Advertisement

Interchange

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 31–58 | Cite as

A Critical Analysis of the Sources of Reading Recovery: An Empiricist Perspective

  • Patrick Groff
Article

Abstract

This discussion of the sources of Reading Recovery presents the results of an investigation into whether or not this relatively costly, tutoring remedial reading program, designed for primary-grade students, is based on relevant experimental evidence as to how these students best learn to read. The general finding of the study was that Reading Recovery principles and practices are not based firmly on the experimental evidence that supports the so-called “bottom-up” model of children's reading development. To the contrary of Reading Recovery, Marie Clay, favors so-called “top-down” principles and models of reading instruction. Reading Recovery uses several empirically unverified procedures to decide which students are admitted to its tutoring sessions, to determine the progress in reading rehabilitation these tutees make, and to judge when students should be discontinued from Reading Recovery tutelage. The details on the shortcomings of Reading Recovery are judged to be prima facie evidence that it may not be a cost-effective educational innovation. Further authentication in that regard, it is pointed out, are recent studies by disinterested researchers who report that: (a) the initial successes of Reading Recovery in helping disabled readers overcome their handicap are only temporary in nature, and (b) the majority of the precepts and procedures prescribed for Reading Recovery by Marie Clay reflect a top-down orientation to reading development, as does the Whole Language (WL) philosophy of reading attainment. Educators and school boards should take this orientation of Reading Recovery under advisement when considering its purchase, it is urged.

