d asan interactiv e pr o c e s s that is construct iveinnature (And e rs o n , Reynolds,Sha1bert, &Goet z, 1977;Rumelhart, 1977).To construct meaningreadersuse thei r
2.
existing knowledge and a rangeof cues from the structure of the sentence ILe.•syntact ic cues). themeaning of t.he text (i.e., semantic cues) and the visual cuesof the let t e r s or lette r order li.e.•graphophoniccues) in searchof me an i n g. In addition. readers draw upon a repertoi re of flexible strategi e sto understandwhatthey read and tomo ni t or ongoing compreh e nsion. Go o d readers make decisions about which strat e gy to use. wh e n to useit, and how to ad a pt i t to a particular text (Dole, Duf fy, Roeh l er . " Pears on , 199 1 ).
Clay (1985) suggested that in order to be suc c e ssfu l with this pr oc e s s, stu d e n t s must have good cont r o l of oral language, have deve loped perceptual skills , physiological maturity and hand-e y e coor dination to learn the directi onal patterns needed for reading,and aswel l,hav e theexperiences al lowi n g them to coord i na tewhat they he a r in langua g e with what theysee inpri nt.
Implici e in th is theory of re a d i n g are three maj or assumptions which se rve as the fo unda t ion for • Reading Recovery-;
1. Re ading is a str a t e g i c process that takes place in the child' smind.Me aning isconstructedfrom the int e r a c t i o n of bac k g r o un d knowl e d g e and prin t. Ef fec t ive reading requires the child to coordinate various st rategies,
2.
visual informa tion. the integration of letter-sound rel a t ionships . fe a tures of print. as wel lasbackground knowledge. Young reade r s needto be given opportunities to engage in thisproblem-solving-activity.They require text s that are inte r es ting and easy enough to assure meani ng is construc t ed. but. they also need some di f f i c u l t y so that th ey can use prob l em solving st rateg i e s. This wa y the ycanbuild in d e p e n d ent, self·
extending systemstha t lead to morelea rning . 2. Reading andwrit ing ar e in terc o nn ec t ed . Bot h proc e s s e s
provide cues that fac i litateresponses inei t he r area. Clay(1991a) argued thatwri t ing focuses thechi l d on the details of print in ways that they do not in reading.
withinthe lessonformat writingis surrounded by reading even t s to provide oppo r t un i t i e s for the child to make conceptual li n ks betwe enreading andwri~ing_
3. Children learn to read bybeing engaged with connected cext; ra t h e r than thesys~ematicpresentation of phonics skills. Through ene reading of familiar material, chi l dren gain fluency and successfully use what they already know . The re ading ofnew materi a l prov ides chem withtheopport unity to inde penden tlypro b l emsol veand acqu ire strategies ne cess ary for ecceterecron. 'rexe e ~ha~
30 are meaningful and interesting. and provide just enough challenge for students to apply new procedures are recommended materials for instruction {Pinnell. 19891.
Holistic approaches to reading instruction have long been advocated by research. Huey (1908) theorized that reading involved the meaning of whole sentences, and that word- pronunciation would always be secondary. With Goodman (1976) and Smith (1982) there emerged the psycholinguistic perspective which directed researchers to consider underlying assumptions about basic processes in reading.
Instruction that reflects this perspective builds on knowledge that. st.udents bring to scboc l , emphasizes the construction of meaning through activities that require higher order thinking skills, and provides opportunities for learners to apply literacy strategies in the context of meaningful reading and writing activities (Strickland, 1995).
Routman (1988) suggested that quality children's literature is the best vehicle for this kind of reading instruction. Literature-based programs provide students with new understandings of the forms and functions of written language, insights personal experiences and those far
31 removed from them, and foste rs life-long literacy (Sil v a "
Del gado-Larocco, 199 3).
Theoryot Learning&lidTe.ching
The -Re a di ng Recovery Prog r am- is infl uenced by Vygotsky's (1978 ) theory of coqni t ive development which suggests that knowledge is active ly constructed by the learner. Learning, however , is not, anindi v i dua l experi ence.
in s t e ad i t is mediatedbyadul t s or mor ecompetent peers as expe r i e n c e s and insights areshared throug h langu ag e.The two func t ions of langu a g e, conununi c a t i o n wi t h others and self- direction. progress fr om socialto innersel f - d i r e c t i ve sp eech (Pinnell. 19 8 9 1.As ind i v i d ual s engagein sociallysuppo r t i v e in t e rac t i o n s. they gradual lytakeov e r strategicprocesse sand become in dependen t le a rners IPinnell ee al.. 19941.
I.Jnplicit in thi s theory of learning is a theory of teaching. Ins t ruct ion is vi ewed as an interacti on between chil d and te acher wh e r e by knowledge is transformed to the childthro ughconv e r s a t i o n swith theteach e r. Te a c h e r sprovide a scaffold for learning thro ugh discou r s e which en ab l es students to complete taskstha t they woul d otherwisenot do
32 alone (Ly o ns etal.• 1993). Teacherssupport childrenwi t h i n thei r·zo n e of pr oximal de veIopmenc",Vyqots ky (1978) defi n ed thisas thedistancebetweenwhatanin d ivi dua l cando al o ne and wha t the y can dowiththesupport of ot h e rs.Wi thin th i s zone, teac h e r s in -Rea d ing Recovery " assis t stude n t s in develop i n g ind e pendentse l f - g ene ra tingsys t ems for developing th eirown learning.
The teache r' s role withi n the lesson period is very co mp l e x and cri t i c a l to the success of the program si n c e lea rn i n g and thin k ing are deve loped wi th i n the social inte ractionsof the teac h e r andstudent (Clay, 1991 a ).There is ongoing convers a t i on bet we e n te a cher and chil d in the co n text of authenti c rea dingandwri t i n g act ivi t i e s . During th e ses conve r s at ions the tea ch e r sti mulates , encourages, challenges and supports effect i v e reading beh a v i ou r s . The teacher doesth i s throughdemonstration.explicitte a c hin gand talking about the pr ocess . Te ache r-student talk eventually becomes inne r dialoque that directs the students rea ding behaviour.
Astud y conduc tedby Pinne l l. Ly ons. DeFord. Bryk . and Sel tz er (19 9 4) emphas izedtheimpor tanc e of te a chi ng to the suc c essof -Re a d ing Reccv e z-y'", Theyinitiated a study inten Ohio schooldi stri cts that investigatedthe effects ofthree
J3 compo n e n ts of ~Reading neecveev'". one-on-one tuto r ing. the le s s on fr amewo rk and th e teach i n g. Students were randomly as signed to one of five group s:
1. Re a dingRecovery (RR).
2. Re a d i n g Success IRS). a on e-on one prog r am using the -ReadingRecove ry -le s s o n framewor kand procedures. bu t.
implemented wit.h te a c h e r s who had re c eived on ly twoweeks training.
3. Direct Instruction Skills Plan (DI SP ). a one- on-one treatment using an alternate ins truc t i onalmodel. 4. Reading/Writ i ng Group (RWG) . a smal l gr o u p instruct iona l
sett-iog wh ere stud e n t s were involved wi t h rea d i ng and wri tingactivitiesta u g h t bytrained -Rea ding Re covery- tea c hers.
S. Contr olGroup.
Treatm e n t: began earl y in the school yearand students were assessed in February. Hay and the fo l lowing Oc t.obe r. Meas ures us edincludeda di ct. a t.iont.ask, t.extreading level, the Gates-McGin i t ie Readi n g Tests, and the Woodcock Readi ng Mastery Test. Sc o re s on all measur es indicated that RR st ud e n t s performed signi f ican tly bett e r than the control group and th e other three treatm ent s inFeb rua ryand May.Theywere
34 achievi ng withinthe averagerange while students in the other grou p swere readingin th e lowrange. The fo llowing OCtober theef f ectswere still ev id ent.The res earchers conclu d edtha t -Reading Recov ery" is succe s s f u l, not ju st beca u s e ofone-o n- onetutori ng and the instructi o nal emphasi s.The intens i tyand th e effectiveness of th e te a chingis an import ant factor.
Effec ti ve teachersunder standwhat.stud entsknowandwha t they are ready tolearn IRyc i k. 19 97). Theysupp ort learners by movingintoa student ·5worldtosu ppor t learningand th en move ou t as soo n aspos s i b le to allow students to pro bl em- solveonth eirown (Isa k s o n, 19971. Effe ct iv e te achers know whe n andhowtoprov ide th i s scaffolded inst ruc t i o n .
Wong 119941 exam i ned how -Re adi n g Recovery- teach ers scaf f old ed instruct i o n as a func t i o n of text familiarity.
Resul t s of he r analysis reve aled that about half of the discourseinth e les s onswer e tea cher-scaffoldingcommentsand that the na ture of the sup port changed as textdifficulty in c r e as ed. When studen t s we re reading familia r material . te a c h e r s reinf orcedand coa chedchi ldren's attempts tore a d . howeve r. wit h new tex t s. te a chers increas edtheirmodel ling . prompting. anddiscussions of the storyline.
Lyons et 18.1. (19 93l argued that to be eff e c ti ve in instruc t i o n a l interaction s. teac h ersmustobserveand anal y ze
35 ca r efully what the child is doing and re s po n d to that behaviour. The tea c her mus t.unde rstandt.hech i l d's perspective anddirect.questions andprompts t.o t.he stud en t. ·5 at. t.emp t s t.o mak e sense, rat he r than on t.h e teach e r' S own pre c o nceived notions of how thestu den t should resp o n d . They mus t be abl e to make inst. ruct ional decisio n s -ea therun'", based onthe i r observat ions andwha t t.h e yknowabout each indi v idual st.u dent..
To defin e ~Re ad ing aec cv eev- as a one-a n - o ne early int.ervention program is too simpl i s t. i c.Moreappr o pr i a tely, it is a systemwid e intervention that provid e s the suppor t for school districts to createlearn i n g environme n t.s that.pr omo t.e literacy for low achieving st.udents (Lyonset a1.. 1993). The dynamic. thre e -t.iered professional de v e l o pme n t. scheme it.
provides is a critical factor in the successof the program (Clay, 1991al.
Trai ning for teachers, teacherleaders, and traine rsof teache r leaders require s a mi nimum ti me commitment of one year. Te ac hers wh o partici p ate in the tra ining shoul d be expe ri e n c edingra d e one read inginstruction andha v e atleast
36 three years experience in a grade one cl a s s room (Gaf fney, 1991 ) . Clay 11991a) recommended that teac h e rs have had the experienc e of worki ng with succe s sful reade rs since i t gives them a pe rspective onwha t behav i o u r s needto bedeveloped before a stud en t is disconti n u e d from theprogram.
The go a l of the inqui ry-orie nte d model of teacher ed u c a t ion is for tea c h e r s to cons t ruct the ir understandings of the reading process. By ques t i oni n g , discussing, pl a nn i ng courses of action and expli c itly supporting theirde c i sio ns. teachers areexpected to aband o n preconc e ived no t i o n s of ho w children learn to read and to gradual ly change their te a chi ng prac tices and thi nk differ ently about reading instruction. As a result of training. "ReadingRecovery " teac h e r s accumulatea repertoire of strateqi e s, and are able to selectthosemost appropri ate for each child at a particularpointin time (Br owne, Fi t ts, MCLa ughl i n , Mc Namara, " Wi l l iams, 1996/1997 ).
Before the beginningof the school year, te ac h e rs are trainedtotake runnin gre cordsandto administe r the testsof th e -Di a gnos t i c Survey·. They are sup p o r t e d in making sens i t i v e observat ions of reading behav i ourand to make these ob s erva t i o n s more expl i ci t bywriting a diagnosti c sununary.
Teac h e r s disc u s s theirre por t s wi eh teache r lea d ers and their
37 peers.
Trai n ing du ring th e sc hool year involves at ten danc e at weekly 2.5 ho ur classes at a school-based trai n ing cente r.
Acti v i t iesare focus ed onteachingprocedu r e s and thetheories on which -Rea d i ng Recovery-teachi n g isbas ed .A cons iderable amount of t ime is also spent on observing lesson s being taught . Three t imes during the year each tra i n e e bri n g s a child tothe traini ng site and teaches a lesson behind a two- way gla ss. While this is happening. the teacher leader or trainer guide s therest of theclassindiscussionsabout what.
th e childis doin gand why theteacher mighthave responded in a particu lar wa y. The purpose of t.he "behind the glass·
lesso ns is not topr ovi de eva luat i on of the teacher. but. to sharpenthe observaeionalski lls of th e observe rs. codevelop t.he i r skil l inpr edic t.ing andhypot.hes izi ng about what. t.he st.ud ent.isat.t.empt.ingt.o do t.oconst ructmeaning,andto hel p t.hem t.o become profici ent. at making mi nu t.e-by-minut.e inst.ructi o n a l dec isions in respo n se to stud e nt behav iou r s (Ly onet al. , 1993I.
Each teacher is alsoobserved by t.h e teacherlead e r at least fo ur t.imesa year as he/she teaches a stu d ent. Thes e sessionsareconsultativein nature, wherethe te acher le a d er of t e n interactswit h the st u den t beingtut oredto demonstrate
38 effective procedures which graduall y become part of th e teache r's procedures .
