1. Rebecca Caufman rcaufman@cox.net George Mason University May 10, 2009
Time For A Check Up! An Investigation of Reading Recovery Students Reading Achievement Through Adolescence
Rebecca Caufman
George Mason University
May 10, 2009 1 1

2. Purpose
Check up on former Reading Recovery students who will be 6th, 7th, and 8th grades in the Fall of 2010 to examine how they have progressed in their reading achievement and determine what factors played a key role in these students success or lack of success
Evaluate the long term effectiveness of Reading Recovery in a school building 2

3. Background Information
How did Reading Recovery begin?
Started as a doctoral research project in
Turned into a research study being conducted with struggling readers at the University of Auckland in 1976
Grew from just two researchers to seven within one year
By 1980 was in practice with one hundred teachers trained as Reading Recovery Teachers in New Zealand
In 1983 Australia was the first country to begin replicating the Reading Recovery program
In 1984 researchers at Ohio State began the program in the United States 3

4. Background Information (Cont.)
What is Reading Recovery?
Short term intervention provided to students struggling in literacy in 1st grade
Selected students have received the lowest scores on a series of six literacy tasks
Students meet one-on-one with a trained Reading Recovery Teacher for 30 minutes a day
Programs may last no longer than 20 weeks
Goal is to close the literacy gap between the Reading Recovery student and the student’s more proficient classmates.
Research conducted by the National Reading Recovery Data Center reports that 78% of students who receive a full program are able to meet grade level expectations at the end of their first grade 4

5. Statement of the Problem
Much is known about the progress of Reading Recovery students in first grade
Little is known about what happens to Reading Recovery students after first grade
It is important to learn how Reading Recovery students progress in later grades to determine the program’s cost effectiveness

6. Literature Review
Effectiveness of Reading Recovery in elementary years using quantitative methods:
Pinnell (1989) found 2/3 Ohio students in 2nd and 3rd maintained gains
Lukas (2001) conducted a district check up in Illinois and found RR students maintained gains and recommended students also began catching up with peers in 3rd-5th grades
Briggs and Young (2003) studied Kansas 4th graders and found successful RR students maintained gains and recommended students continued to achieve at a lower level
Schmitt and Gregory (2005) studied Indiana 2nd, 3rd, and 4th graders and found only a few were struggling.
Forbes and Szymczuk (2008) studied Iowa 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders found students sustained their gains and some improved performance
Gapp, Zalud, and Pietrzah (2008) studied South Dakota 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders and found by 5th grade 80% or students were at or above grade level regardless of end of program status. 6

7. Literature Review (cont.)
Effectiveness of Reading Recovery in adolescent years using quantitative methods:
3 found RR students maintained their gains:
Haenn (2002) North Carolina school district report of 5th, 6th, and 7th graders
Shamey (2008) Doctoral dissertation 6th, 7th, and 8th graders reading levels
Holcomb (2009) Doctoral dissertation 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th graders
1 found that Reading Recovery students did not maintain gains after 3rd grade:
Murphy (2003) Doctoral dissertation evaluated 6th graders reading growth

8. Literature Review (cont.)
Effectiveness of Reading Recovery using mixed methods approach:
Combined quantitative data with questionnaires given to classroom teachers:
Askew and Frasier (1994) studied RR students in 2nd grade:
Found classroom teacher and quantitative data did not match
Askew et al (2002) studied RR students in 1st-4th grade:
Found that classroom teacher and quantitative data matched
Learned 85% were not receiving extra support
Moen (2006) studied RR students in 4th grade
Found that many of the RR students needed additional support in subsequent years

9. Gaps in the Literature
As students get older less and less is known about their reading achievement progress
No standardized way to measure progress after 1st grade
Only a few states and districts have shared their findings
Focused on quantitative methods which data does not tell us if the program is truly cost effective

10. Research Questions This study is designed to examine:
How have former Reading Recovery students progressed in their reading through the late elementary and middle school grades?
Did the Reading Recovery end of program status decision predict later reading achievement?
What factors have played a key role in these students’ success or lack of success in reading achievement? 10

11. Design Statement
My study will be a case study using a mixed methods design:
Qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews in order to determine students day-to-day reading achievement and the support needed to be successful
Quantitative data collected through students standardized test score, reading achievement grades, and DRA-2 assessment 11 11

12. Researcher Perspective
Former classroom teacher (grades 2 & 3)
Former Reading Recovery Teacher for four years
I will be studying the students I taught my 1st-3rd years as a Reading Recovery Teacher
Currently a student at George Mason University pursuing a PhD in Literacy 12 12

13. Who Will Be Studied?
A stratified sampling of my former Reading Recovery students:
2 students in 6th grade in Fall of 2010
2 students in 7th grade in Fall of 2010
2 students in 8th grade in Fall of 2010
In each group one student will have been a successful Reading Recovery student and the other will have been recommended for additional support at the end of Reading Recovery

