READING RECOVERY KIMBERLEE HICKS KAREN JEWETTE CHARLOTTE WRIGHT RANDY BACHMEIER GROUP 1 KIMBERLEE HICKS KAREN JEWETTE CHARLOTTE WRIGHT RANDY BACHMEIER GROUP 1

Introduction A short term tutoring intervention program intended to serve the lowest achieving first grade students. The goals of the program are to promote literacy and reduce the number of first-grade students who struggle with reading. (WWC, 2007) A short term tutoring intervention program intended to serve the lowest achieving first grade students. The goals of the program are to promote literacy and reduce the number of first-grade students who struggle with reading. (WWC, 2007)

Ten Principles of the Program Phonological awareness Visual perception of letters Word recognition Phonics/decoding skills Phonics/structural analysis Fluency Comprehension A Balanced literacy approach Early intervention Individual tutoring Phonological awareness Visual perception of letters Word recognition Phonics/decoding skills Phonics/structural analysis Fluency Comprehension A Balanced literacy approach Early intervention Individual tutoring

Size of the Intervention Group Groups of 1-to-1,1-to-3, & 1-to-10 1-to-1 & 1-to-3 outperformed 1-to-10 1-to-1 & 1-to-3 showed no statistically significant differences in results (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003 ) Effect sizes ranged from small to large depending on the measure and group, according to a meta-analysis conducted by D’Agostino & Murphy (2004) Groups of 1-to-1,1-to-3, & 1-to-10 1-to-1 & 1-to-3 outperformed 1-to-10 1-to-1 & 1-to-3 showed no statistically significant differences in results (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003 ) Effect sizes ranged from small to large depending on the measure and group, according to a meta-analysis conducted by D’Agostino & Murphy (2004)

Time Frames Teachers must receive university based training for one year. Students receive one-on-one tutoring sessions from a trained Reading Recovery teacher. The program generally consist of between 12 to 20 weeks of tutorial sessions, depending on the child. The sessions are 30 minutes daily and begin with students reading a familiar book followed by teachers conducting a running record of the reading book introduced the day before. The student then utilizes magnetic letters to work on letter identification and they write a sentence or brief story, which is cut into pieces and reassembled by the student. Finally, a new book is introduced with assistance from the teacher. Teachers must receive university based training for one year. Students receive one-on-one tutoring sessions from a trained Reading Recovery teacher. The program generally consist of between 12 to 20 weeks of tutorial sessions, depending on the child. The sessions are 30 minutes daily and begin with students reading a familiar book followed by teachers conducting a running record of the reading book introduced the day before. The student then utilizes magnetic letters to work on letter identification and they write a sentence or brief story, which is cut into pieces and reassembled by the student. Finally, a new book is introduced with assistance from the teacher.

Dismissal from the Program The intent of the program is for students to increase their reading achievement levels so that they can function within average range of their peers and continue to make progress in reading. Usually within the 12 to 20 weeks of the program. Students are discontinued from the program when it is evident that they have made sufficient progress. This is a collaborative decision, involving the teachers, as well as their scores on assessments and teacher observations. Those who make progress but do not reach average classroom performance after 20 weeks are referred for further evaluation and a future plan of action. Discontinuation is followed by monitoring over several years to ensure that they are continuing to make progress. The developers of the program assume that students will continue to progress, but they do not promise that additional assistance may not be needed in the future (D’Agostino & Murphy, 2004). The intent of the program is for students to increase their reading achievement levels so that they can function within average range of their peers and continue to make progress in reading. Usually within the 12 to 20 weeks of the program. Students are discontinued from the program when it is evident that they have made sufficient progress. This is a collaborative decision, involving the teachers, as well as their scores on assessments and teacher observations. Those who make progress but do not reach average classroom performance after 20 weeks are referred for further evaluation and a future plan of action. Discontinuation is followed by monitoring over several years to ensure that they are continuing to make progress. The developers of the program assume that students will continue to progress, but they do not promise that additional assistance may not be needed in the future (D’Agostino & Murphy, 2004).

