Talk:Reading Recovery

Untitled

I heard somewhere that Australia had dropped the programme citing cost-ineffectiveness ; is there any truth in that and if so shouldn't that be incorporated into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.96.226 (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, but it reads far more like an advertisement. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite so. it reads like an advertisement, taken directly from the site. This could even be a copyvio, you never know where this sort of stuff comes from. Someone needs to clean it up, and it sure as hell aint gonna be me! Well... not until exams are over anyway. THE KING 11:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up

The page was not a copyvio: The webpage where it came from was explicitely public domain. BUT, it was pro-Reading Recovery. I cleaned up the following:

• Deleted the evaluation of the method, this it came from people who make their money with Reading Recovery they don't count as NPOV. I left the link of the source in the article, so people can still access the text. I also added another link which gives a more critical account.
• I added the names of the people behind the method.
• Made clear that we are talking about English language reading education, I don't think the method would work to teach Chinese.
• Made clean Reading Recovery is a trademark, and who holds it.

-- Mkill 20:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Reading Recovery is currently used to teach English, French and Spanish language literacy in North America. 173.206.231.16 (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading Recovery is a very expensive program that the What Works Clearinghouse deemed effective based on its review of 5 studies, most of which were conducted by proponents of the program. The Clearinghouse has research requirements that do not consider "who" conducted the research. The program, in its annual report, does not include data for ALL students who were served by the program. Alleged initial gains made by children do not "stick," because the program fails to incorporate what the National Reading Panel has deemed essential-systematic phonics. Yes...Queensland, Australia has dropped the program entirely because independent analyses demonstrate that children served do not benefit in the long run. Proponents are very quick to "co-opt" language found in the Panel's report, but the "devil is in the details." Check out the statements about the program made by a group of independent, respected, well-known researchers that were posted on the internet not so long ago. The Reading Recovery website even posts tips for "lobbying" congress members so that the program receives funds. In Ohio, the state budget continues to have a line item, approved by the governor, ensuring that public funds are set aside for a program that has failed to produce.

Rrgoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.52.63 (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In need of cleanup

Beside a much too long introductory paragraph, this entry is full of small errors and larger problems such as a lack of in-line citations and what strikes me as a very non-NPOV. This article looks like the victim of the politicized debate over reading instruction rather than a objective description.

Will work on some of it. CercareVerita (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is nothing more than an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.184.70 (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversies

Not exactly controversy, but in the context of public education it does not seem that this program is the best use of resources. Whilst the program does 'work', there are alternatives which are cheaper and more effective. Given the limited budget for public education, the question of cost effectiveness is very real. This article directed at teachers and parents probably sums it up well http://www.musec.mq.edu.au/community_outreach/musec_briefings#3 "Reading Recovery appears to be mildly effective but possibly not as effective as it should be given its high cost and limited utility." 60.240.207.146 (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Advertisement

I added the advert tag to this page, since it appears that this is written from a non-NPOV that is very heavily biased towards this subject, and it appears that talk along these lines has started to develop once or twice in the past ten years on this talk page but nothing's been done yet. Makaristos (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-Independent Sources?

The "Further Reading" section of the article includes quite a few references to papers published in "The Journal of Reading Recovery" and "Literacy Teaching and Learning". Both of these are controlled by the Reading Recovery Council of North America, an organization which specifically advocates for the Reading Recovery program: https://readingrecovery.org/rrcna/about-rrcna/#_vision-mission.

QUESTION: Should these references be removed?

Tagging in User:Beeblebrox, User:Makaristos, User:Mkill.

Davebraze (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The entire section appears almost as long as the article. I would advocate trimming, possibly even removing it. Notable or influential articles perhaps, but not every article written that promotes or disparages this subject. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ifnord (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed it's way too long without any links. Is it worthwhile to link some of the more recent / more notable? Such as [1]

"Discredited"?

No idea about this program, but the first sentence referring to a concept as "discredited" and citing a couple papers from last year seems pretty non-Neutral-POV. BoosterBronze (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot of further reading to do. A good introduction is Emily Hanford's reporting (more narrative reporting here); the footnotes there are extensive.

The fact seems to be that while this the three-cueing method is popular, it is not effective. It's about as discredited as any educational intervention possibly can be. I can add more footnotes there, but we shouldn't be afraid to be clear about the facts. NPOV means that we don't push our own opinions; it doesn't mean that we can't include inconvenient or less-well-accepted facts. grendel|khan 19:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Reading Recovery has not been discredited

Reading Recovery was reevaluated by the What Works Clearinghouse in 2023, following a study that many point to as discrediting the intervention. However, that research study was found in reevaluation to have multiple problems that delimit the studies findings:

1. There was a 75% attrition rate in the study. Only 25% of the original group of students were available for data collection. Additionally, third-grade test scores were available for approximately 27% of the total sample and fourth-grade test scores were available for approximately 17% of the total number of control students. This level of attrition delimits any inferences that can be drawn from this study. 2. The control group and the treatment group were not equivalent. The control group students did not receive Reading Recovery because they were not the lowest literacy learners in their first-grade classrooms and were able to learn with classroom teaching. 3. The types of instructional support and materials provided in years, two, three, and four were not considered by May’s study.

May’s study indicated that children did not continue to make adequate progress over time. However, it is important to note that in interviews, the author of this study recommended schools continue using Reading Recovery and provide further monitoring to maintain the highly positive early effects of the intervention.

At the same conference, a study from the United Kingdom, Hurry, Fridkin and Holliman’s study showed long-term positive effects of Reading Recovery on UK students at age 16. Multiple longitudinal studies on Reading Recovery outcomes in the U.S. have shown positive results. Other peer-reviewed studies show positive long-term gains, including "Reading intervention at age 6: Long-term effects of Reading Recovery in the UK on qualifications and support at age 16." [16]

Reading Recovery has twice been found effective by US Department of Education's What Works Clearinghouse and also by Evidence for ESSA. Uberbink (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

References

• One study that even calls out its limitations does not prove it is effective. Multiple other studies, independent third part sources all state it doesn't work.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  On the contrary, there are dozens of quantitative and qualitative studies that prove Reading Recovery's effectiveness. The key is to look at peer-reviewed scholarly research, not news media which has a biased slant.

  The intervention came under fire due to a podcast which used cherry-picked research, glossing over the strong research base. I encourage you to consult the latest research presentation from Maren Aukerman for a primer on what science actually says. It's really quite eye-opening! [2]https://media.ithaca.edu/media/Maren+Aukerman+2024+Ithaca+College+Educational+Freedom+Lecture/1_rvncpvoa

  Aukerman, M. (2024, February 22). Toward comprehensive, research-informed literacy instruction: Thinking with, against, and beyond the science of reading. [Webinar]. Ithaca College Department of Education 2024 Educational Freedom Lecture and Community Uberbink (talk) 15:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Uberbink and Viewmont Viking: The article no longer states that RR is "discredited". That adjective has been removed from the lead. But the article retains the cited information about the program's limitations and its disfavor among the various countries where it was used. So far, you've presented one source that contradicts the "discredited" assessment (Fridkin and Holliman). Your other sources are not accessible. (The Ithaca.edu link is paywalled, and Aukerman's webinar does not show up on a Google Scholar search.) You haven't even provided citations to verify your claims about the "What Works Clearinghouse" and "Evidence for ESSA" evaulations. If you can provide sufficient support for these counter-claims, I could see a second paragraph under the Reevaluation section to present these contravening claims. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, WikiDan61. I did originally submit a second paragraph under reevaluation with the following citations but they reverted despite the citations added below. Perhaps I did it incorrectly? I appreciate the guidance in clearing up this misinformation. A pop culture podcast should not be allowed supplant peer-reviewed research on such an important topic!

Additional support for counter claims:

- The Maren Aukerman webinar is a free resource that should not require login: The citation for this resource is:

Aukerman, M. (2024, February 22). Toward comprehensive, research-informed literacy instruction: Thinking with, against, and beyond the science of reading. [Webinar]. Ithaca College Department of Education 2024 Educational Freedom Lecture and Community. https://media.ithaca.edu/media/Maren+Aukerman+2024+Ithaca+College+Educational+Freedom+Lecture/1_rvncpvoa

- Reading Recovery is rated "Strong" by Evidence for ESSA, Center for Research and Reform in Education (CRRE) at Johns Hopkins University School of Education: https://www.evidenceforessa.org/program/reading-recovery/

- Reading Recovery has been twice verified as the highest rating literacy intervention by the What Works Clearinghouse, an investment of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) within the U.S. Department of Education:

- 2013: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_readrecovery_071613.pdf

- 2023: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/Docs/InterventionReports/WWC_RR_IR-report.pdf

- Also notable in the 2023 report is this statement debunking the May 2022 studies that is currently used in the current reevaluation section: "Two of these studies (May & Blakeney, 2022 and May et al., 2022) report using regression discontinuity designs, but the WWC determined that they were not eligible for review as regression discontinuity designs. The WWC requires that regression discontinuity designs analyze the actual measure that was used to assign students to the intervention or comparison conditions, called a forcing variable. However, these studies analyzed an alternative forcing variable that was not used to assign students to treatment conditions. Because these studies were not eligible for review as regression discontinuity designs, the WWC instead reviewed these two studies as quasi-experimental designs. Ten studies, including May and Blakeney (2022) and May et al. (2022), do not satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement because there is inconclusive evidence that the intervention and comparison groups were similar before introducing the intervention."

- Jesson, R. and Aitken, J. (2022): Aligned with the sciences: How does Reading Recovery teach phonics? published in the Literacy Forum NZ, 37(3).

- The Sold a Story podcast cited multiple times through the current listing has been discredited by numerous literacy experts and scholars as biased and driven by corporate interests, including:

- Thomas, P.L. (2022). The Science of Reading movement: The never-ending debate and the need for a different approach to reading instruction. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved 02/29/2024 from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/science-of-reading Uberbink (talk) 16:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)