Skip Navigation

What Works Clearinghouse

Search
Intervention: Reading Recovery®

References


Met WWC evidence standards

Baenen, N., Bernhole, A., Dulaney, C., & Banks, K. (1997). Reading Recovery: Long-term progress after three cohorts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2 (2), 161.

Additional sources:
Donley, J., Baenen, N., & Hundley, S. (1993, April). A study of the long-term effectiveness of the Reading Recovery program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Wake County Public School System. (1995). Evaluation Report: WCPSS Reading Recovery 1990–94. E&R Report No. 95.09A. Winston-Salem, NC: Wake County Public School System.

Pinnell, G. S., DeFord, D. E., & Lyons, C. A. (1988). Reading Recovery: Early intervention for at-risk first graders (Educational Research Service Monograph). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Additional sources:
Pinnell, G. S. (1988, January). Success of at-risk children in a program that combines writing and reading (Technical Report No. 417). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.

Pinnell, G. S. (1989a). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk children learn to read. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 161–183.

Pinnell, G. S. (1989b). Success of at-risk children in a program that combines writing and reading. In J. M. Mason (Ed.), Reading and Writing Connections (pp. 237–259). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Pinnell, G. S., Short, K. G., Lyons, C. A., & Young, P. (1986). The Reading Recovery Project in Columbus, OH Year 1: 1985–1986. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29 (1), 8–39.

Schwartz, R. M. (2005). Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the Reading Recovery early intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2), 257–267.

Met WWC evidence standards with reservations

Iverson, S., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (1), 112–126.

Additional source:
Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. A. (1993). Phonological recoding skills in beginning reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 161–179.

Did not meet WWC evidence screens

Acalin, T. A. (1995). A comparison of Reading Recovery to Project READ. Masters Abstracts International, 33 (06), 1660. (UMI No. 1361908)13

Ashdown, J., & Simic, O. (2003). Is early literacy intervention effective for English language learners? Evidence from Reading Recovery. In S. Forbes & C. Briggs (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 14

Askew, B. J., & Frasier, D. F. (1997). Sustained effects of Reading Recovery intervention on the cognitive behaviors of second grade children and the perceptions of their teachers. In S. L. Swartz & A. F. Klein (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery (pp. 18–38). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 14

Bermel, S. (1987). Language development component, CLEAR-Reading Recovery program 1985–86. Final evaluation report. Columbus, OH: Columbus Public Schools, Ohio Department of Evaluation Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED281157)15

Brown, K. L. (1999). The impact of Reading Recovery intervention on the reading achievement of selected second grade students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (08), 2636A. (UMI No. 3023650)15

Brown, W., Denton, E., Kelly, P., & Neal, J. (1999). Reading Recovery effectiveness: A five-year success story in San Luis Costal Unified School District. ERS Spectrum, 17 (1), 3–12. 14

Bufalino, J. M. (1993). The sustained effects of Reading Recovery intervention on the reading comprehension of second graders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54 (11), 145A. (UMI No. 9407866)14

Center, Y., Freeman, L., & Robertson, G. (2001). The relative effect of a code-oriented and a meaning-oriented early literacy program on regular and low progress Australian students in year 1 classrooms which implement Reading Recovery. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48 (2), 207–232. 14

Center, Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, M. (1995). An evaluation of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30 (2), 240–263. 15

Chapman, J., Tunmer, W. E., & Prochnow, J. E. (2001). Does success in the Reading Recovery program depend on developing proficiency in phonological-processing skills? A longitudinal study in a whole language instructional context. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (2), 141–176. 15

Christman, M. S. (2003). An examination of the effects and costs of the Reading Recovery Program in an urban school district. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (08), 2824A. (UMI No. 3102259)14

Collins, E. W. (2000). The immediate and sustained effects of the Reading Recovery program on grade one and grade four at-risk students: A longitudinal study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (05), 1784A. (UMI No. 9971239)14

Collins, V. K. (1994). Automaticity in information processing. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55 (9), 2708A. (UMI No. 9502838)14

Curtin, J. (1993). The effectiveness of the Reading Recovery Program on reading achievement. Chicago: Chicago Public Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED363863)14

DeFord, D. E. (1997). Early writing: Teachers and children in Reading Recovery. In S. L. Swartz & A. F. Klein (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery (pp. 148–172). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 16

Department of Evaluation Services. (1995). Compensatory Education (CE) product evaluation: Elementary and secondary programs 1994–95. Saginaw, MI: Saginaw Public Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED391853)17

Additional source:
Department of Evaluation Services. (1992). Compensatory education product evaluation: Elementary and secondary programs 1991–1992. Saginaw, MI: Saginaw Public Schools, Michigan Department of Evaluation Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED350370)

Dunkeld, C. (1990). Gaining experience with Reading Recovery: A pilot project between Portland Public Schools and Portland State University. Portland, OR: Portland State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED321246)18

Escamilla, K. (1997). Descrubriendo la lectura: An early intervention literacy program in Spanish. In S. L. Swartz & A. F. Klein (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery (pp. 109–121). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 19

Escamilla, K., Loera, M., Ruiz, O., & Rodriguez, Y. (2003). An examination of sustaining effects in Descubriendo la Lectura programs. In S. Forbes & C. Briggs (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 19

Evans, T. L. P. (1996). 'I can read deze books!': A qualitative comparison of the Reading Recovery program and a small group reading intervention. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57 (02), 565A. (UMI No. 9619200)20

Fullerton, S. K., & DeFord, D. E. (2001, December). Conversations before writing during Reading Recovery lessons: Negotiations or tug of war? Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Chicago. 16

Gilmer, V. B. (2003). Sustained success of former Reading Recovery students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (02), 444A. (UMI No. 3081577)14

Gomez-Bellenge, F. X., Rodgers, E., & Fullerton, S. K. (2003). Reading Recovery and Descubriendo la Lectura national report 2001–2002. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. 19

Gomez-Bellenge, F. X., & Rodgers, E. M. (2004). Reading Recovery and Descubriendo la Lectura national report 2002–2003. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, College of Education, School of Teaching and Learning. 14

Hovest, C. M. (2000). An examination of the achievement of phonological skills for three groups participating in an early intervention program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (08), 3107A. (UMI No. 9982583)14

Johnson, J. A. (1996). Reading Recovery: Early intervention. Hays, KS: Fort Hays State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED398564)15

LaFave, C. E. (1995). Impact of Reading Recovery on phonemic awareness. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (07), 2621A. (UMI No. 9540370)15

Leitner, D. (1990). Portland Reading Recovery program 1989–90 evaluation report. Year 1. Portland, OR: Portland Public Schools, Oregon Research and Evaluation Department. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED326839)16

Litt, D. G. (2003). An exploration of the double-deficit hypothesis in the Reading Recovery population. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (06), 2028A. (UMI No. 3094512)14

Lyons, C. (1989). Reading Recovery: A preventative for mislabeling young 'at-risk' learners. Urban Education, 24 (2), 125–139. 16

Marina, B., & Gilman, D. A. (2003). Is Reading Recovery worth the cost? Vigo County, IN: Vigo County School Corporation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED473957)14

Marvin, C. A., & Gaffney, J. S. (2003). The effects of Reading Recovery on children's home literacy experiences. In S. Forbes & C. Briggs (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 14

McManus, D. A. (1999). A modified Reading Recovery program can be successful in a second grade Title I reading program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (10), 3597A. (UMI No. 9947733)21

Miller, S. D. (2003). Partners-in-Reading: Using classroom assistants to provide tutorial assistance to struggling first-grade readers. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8 (3), 333–349. 22

Moore, M., & Wade, B. (1998). Reading Recovery: Its effectiveness in the long term. Support for Learning, 13 (3), 123–128. 14

Murphy, J. A. (2003). An application of growth curve analysis: The evaluation of a reading intervention program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (12), 4358A. (UMI No. 3114448)15

Neal, J. C., & Kelly, P. R. (2003). The success of Reading Recovery for English language learners and Descubriendo la Lectura for bilingual students in California. In S. Forbes & C. Briggs (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 19

O'Connor, E. A., & Simic, O. (2002). The effect of Reading Recovery on special education referrals and placements. Psychology in the Schools, 39 (6), 635–646. 23

Pinnell, G. S. (1997). An inquiry-based model for educating teachers of literacy. In S. L. Swartz & A. F. Klein (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery (pp. 6–17). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 23

Plewis, I. (2000). Evaluating educational interventions using multilevel growth curves: The case of Reading Recovery. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6 (1), 83–101. 15

Pollock, J. S. (1993). Final evaluation report: Reading Recovery™ program 1991–92. Columbus, OH: Columbus Public Schools, Ohio Department of Program Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED358440)16

Pollock, J. S. (with Morgan, K. L., Williams, E. J., & Amorose, R. A.). (1991). Reading Recovery program 1990–91. Final Evaluation report. Elementary and Secondary Education Act—Chapter 1. Columbus, OH: Columbus Public Schools, Ohio Department of Program Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED343108)16

Pollock, J. S., Williams, E. J., Morgan, K. L., & Amorose, R. A. (1990). Language development component compensatory language experiences and reading, CLEAR-Reading Recovery program, 1989–90. Final Evaluation Report. Columbus, OH: Columbus Public Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED327821)16

Potter, T. (2004). Reading Recovery evaluation. Madison, WI: Planning, Research and Evaluation, Madison Metropolitan School District. 15

Quay, L. C., Steele, D. C., Johnson, C. I., & Hortman, W. (2001). Children's achievement and personal and social development in a first-year Reading Recovery program with teachers in training. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 5, 7–25. 24

Ramaswami, S. (1994). The differential impact of Reading Recovery on achievement of first graders in the Newark School District, 1991–1993. Newark, NJ: Newark Board of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Testing. 14

Rhodes, J. A. (1998). A comparison of the effects of individualized writing instruction with and without phonemic segmentation on the standard spelling performance of at-risk first graders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (07), 2426A. (UMI No. 9839187)25

Rodgers, E., Gomez-Bellenge, F. X., & Fullerton, S. K. (2003). Reading Recovery in Ohio: 2001–2002 state report (National Data Evaluation Center Tech. Rep. No. 2003-03). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, College of Education, School of Teaching and Learning. 14

Rodgers, E. M., Fullerton, S. K., & DeFord, D. E. (2001). What does it take to reform instructional practices? In J. V. Hoffman, D. L. Schallert, C. M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, & B. Maloch (Eds.), Fiftieth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 519–532). Chicago: National Reading Conference. 23

Rodgers, E. M., Gomez-Bellenge, F. X., & Schulz, M. M. (2005). Reading Recovery in Ohio: 2003–2004 state report (National Data Evaluation Center Tech. Rep. No. 2005-01). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, College of Education, School of Teaching and Learning. 14

Roehrig, A. D., Pressley, M., & Sloup, M. (2001). Reading strategy instruction in regular primary-level classrooms by teachers trained in Reading Recovery. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17 (4), 323–348. 23

Ross, S. M., Nunnery, J. A., & Smith, L. J. (1996). Evaluation of Title I reading programs: Amphitheater public schools—Year 1: 1995–1996. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy. 26

Salinas, A., Williams, I., & Kohler, L. (1993). Reading Recovery program evaluation: Report 1992-93. McAllen, TX: McAllen Independent School District, Office of Research and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED366938)16

Schmitt, M. C. (2001). The development of children's strategic processing in Reading Recovery. Reading Psychology, 22, 129–151. 27

Schmitt, M. C. (2003). Metacognitive strategy knowledge: Comparison of former Reading Recovery children and their current classmates. Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 7 (1–2), 57–76. 27

Schmitt, M. C., & Gregory, A. E. (2001, June). The impact of early intervention: Where are the children now? Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX. 14

Schotanus, H. (1991). Reading Recovery pilot project (Laws 1989: 301): Report of results and effectiveness. Concord, NH: New Hampshire State Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED363859)16

Schotanus, H., Chase, C., & Fontaine, A. (1992). Reading Recovery program, implementation year two, school year 1991–1992. Report of results and effectiveness. Concord, NH: New Hampshire State Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED363860)16

Schotanus, H., Chase, C., Fontaine, A., & Tilton, S. (1993). Reading Recovery program implementation year three, school year 1992–1993. Report of results and effectiveness. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED364869)16

Schotanus, H., Fontaine, A., Tilton, S., Westergren, G., & Anderson, A. (1996). Reading Recovery program implementation year six, school year 1995–96. Report of results and effectiveness. Concord, NH: New Hampshire Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED405573)15

Shoulders, M. D. (2004). The long-term effectiveness of the Reading Recovery Program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (03), 836A. (UMI No. 3127549)14

Simpson, S. H. (1997). A principal's perspective of the implementation of Reading Recovery in six metropolitan Nashville elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58 (08), 2948A. (UMI No. 9806596)14

Smith, N. (1994). Reading Recovery data and observations from one Illinois site (Part II). Illinois Reading Council Journal, 22 (3), 29–46. 15

Additional source:
Smith, N. (1994). Reading Recovery data and observations from one Illinois site (Part I). Illinois Reading Council Journal, 22 (2), 7–27.