When teachers have workedwithfour ch i l dre n overaon e ye ar periodandhav e le arnedt.o accelerate chi l dren' s learni ng eo dis c on t in ue them from the program, the y are considered tra ined -Re a d i n g Recovery- teachers (Jon e s. 1991). Si nc e le a rn i ng about children and teaching is a never ending process, suppor t for teachers continues after the init i al trainin g.Dur i n g th e fo l lowingyear . Clay (1991a) rec ommen d e d that te a c h e rs make collabor ative visits with colle agues to ob s e rve themtea chi n g and tofo s t e r the continuingdevelopment of effectiveteaching.
Te a c ber- I e ade r instructionprepares indi vidualsto tra in t.eachers, toins t ru c t students. and toope r a t e a readingsi te
(All in g ton&.Walmsley. 1995) . In addi t i onto participating in
the teac her training . they expected think simu l t aneous l y about t.hei r own teaching and the nat.ure of tra iningfor teachers.The co urs elo a d for teacher leaders is mor e than twice that for teachers and usually re quires an in d i v idual to relocate to a university camp u s.As we llas the clin ica l se s s i ons . they take courseson le a rn i ng. language.
readingand writing theory, anda practicum to de velop their se n s i t i v e awareness of the organizati onal, profe ssionaland
39 Child development issues associated ....ith the implementation of the program (Clay, 1991al.
Throughout the year teacher leaders in training observe trained teacher leaders' work with teachers during inservice courses. With the guidance of trainers of teacher leaders. they develop skill in effective questioning. leading teachers to articulate what the child is doing and why they thought teachers responded as they did. Over the year' s training they go from observing trained teacher leaders to gradually taking over the process of helping teachers grow and develop.By the end of their training, they are visiting teachers working in their schools, discussing new procedures, answering questions that. eeachexs might have, and acting as advocates for ensuring effective results from the program in their educational district.
Candidates for teacher leader training must have demonstrated effectiveness as teachers of young children, leadership qualities, effective communication skills, knowledge of the theoretical understandings of the program, and have completed a master degree in a related area (Clay, 1991a; Gaffney, 1991).
After training, teacher leaders must continue to work with students to further develop and operationalize their own
40 theory building _Continuedsupport is also provided from the university .
The third level of training involves in s t r u c t i o n for tr a i n ers of teac her le a d e r s. Relatively few people selec ted for training at this level. Training requires a rela t i v ely co mp l ex range of skills including demonstrated effective teaching of chi l dr e n , the ability to teach th eo r e t i c a l material to teachers and teacher leaders. a comprehensive understanding of Clay'5 theory and current re s e arc h in language development. reading,writing, sp ell i n g , and educational ch ang e, and an understandingofthe leadership roles needed to provide support for the imple me n t atio n of -Re a di n g Recovery- ina part i cula r area (Lyo n s et a1 . 19 93 ).
Theke y to the successof -Re a d i n g Recovery " lie s inth e sensiti ve observatior.. and power fu l te a c h i n g provided by the speciallytrained teacher (P i nne l l, Lyons , &DeFord, 1997)
Evaluationof Reading' Recovery
During the 1970's , as a result ofob s e rvati o n a l studies of chil dren 's reading and writing behaviour. New Zealander, Marie Claydevelopeda set of procedures to reduce reading
41 failure. In 1978, Clayand her team set out to demonstrate that these procedures were effective in accelerating the progress of low achieving students. Five schools participated in the study, with a total of 291 grade one students. All students were tested prior to implementation of the program to allow for comparison of the tutored children with their classmates. Throughout the year. 122 studentswere tutored for an average of thirteen to fourteen weeks. At the end of the year, all students were tested on book level. reading vocabulary and the"Di a gn o s t i c Sur-vey:".Results indicated that tutored students made gains that equalled or surpassed the gains made by th e i r peers. Three years later, studies indicated that a high percentage of these students continued to make satisfactory progress.
In 1979, Clay set out to determine if these results could be replicated in a la r g e r number of schools. Results indicated that, even though the 1979 students scoredlowe r than the 1978 sample on entry to the programon reading vocabulary and book level, th e final scores were comparable .
In 1984, after three years of investigation, ~Re adi ng Recovery"was pilotedbythe Ohio State University in six Ohio schools. Clay and a colleague trained teachers and teacher leaders in thediagnostic procedures. That year, the "Reading
42 Recove ry" students were compa red with another group of randomlyselected lowachievingstudents.The tuto redstuden ts performed better th an the comparison group on almost all measures and werecomparable to other firstgraders in t.h ose schools.