Cost of Reading Recovery Reading recovery is available on a nonprofit, no royalty basis. There are start up and maintanence cost involved. In order for a district to establish a RR program a teacher leader must be trained. Startup cost involve salary, paying university tuition for courses, book and material cost. Teacher leaders and teachers will also be involved on ongoing professional development activities. In 2006, the cost was approximately $100 per student served. Sites pay an annual data evaluation fee of $250 a site and $3.50 per student served. As well as a technical support fee established by the university. Hiebert (1994) estimated to cost of RR at over $8000 per student, reflecting in part the cost of training, making it a very expensive intervention. RR has been found to be at 200% more expensive than other first grade interventions. Reading recovery is available on a nonprofit, no royalty basis. There are start up and maintanence cost involved. In order for a district to establish a RR program a teacher leader must be trained. Startup cost involve salary, paying university tuition for courses, book and material cost. Teacher leaders and teachers will also be involved on ongoing professional development activities. In 2006, the cost was approximately $100 per student served. Sites pay an annual data evaluation fee of $250 a site and $3.50 per student served. As well as a technical support fee established by the university. Hiebert (1994) estimated to cost of RR at over $8000 per student, reflecting in part the cost of training, making it a very expensive intervention. RR has been found to be at 200% more expensive than other first grade interventions.

Regression to the Mean Reading Recovery targets students at the 20 th percentile or below in reading achievement. “ ‘Regression to the mean’ is a statistical phenomenon that occurs whenever you have a nonrandom sample from a population and two measures that are imperfectly correlated.” (Trochim, 2006) “Regression to the mean describes the tendency for extreme pretest scores to become less extreme on a posttest.” (Smith, 2005) “The more extreme the sample group, the greater the regression to the mean.” (Trochim, 2006) Regression to the mean is not a “real” effect, but rather a statistical “artifact.” (Graphic from Trochim, 2006)

Research Problem Is the size of the reading recovery group contributing to the effect size and the student outcomes?

Dependent and Independent Variables Dependent Variables: Academic Achievement Independent Variables: Group sizes Dependent Variables: Academic Achievement Independent Variables: Group sizes

Target Population & Sampling Technique Target Population: Reading Recovery targets only first grade students who score at the 20 th percentile or below in reading achievement. Sampling Technique: We will use a convenience sample consisting of those first grade students at “Dame Marie Clay Elementary School” who score at the 20 th percentile or below in reading achievement on the fall administration of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Assignment: The participants will be randomly assigned to one of four groups (three treatment groups with varying student-to-teacher ratios and a control group). We will require a minimum of participants per group (Gay, 1987).

Threats and Controls Threats to internal validity: history, maturation, testing, statistical regression, differential selection/selection-maturation interaction, experimental mortality, compensatory rivaly, compensatory equalization, resentful demoralization, implementation. Controls: Use a control group from the same population, random assignment to one of four conditions, keep experimenters “blind,” use observers. Threats to external validity: population validity and ecological validity. Controls: Acknowledge and disclose limited generalizability due to convenience sampling, ensure treatment fidelity, provide proper training, keep careful observations and accurate records.

Intervention Fidelity Due to inconsistent methodology within the current research, we would base our changes on a return to the original premise created by Marie Clay in 1976 with some modifications. We would increase group sizes to accommodate more students. We would incorporate an explicit instruction component in phonics and phonemic awareness. We would utilize a standardized outcome measures and implement continuous progress monitoring. Due to inconsistent methodology within the current research, we would base our changes on a return to the original premise created by Marie Clay in 1976 with some modifications. We would increase group sizes to accommodate more students. We would incorporate an explicit instruction component in phonics and phonemic awareness. We would utilize a standardized outcome measures and implement continuous progress monitoring.

Reliability and Validity of the Instrumentation We would utilize a standardized assessment such as The Iowa Basic Skills Test to ensure reliability and validity.

Quantitative Method ANOVA would be used to analyze the quantitative data. There were 3 tutoring groups of individuals analyzed: 1:1, 1:3, and 1:10 Our control group would not be administered any type of reading intervention. ANOVA would be used to analyze the quantitative data. There were 3 tutoring groups of individuals analyzed: 1:1, 1:3, and 1:10 Our control group would not be administered any type of reading intervention.

Expected Results 1:1 Group Highest achievement 1:3 Group Medium achievement 1:10 Group Lowest achievement 1:1 Group Highest achievement 1:3 Group Medium achievement 1:10 Group Lowest achievement

References D’Agostino, J. V. (2004). A meta-analysis of reading recovery in United States schools. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 26(1), Gay, L. R. (1987). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Hiebert, E. H. (1994). Reading recovery in the United States: What difference does it make to an age co-hort? Educational researcher, 23(9), Iverson, S., Tunmer, W. E. & Chapman, J. W. (2005). The effects of varying group size on the reading recovery approach to preventive early intervention. Journal of learning disabilities, 30(5), Smith, R. A. (2005). Regression to the mean. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Regression to the mean. Retrieved July 10, 2007 from the Research Methods Knowledge Base Web site What Works Clearinghouse (2007). WWC intervention report: Reading recovery. United States Department of Education: WWC Clearinghouse. Retrieved July 10, 2007 from