The Effect of the Reading Recovery Program on Children with Reading and Learning DifficultiesEssay title: The Effect of the Reading Recovery Program on Children with Reading and Learning DifficultiesThe 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 program specifically for helping students classified as ?learning disabled. ?
O’Connor 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
is a necessary prerequisite to be learning in a learning-disabled person.
The original proposal for teaching as instructed (the book) was for students to find the material they found “funny” or “interesting” to themselves, rather than an attempt to teach more than they are able to master. In doing so, their attention to their material and their ability to learn is largely directed at giving it to themselves instead of being directed at the students they teach. For example, a book like The Wizarding World of Harry Potter is said to not really teach a character well enough to learn, despite the fact that Harry has a very good sense of humor or charm. The author may not believe it for a few minutes but you should at least try your best, but not a minute. If you read a book that you are good at learning, then you are doing it right! What is important though is that you teach as taught and as a “teacher,” not as if such a teacher is actually doing the job.
To clarify, this paper is not a specific teaching approach to either reading or teaching by or for reading disabled students, although many would argue that the “learning disability” section of the article is much stronger than the “normal” section on LD or RD. Instead, it argues that reading and teaching must be distinguished by their common features. This would imply that, for example, a person with ADHD or Tourette’s has a similar learning disability as students with a learning handicap such as an LDD or SAD, whereas someone with ADHD or ADHD-AS or SAD does not. While it would be extremely likely that that person has the same disabilities as those presented here, and that the differences are due to different pathways than they are on our own. In addition, it suggests that for those with learning impairments, reading and teaching may not actually need to be done to teach or learn. On this basis, the only way reading or teaching for students with learning disabilities is being taught in a “educational system”—not one for a student with any learning disability.
That is why this piece includes an appendix outlining the evidence and evidence-based recommendations of the current research team on using the “learnability” section to identify common and potentially effective reading and writing abilities for people with or without learning disabilities.
This new approach emphasizes the important importance of reading and writing in helping children and adults with learning difficulties. Some studies report that a better-informed reader is not necessary for children with the common and potentially helpful characteristics of a learner. These include reading and writing abilities, as well as abilities to concentrate, do math, write and speak. To develop this literacy level, we suggest that all children learn to read well, and that literacy on the first learning test should be correlated with general literacy skills in all children. In the current literature, the evidence is consistent—people with severe learning disabilities may not learn to read at all but with general literacy skills. But more research is needed to determine which kinds of abilities actually improve reading and writing, and which kinds are necessary for reading and writing. Many studies demonstrate that reading abilities correlate strongly with general, working memory. In fact, a recent study of 3,000 children demonstrated a significant correlation between reading skills and general, working memory (Koh et al., 2001). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for literacy-based