Reading teaching reading recovery Marie Clay whole language direct instruction experimental research qualitative research reading development beginning readers remedial reading 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abbott, S.P., Reed, E., Abbott, R.D., & Berniger, V.W. (1997). Year-long balanced reading/writing tutorial: A design experiment used for dynamic assessment. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 249–263.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, M.J. (1991). Why not phonics and whole language? In Orton Dyslexia Society (Ed.), All language and the creation of literacy (pp. 40–53). Baltimore, MD: Orton Dyslexia Society.Google Scholar
  4. Adams, M.J. & Bruck, M. (1995). Resolving the "Great Debate." American Educator, 19(2), 7, 10–20.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, I.A.G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  6. Barnes, B.B. (1997), But teacher you went right on: A perspective on Reading Recovery. Reading Teacher, 50, 284–292.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, I. & Juel C. (1995). The role of decoding in learning to read. American Educator, 19(2), 8; 21-25; 39-42.Google Scholar
  8. Blachman, B.A. (1989). Phonological awareness and word recognition. In A. G. Kamhi & H.W. Catts (Eds.), Reading Disabilities (pp. 133–158) Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  9. Bracy, G.W. (1995). Reading Recovery: Is it effective? Phil Delta Kapan, 76, 493–494.Google Scholar
  10. Brady, S. & Shankweiler, D. (Eds.). (1991). Phonological processes in literacy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, et al. (1996). Teaching reading. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.Google Scholar
  12. Carpenter, B. (Ed.). (1996). Reading Recovery task force report. San Diego, CA: San Diego County Office of Education.Google Scholar
  13. Center, Y., Whendall, K., & Freeman, L. (1992). Evaluating the effectiveness of Reading Recovery: A critique. Educational Psychology, 12, 263–273.Google Scholar
  14. Center, Y., Whendall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, M. (1995). An experimental evaluation of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 240–263.Google Scholar
  15. Chall, J. S. (1967; 1983) Learning the read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Chall, J.S. (1995). Ahead to the Greeks. Issues in Education, 1,83–85.Google Scholar
  17. Chapman, J.W., Tunmer, & W.E., Prochnow, J. E. (1998, April). Reading Recovery in relation to language factors, reading self-perceptions, classroom behavior difficulties and literacy achievement: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Clay, M.M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  19. Clay, M.M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  20. Clay, M.M. (1993a). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  21. Clay, M.M. (1993b). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  22. Collins, J.D. & Stevens, L.M. (1997). Does Reading Recovery work? American School Board Journal, 184(6), 38–39.Google Scholar
  23. Dudley-Marley, C. (1996). Whole language, assumptions, and ideology: A response to Groff. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 12, 227–236.Google Scholar
  24. Dudley-Marling, C. & Murphy, S. (1997). A political critique of Reading Recovery programs: An example of Reading Recovery. Reading Teacher, 50, 460–468.Google Scholar
  25. Edelsky, C. (1990). Whose agenda is this anyway? A response to McKenna, Robinson, and Miller. Educational Researcher, 19(8). 7–11.Google Scholar
  26. Ehri, L. C. (1994). Development of the ability to read words. In R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 323–358). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  27. Fincher, G. E. (1988). Reading Recovery and Chapter 1: A three-year comparative study. Canton, OH: Canton City Schools.Google Scholar
  28. Foorman, B. R. (1995). Research on the Great Debate: Code-oriented versus whole-language approaches to reading instruction. School Psychology Review, 24, 276–292.Google Scholar
  29. Glynn, T., Crooks, T., Bethune, N., Ballard, K., & Smith, J. (1989). Reading Recovery in context. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Department of Education.Google Scholar
  30. Goswanmi, U. & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hove, England: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Gough, P. B., Ehri, L., & Treiman, R. (Eds.). (1992). Reading acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Groff, P. (1983). A test of the utility of phonics rules. Reading Psychology, 4, 217–225.Google Scholar
  33. Groff, P. (1994). Differing views on context cues. Interchange, 25, 171–181.Google Scholar
  34. Groff, P. (1995). Reading Recovery: Educationally sound and cost-effective? Effective School Practices, 13(1) 65–69.Google Scholar
  35. Groff, P. (1996a). An analysis of the empirical validity of Reading Recovery. In B. Carpenter (Ed.), Reading Recovery task force report (pp. 80–97). San Diego, CA: San Diego County Board of Education.Google Scholar
  36. Groff, P. (1996b). Whole language. It's a matter of a wrong assumption. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 12, 217–226.Google Scholar
  37. Groff, P. & Seymour, D. Z. (1987). Word recognition: The why and the how. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  38. Grossen B., Coulter, G., & Ruggles, B. (1996). Reading recovery: An evaluation of benefits and costs. Effective School Practices, 15(3), 6–24.Google Scholar
  39. Harris, A.J. & Sipay, E.R. (1980). How to increase reading ability. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  40. Harrison, B., Zollner, J., & Magill, B. (1996). The hole in the whole language. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 27(5), 6–18.Google Scholar
  41. Hiebert, E.H. (1994). Reading Recovery in the United States: What difference does it make to an age cohort? Educational Researcher, 23(9), 15–25.Google Scholar
  42. Honig, B. (1996). Teaching our children to read. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  43. Hoover, W.A. & Gough, P.B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.Google Scholar
  44. Hoover, W.A. & Tunmer, W.E. (1993). The components of reading. In G B. Thompson, W. E. Tunmer, & T. Nicholson (Eds.), Reading acquisition processes (pp. 1–19). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  45. Iverson, S. & Tunmer, W.E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jorm, A.F. & Share, D. (1983). Phonological recoding and reading acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 103–147.Google Scholar
  47. Klare, G.R. (1984). Readability. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 681–744), New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  48. Liberman, I.Y. & Liberman, A.M. (1990). Whole language vs. Code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their implications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 40, 51–77.Google Scholar
  49. Moustafa, M. (1997). Beyond traditional phonics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  50. Nicholson, T. (1989). Research note: A comment on Reading Recovery. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 24(1), 95–97.Google Scholar
  51. Ohio Department of Education (1995). Longitudinal study of Reading Recovery, 1990-91 through 1993-94. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education.Google Scholar
  52. Orton Dyslezia Society (Ed.). (1991). All language and the creation of literacy. Baltimore, MD: Orton Dyslexia Society.Google Scholar
  53. Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  54. Pesetsky, D., & Melvold, J., et al. (1995, July 14). Letter to Robert V. Antonucci, Commissioner of Education, Massachusetts Department of education from forty professors of linguistics, psycholinguistics, cognitive science, psychology, and neurology.Google Scholar
  55. Pressley, M. & Menke, D.J. (1994). State-of-the-science primary-grade reading instruction or whole language? Educational Psychologist, 29, 211–215.Google Scholar
  56. Rasinski, T. (1995). On the effects of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 264–270.Google Scholar
  57. Robinson, V. (1989). Some limitations of systematic adaptation: The implementation of Reading Recovery. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 24,35–45.Google Scholar
  58. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J., Carey, J., & Slavin, R.E. (1995). Increasing the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of alternative early intervention programs. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 773–800.Google Scholar
  59. Sensenbaugh, R. (1994). Effectiveness of Reading Recovery programs. Reading Research and Instruction, 34, 73–76.Google Scholar
  60. Shanahan, T. (1987). Review of The early detection of reading difficulties. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19, 117–119.Google Scholar
  61. Shanahan, T. & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for atrisk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 958–996.Google Scholar
  62. Share, D.L., & Stanovich, K.E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of a acquisition. Issues in Education, 1, 1–57.Google Scholar
  63. Smith, C. B. (Ed.). (1994). Whole language: The debate. Bloomington, IN: EDINFO, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  64. Smith, C.J. (1993). Problems with reading. Support for Learning, 8(4), 139–145.Google Scholar
  65. Smith, F. (1989). Overselling literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 353–359.Google Scholar
  66. Spieigel,(1995). A comparison of traditional remedial programs and Reading Recovery: Guidelines for success in all programs. Reading Teacher, 49, 86–96.Google Scholar
  67. Stahl, S.A. & Miller, P.D. (1989). Whole language and language experience approaches for beginning reading: A quantitative research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 87–116.Google Scholar
  68. Stanovich, K.E. (1994). Romance and reality. Reading Teacher, 47, 280–291.Google Scholar
  69. Templeton, S. & Bear, D.R. (Eds.). (1992). Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  70. Thompson, G.B., Tunmer, W.E., & Nicholson, T. (Eds.). (1993). Reading acquisition processes. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  71. Truch, S. (1991). The missing parts of whole language. Calgary, Canada: Foothills Educational Materials.Google Scholar
  72. Velluntino, R.R. & Scanlon, D.M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 33, 321–363.Google Scholar
  73. Wake County Public School System. (1995). Evaluation report: WCPSS Reading Recovery 1990-94. Raleigh, NC: Wake County Public School System.Google Scholar
  74. Wasik, B.S. & Slavin, R.E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 179–200.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Groff
    • 1
  1. 1.College of EducationSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations