Literacy Progress of Young Children from Poor Urban Settings: A Reading Recovery Comparison Study [RR vs non-RR in schools with RR; RR vs schools with no RR]
Burroughs-Lange, Sue; Douetil, Julia (2007). Literacy Teaching and Learning, v12 n1 p19-46. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ899631
-
examining145Students, gradesK-1
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Reading Recovery (RR))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Clay's Observation Survey - Book Level |
Reading Recovery (RR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
15.30 |
8.20 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 52%
Male: 48% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
International
Study Details
Setting
The participant schools were particularly low achieving schools in London, UK. The schools had also high proportions of children whose home circumstances entitle them to free school lunch. One teacher/classroom per school participated in the study. The authors did not provide information about class size, instruction type, etc.
Study sample
Among the 145 students in the lowest achieving Reading Recovery schools who are evaluated as part of this intervention, 48% are male. The average age is 5 years and 9 months. Other statistics are only provided for the complete sample analyzed in the study, which includes 605 students in classrooms with RR. Among these 605 students, 39.6% receive free school meals and 49.2% are English language learners.
Intervention Group
The authors did not describe the intervention aside from noting that RR is a school-wide reading intervention, targeted to low-performing students. They only collected from test data from the schools they decided to included. They did not take part in the work in schools nor did they manipulate any features of the school provision to children.
Comparison Group
Business as usual. The authors stated on page 41 that all schools had some types of intervention to support students as the London borough schools had high numbers of underperforming students. Some of the programs used by the schools were recognized programs, but many are locally developed. “Supported reading,” for example, was developed by Reading Recovery teacher and it consisted of short (10 minutes) daily sessions of reading with adults. The data the authors collected indicated that many students received support through “small reading group with TA” or “differentiated planning” of normal classroom provision. Additional supports included teaching of phonics, additional reading practice, or speech and language work (including ESL support).
Support for implementation
The authors did not describe teacher training.
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2016
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).