Smith, P. E. (1994). Reading Recovery and children with English as a second language. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 29 (2), 141–155. 14

Stahl, K. A. D., Stahl, S. A., & McKenna, M. C. (2004). The development of phonological awareness and orthographic processing in Reading Recovery. In S. Forbes & C. Briggs (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 15

Thomas, P. M. (with Morgan, K. L., Amorose, R. A., & Williams, E. J.). (1989). Language development component, compensatory language experiences and reading: CLEAR—Reading Recovery program 1987–88. Final evaluation report. Columbus, OH: Columbus Public Schools, Ohio Department of Evaluation Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED313668)16

Townsend, M. A. R., Townsend, J. E., & Seo, K. J. (2001, December). Children's motivation to read following Reading Recovery. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Chicago. 14

Wang, Y. L., & Johnstone, W. (1997, March). Evaluation of Reading Recovery program. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. 14

Weeks, D. (1992). A study of the implementation of Reading Recovery in Scarborough: 1990–1991. Masters Abstracts International, 3 (03), 1005. (UMI No. MM74064)22

Wilkes Pendergrass, P. V. (2004). The short-term effects of Reading Recovery on children's reading development: Process and product. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (03), 823A. (UMI No. 3127551)14

Wright, A. (1992). Evaluation of the first British Reading Recovery programme. British Educational Research Journal, 18 (4), 351–368. 14

Yukish, J. F., & Fraas, J. W. (1997). Success of old order Amish children in a strategy-oriented program for children at-risk of failure in reading. In S. L. Swartz & A. F. Klein (Eds.), Research in Reading Recovery (pp. 39–51). Portsmouth, NH: Heineman. 14

Zielinski, L. A. (1997). The long term effectiveness of Reading Recovery in a small, rural school district. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (01), 0077A. (UMI No. 9822883) 14

13 The sample is not appropriate to this review: the parameters for this WWC review specified that students should be in grades kindergarten through 3; this study did not disaggregate students in the eligible range from those outside the range.
14 Does not use a strong causal design: this study was a quasi-experimental design but did not use achievement pretests to establish that the comparison group was equivalent to the intervention group at baseline.
15 Incomparable groups: this study was a quasi-experimental design that used achievement pretests but it did not establish that the comparison group was comparable to the treatment group prior to the start of the intervention.
16 Does not use a strong causal design: this study did not use a comparison group.
17 Does not use a strong causal design: in this study, which used a quasi-experimental design, data were presented only for students who successfully completed the intervention, which does not provide a direct test of the intervention as a whole.
18 Does not use a strong causal design: this study, which used a quasi-experimental design, had a confounding factor. The Reading Recovery intervention was used without proper Reading Recovery materials, and the instructors had not been fully trained. This makes it difficult to attribute study outcomes to Reading Recovery.
19 The sample is not appropriate to this review: this study did not focus on students learning to read in English, one of the parameters for this WWC review.
20 Does not use a strong causal design: this is a qualitative study.
21 Complete data are not reported: the WWC could not evaluate the design because complete data were not reported. Attempts to contact the authors for more information were unsuccessful.
22 High overall attrition: this study reported an attrition rate of greater than 20 percentage points.
23 The sample is not appropriate to this review: the parameters for this WWC review specified student outcome measures, but this study did not focus on students.
24 Disruption: this study, which used a quasi-experimental design, exhibited disruption problems that made it difficult to attribute study outcomes to the intervention, as delivered.
25 Does not use a strong causal design: this study, which used a quasi-experimental design, tested only a portion of the Reading Recovery curriculum, making it difficult to attribute study outcomes to Reading Recovery.
26 Does not use a strong causal design: for the portion of the sample of interest for this WWC review, there was one of two issues. Either there was a confound, with the Reading Recovery intervention being modified or combined with other interventions, making it difficult to attribute study outcomes to the intervention. Or the study did not establish that the comparison group was comparable to the treatment group prior to the start of the intervention.
27 The outcome measures are not relevant to this review: the outcomes in this study did not address one of the domains of interest in this review.

Top