Inthe 1985-86schoolyear. a longitudinalstudybegan as
"Re a d i n g neecver-y- was implemented in twelve Ohio schoo Ls . Ch i ldr e nwh o scored in the lowest 20\we r erand o ml y assigned to "Re a d ing Recovery"or to another compensatorypr og ram which provided extra support all year in the basal reader lessons of th e regular classroom. The "Re a d i n g Recovery " st u d e n t s received an average of 67 le s s o n s, and 73%weresu c cessfully discontinued.Resul t s at the end of theyear showedthat.cbe
"Re a din g Recovery" stud e n t s performed bet ter than th e co mp a r i s ongroup and alsoperformed withi n th e average range of other firs tgrader s. To determine ifth e s e gainswould be maintained. bothgroupswere foll owed for threeyears after the ini t i a l intervention. Measures on te x t re a d i n g ability indicated that -Re a d i n g Recovery - st u d e n t s continued tomake progressfor at least threeyears after the inte rve nt ion. Both continued and not dis con t inued students ou t p e r f o rm e d the comparison group at the end of gradefour and the discontinued group performedwi thinthe average rang eof their peers. The
43 researchers concluded that "Reading Recovery" has both immediate and long-term positive effects on the students being served (Lyons, Pinnell&DeFord, 1993).
While the results from other follow-up studies supported the maintenance of gains into second and third grade (Hiebert, 1994; Pinnell. 19891. Shanahan and Barr (19951 maintained that progress following discontinuance from the program may not continue at an average rate. To provide a more accurate estimate of the total effects of the program, they conducted an independent analysis of the exiseing evaluations of
"Reading Recovery" in the United States that reported pre- and post test comparisons. They pooled results across studies to determine the average gains of the total number of students served on the various test measures. From their analysis. the researchers found that the average tutored student who successfully discontinued made dramatic progress during first:
grade. and that these gains approximated, and sometimes exceeded. the gains madeby the average student. When gains made by the KReading aecove ry- students were compared with the gains of other low echi evdnc students in some alternate type of intervention. the gains made by the "Re ad Lnq Recovery- students were greater. However. bysecond and third grade. the rate of progress was slower for -Reading Recovery- students
significant 44 thanfor th e average students.
When wasikand Slavin (l993) examined there s u l t.s of the 1985-86Ohio StateUn i v e r s i t y longitudinal study, they found tha t, whereas the raw score differences on text level were maint.ained at abo u t th e same level ov e r thre e ye a r s, the effect size actuallydiminished. Inot h e r words , even th ou gh the size of thedif f e r e n c e was stable . the imp o rtanc e of the difference was diminishing.
To assess short -and medium- te rm effects,Ce n t er et al.
(1 9 9 51 randomly assigned low achieving students to eit he r -ReadingRec overy"ortoa traditional inte rve n t i o n program . They usedcr i t e r i on- and norm-referencedtests at pretestand postt.e st;, at fi f;: e e n weeks and twe lvemon t hs. Nosignifi cant differenceswereno t e d betweenth e two groupson any measure at pretes t. Fifteen we e ks after the int erve n t ion, "Re adin g Rec o very" st u d e nts signif icantly out per fo rm e d co n t rol students. However, at twe l v e months,
dif ferenceswere fo un d.
Th e in co n clu sivenes s of some of th e research on the stabi lityof learning ga ins inth e "ReadingRecovery Program"
indicate thaton c e ach i l d is brought up to the averagerange, their progress is less than the average of th e i r class. Shanahan and Barr (1995) suggested tha t th e s e findings
45 indicate a need for on going support for low achieving students. They argue that educators cannot expect -Reading Recovery- to entirely do away with the need for later assistance for these children.
Glynn. Crooks, Bethune , Ballard. and Smith (1 9 8 9) provided some explanation for these -wa a h - o ut; effects". They compared-Reading Recovery"students with a comparison group of low achieving students on book level and a measure of syntactic awareness. Resultsat the endof the year indicated that the "Re a d i n g Recovery"students made greater gains than th e comparison group on book level. however. therewere no differences on syntactic awareness. Maintenance tests a year later. on the sarne measures. indicated thatthe differences between both groups were not significanton both measures . The re s e a r c h e r s ar gue d that; this "wash out ef fect;" on book level was a resul tof th e discrepancybetween testedbookle v e l and classroom reading le v e l materials. They found that after discontinuance students were providedwi th low reading level materials in th e i r classrooms . The problem then. was not with th e early in tervention . but rather. with the subsequent instruction that failed to capitalize on the students' gains in reading.
Tunmer (1 9 9 0 ) andCh a pman and Tunmer (l9 9 1) argued that