14. Participants
Interviews will be conducted to determine the reading progress and achievement of 6 of my former Reading Recovery students. Interviews will be collected from:
Parent of former Reading Recovery Student
Elementary School Reading Teacher
Current Classroom Teachers
Former Reading Recovery Student 14 14

15. Data Sources Transcriptions from audiotapes of each interview
1st and 2nd Grade Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores
Reading scores from the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) tests in grades 3 – 8
Student achievement grades in reading from 1st to current grade
DRA-2 15 15

16. Data Collection Procedures
Parental approval will be obtained
Predictions of how I think selected students might be doing in reading achievement will be written
Interviews will be conducted with:
Parent of Reading Recovery student
Reading Teacher at elementary school
Select teachers of the student
Former Reading Recovery student
Quantitative data will be collected:
Student performance on 1st and 2nd grade DRA
Student performance on state reading assessments in grades 3rd-8th
Student academic achievement in reading from 1st-8th grades
Student current performance on DRA-2 16 16

17. Data Analysis Each interview will be transcribed
Data will be examined for important words and phrases that help explain students success or lack of success
Important findings for each student will be collected into one document
Quantitative data will be gathered for each student and organized into a one page spreadsheet
Qualitative data will be compare to quantitative data
A summary will be written 17 17

18. Expected Results
Student end of progress Reading Recovery status will not be a predictor of student reading achievement into adolescence
Some students will require additional support
Other factors that may show up as impacting students’ reading achievement:
Classroom Teachers both good and bad
Student Personalities 18 18

19. Limitations
Findings are limited to the setting and results cannot be generalized to a broader population of Reading Recovery students

20. Implications
Encourage others to conduct a check up of their former Reading Recovery students
Begin work on a standardized way to evaluate Reading Recovery’s long term effects on students reading achievement
Awareness of how using a mixed methods approach provides a better picture of the long-term achievement of Reading Recovery students
Acknowledgment that Reading Recovery students may require additional support and determining how to provide this service
More informed decisions regarding the implementation of the program are made with research to support these decisions
Reading Recovery professionals can improve the implementation of the program in schools 20 20

21. References
Askew, B., Kaye, E., Frasier, D., Mobasher, M., Anderson, N. & Rodriguez, Y. (2002). Making the case for prevention in education. Literacy, Teaching, and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 6(2),
Askew, B. & Frasier, D. (1994). Sustained effects of Reading Recovery intervention on the cognitive behaviors of second grade children and the perceptions of their teachers. Literacy, Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Literacy. 1(1),
Ballantyne, Ann (2007). The Doctoral Research Project : From research to practice. The Journal of Reading Recovery. 7(1),
Briggs, C. & Young, B. (2003). Does Reading Recovery work in Kansas? A retrospective longitudinal study of sustained effects. Journal of Reading Recovery, 3(1),
Clay, M. (2007). International perspectives on the Reading Recovery program. The Journal of Reading Recovery. 7(1),
Clay, M. (2005). Literacy lessons designed for individuals part one: Why? When? and How? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Forbes, S. & Szymczuk, M. (2008). Study of the sustained effects of Reading Recovery in Iowa. Journal of Reading Recovery, 8(1), Gapp, S., Zalud, G. Pietrzah, D. (2008). Can Reading Recovery end of intervention status descision predict later achievement? A South Dakota study. Journal of Reading Recovery, 7(2),
Haenn, J., & Durham Public Schools, N.C. (2002). A longitudinal evaluation of the long-term effects of a Reading Recovery program. [Report]. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED464935)
Holcomb, L. (2009). An exploration into the longitudinal reading achievement of students in the Cherokee County (NC) School District's application of Reading Recovery (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT ).

22. References (cont.)
Lose, M. (2001). Why do a follow-up study of Reading Recovery children? Rationales and recommendations. Journal of Reading Recovery, 1(1),
Lukas, B. (2001). Plainfield consortium longitudinal study shows sustained gains. Journal of Reading Recovery, 1(1),
Moen, April D. (2006).  A study of the transition of discontinued Reading Recovery students from grade one to grade four. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT ). Murphy, Judith A. (2003).  An application of growth curve analysis: The evaluation of a reading intervention program (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT ).
National Data Evaluation Center, The Ohio State University (2008). Success rate to present. Retrieved from
Pinnell, G. S. (1989). Reading recovery: Helping at-risk children learn to read. The Elementary School Journal, 90(2),
Reading Recovery Council of North America. (2010). Reading Recovery is Cost Effective. [Reading Recovery]. Retrieved from
Rodgers, E. & Ortega, S. (2008). Reading Recovery in the United States: Executive Summary, (NDEC Rep. No ). Columbus: The Ohio State University, National Data Evaluation Center.
Schmitt, M. & Gregory, A. (2005). The impact of an early literacy intervention: Where are they now? Literacy Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 1-20.
Shamey, T. (2008). Effects of early elementary Reading Recovery programs on middle-school students: A longitudinal evaluation. (Doctorate dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT )