Burroughs-Lange, Sue; Douetil, Julia (2007). Literacy Teaching and Learning, v12 n1 p19-46. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ899631
Reviewed: June 2023
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.
|
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 |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
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.
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.
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.
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).
The authors did not describe teacher training.
Reviewed: May 2023
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Reading Recovery®.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
General Certificate of Secondary Education |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
10 Years |
Reading Recovery (RR) group vs comparison group in schools with no RR;
|
42.50 |
32.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
General Certificate of Secondary Education |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
10 Years |
RR group vs comparison group in RR schools;
|
42.50 |
40.20 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
National Curriculum Assessment: Mathematics |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
RR group vs comparison group in RR schools;
|
18.92 |
17.46 |
No |
-- | ||
|
National Curriculum Assessment: Mathematics |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
RR group vs comparison group in schools with no RR;
|
18.92 |
18.39 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
National Curriculum Assessment: Mathematics |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
8 Years |
RR group vs comparison group in schools with no RR;
|
60.77 |
53.78 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
RR group vs comparison group in schools with no RR;
|
35.20 |
25.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
National Curriculum Assessment: Writing |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
RR group vs comparison group in schools with no RR;
|
18.75 |
16.43 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
National Curriculum Assessment: Writing |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
RR group vs comparison group in RR schools;
|
18.75 |
17.38 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
National Curriculum Assessment: Writing |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
8 Years |
RR group vs comparison group in schools with no RR;
|
25.00 |
21.83 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement: Writing Vocabulary subtest |
Reading Recovery® vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
RR group vs comparison group in schools with no RR;
|
45.70 |
20.60 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 54% | |
| No FRPL | 46% |
The study took place in 42 urban schools in 10 London boroughs in the United Kingdom (UK).
The study included 283 students. The intervention group came from 21 schools within five London boroughs that implemented Reading Recovery® in the 2005–06 school year. There were two comparison groups in the study. The first comparison group came from 21 schools within five other London boroughs that did not implement Reading Recovery® in 2005–06 and were deemed similar to the intervention boroughs in terms of population characteristics and achievement. One classroom was selected from each of the 42 schools, and the eight lowest-achieving children in Year 1 (that is, the UK equivalent of kindergarten) were selected from each of the 42 classes. The second comparison group consisted of low-achieving children in Year 1 who missed out on a Reading Recovery® place in 21 schools that offered the program in 2005–06. Approximately 39% of the students were female, 54% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 48% were English learners.
Reading Recovery® is a supplemental program that provides one-on-one instruction to grade 1 students who need additional support in reading. The program aims to promote English literacy skills and foster the development of reading and writing strategies by tailoring individualized lessons to each student. Depending on each student’s needs, Reading Recovery® teachers incorporate instruction in topics such as phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, writing, motivation, and oral language. In addition to receiving business-as-usual instruction for UK Year 1, students in the intervention group received Reading Recovery® through tutoring sessions lasting approximately 10 minutes. Tutoring was delivered by trained Reading Recovery® teachers in one-to-one sessions throughout the 2005-06 school year. Sessions were intended to be delivered daily.
Students in the first comparison group attended schools without Reading Recovery® and received business-as-usual UK Year 1 instruction. In addition, they received supplemental interventions deemed appropriate for low-literacy 5-6 year-olds, including Early Literacy Support, Ruth Miskin Library, Supported Reading, and 15 Minutes a Day. These supplemental interventions were predominantly delivered by teaching assistants rather than teachers. Students in the second comparison group received the same business-as-usual instruction as students in the intervention group.
Although the study provided no information about training provided to participating teachers, Reading Recovery® teachers typically must complete a year-long certification program.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Burroughs-Lange, Sue; Douetil, Julia. (2006). Evaluation of Reading Recovery in London schools: Every child a reader 2005–2006. University of London: Institute of Education. Retrieved from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/reading-recovery-europe/sites/reading-recovery-europe/files/Evaluation_of_Reading_Recovery_in_London_Schools_Every_Child_A_Reader_2005-2006.pdf
Burroughs-Lange, S. (2008). Comparison of literacy progress of young children in London schools: A Reading Recovery follow-up study. University of London: Institute of Education. Retrieved from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/reading-recovery-europe/sites/reading-recovery-europe/files/Comparison_of_Literacy_Progress_of_Young_Children_in_London_Schools_-_A_Reading_Recovery_Follow_up_Study_.pdf.
Holliman, Andrew J.; Hurry, Jane. (2013). The Effects of Reading Recovery on Children's Literacy Progress and Special Educational Needs Status: A Three-Year Follow-Up Study. Educational Psychology, v33 n6 p719-733.
Hurry, J. & Holliman, A. (2009). The impact of Reading Recovery three years after intervention. University of London: Institute of Education. Retrieved from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/reading-recovery-europe/sites/reading-recovery-europe/files/The_impact_of_Reading_Recovery_three_years_after_intervention.pdf.
Hurry, J. & Fridkin, L. (2018). The impact of Reading Recovery ten years after intervention. KPMG Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/reading-recovery-europe/sites/reading-recovery-europe/files/the_impact_of_reading_recovery_ten_years_after_intervention_hurry_and_fridkin.pdf.
Hurry, J. (2012). The impact of Reading Recovery five years after intervention. University of London: Institute of Education. Retrieved from https://www.ucl.ac.uk/drupal/site_international-literacy/sites/international-literacy/files/Hurry_London_follow-up_2012_Report_December_2012.pdf.
Hurry, Jane; Fridkin, Lisa; Holliman, Andrew J. (2022). Reading Intervention at Age 6: Long-Term Effects of Reading Recovery in the UK on Qualifications and Support at Age 16. British Educational Research Journal, v48 n1 p5-21.
Reviewed: June 2016
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.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade Practice Guide