| |
Forbes, Sally & Briggs, Connie. (2003).
Research in Reading Recovery (Volume Two).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Pp. 336
$27 ISBN 0-32500-553-2
Reviewed by Guy Trainin & Mindy Murphy Easley
University of Nebraska—Lincoln
September 25, 2004
Research in Reading Recovery (Volume Two) provides an
insight into the contributions of the Reading Recovery program to
contemporary reading instruction. This book is not a compilation
of research outcomes designed to prove the efficacy of the
program to its critics. Rather it highlights the various features
of the program that has enabled it to prosper after all of these
years, and shows the wide scope of research surrounding Reading
Recovery. Specifically, this book is a collection of articles
that focus upon the contributions of Reading Recovery to the
field of literacy. Somewhat unintentionally it seems also as a
testament to the impact of other literacy research on Reading
Recovery. The foreword, written by David Pearson, is a must read
as it discusses the historical role of Reading Recovery in
literacy research and practice from a leading literacy
researcher. Pearson highlights Reading Recovery for forging a
shift from remediation to prevention and for its emphasis on
reading fluency. In referencing the article, Making a Case for
Prevention in Education, Pearson credits the Reading Recovery
program for its model of focused and consistent professional
development practices. An acknowledgement of the dedication of
this program is added in reading.
This book is a collection of studies previously published in
Literacy Teaching and Learning. The studies have been
carefully selected to represent a jigsaw of literacy topics. In
the first section, Children’s Learning and
Development, studies focus on writing, cognition, emotion and
learning, and phonology and orthography. In the second section,
Program Description and Evaluation, studies discuss
research the Descubriendo la Lectura program, prevention versus
remediation, the role of teacher leaders, and an analysis of the
Reading Recovery program in the United States. In this brief
review we are limited to focus on a few key articles from this
book followed by our wish list.
Two exceptional pieces focus on the impact of motivation on
learning. The noteworthy article, Achieving Motivation:
Guiding Edward’s Journey to Literacy, by Susan King
Fullerton, presents the reader with a deep understanding of the
interplay between motivation, emotions and cognitive functions of
children with behavioral challenges possible only in a
case-study. Rather than restricting the scope of this case study
to the inner functions of the target student she provides a
comprehensive elucidation of the current research in the fields
of brain research as it relates to learning and motivation.
Venturing beyond an explanation of these processes, this article
lends itself to practical utility through its discussion of
scaffolding techniques for children with reading as well as
behavioral problems. This exemplary case study is followed by a
complimentary piece by Carol Lyons called Emotions, Cognition,
and Becoming a Reader: A Message to Teachers of Struggling
Readers. This piece focuses on the interrelation between
affect and cognition linked with decision-making and social
development. This article fosters an appreciation for the potency
of unseen factors that influence a child’s ability to
process and interpret information.
Research in Reading Recovery presents a series of
articles that provide diverse evidence of how this program makes
adjustments based upon current research as well as how current
practice already aligns itself with changing ideas within the
field of literacy acquisition. To an extent, the research
presented has adjusted to the times as reflected in the pieces
focused on orthography and phonology. The article The
Development of Phonological Awareness and Orthographic Processing
in Reading Recovery examines the Reading Recovery lesson to
provide examples of the attention to phonology and orthography
within the context of individualized lessons. According to this
article, the concentration of these processes are located
primarily within the written portion of the lesson but are also
present during the “word work” segment referred to as
making and breaking. An inquiry into the degree to which this
limited exposure to phonology and orthography transfers to the
general classroom would have been beneficial rather than a narrow
discussion of how the program addresses these areas.
The article Teacher Leadership: A Key Factor in Reading
Recovery’s Success examines the function of the Reading
Recovery teacher leader within the context of continued
professional development. Through this discussion, the authors
provide strong evidence for the essential role of continued
education as a catalyst for competent and consistent
instruction. This in depth examination of the role of the
teacher leader establishes a convincing argument for their
responsibility in burgeoning the maintenance and growth of the
program within districts across the nation. As P. David Pearson
remarks in the foreword, the example of continued education is
one of the key aspects that sets Reading Recovery apart from many
other programs in the field.
If one reads this book in search of validation for the use of
Reading Recovery in schools there will be no new discoveries.
Research in Reading Recovery does include some quality
studies, but a number still suffer from the same methodological
challenges as previously published research. On the other hand,
the book presents a diverse set of inquiries indicative of a rich
intellectual background that combines Reading Recovery practices
and viewpoints with other major ideas in the field.
As a team combining literacy research and reading recovery
practice we would like to conclude our review of this significant
addition to our research library with a wish list. This is a list
of studies we would like to see within Reading Recovery that
would help the program as well supported under NCLB and Reading
First efforts:
- An investigation of students who do not benefit from the
program- while Reading Recovery has evaluated and researched the
long-term outcomes of discontinued students there is very little
discussion of those who do not complete the program. The study of
non-responders or “lost-sheep” (Calfee et al., 2001)
is an important piece in understanding the impact of any
intervention especially when it is defined as a second-tier
intervention as it is in this volume
- An examination of Reading Recovery as a small-group
intervention- numerous meta analyses of reading interventions
(e.g. Swanson et al., 1999, NRP, 2000) have found no significant
differences in effect size between one-on-one and small group
interventions. While the Reading Recovery model may be different
there is still the burden of proof especially with associated
high costs and the need for a third-tier for non-responders.
- The creation of a design to examine program efficacy
vis-à-vis other programs for inclusion in the next NRP.
References
Calfee, R. C., Norman, K., Trainin G., & Wilson, K.(2001)
A Design Experiment for improving early literacy or what we
learned in school last year. In Cathy Roller (Ed.) Learning to
Teach Reading: Setting the Research Agenda., Newark DE: IRA.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
(2000). Report of the National Reading Panel.Teaching
children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No.
00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee. C. (1999).
Interventions for Students with Learning Disabilities: A
Meta-Analysis of Treatment Outcome. New York: Guilford
Press.
About the Reviewers
Guy Trainin
Guy Trainin is currently an Assistant Professor in Teaching,
Learning, and Teacher Education at UNL and a Co-Director of the
Great Plains Institute for Reading and Writing. He is affiliated
with the elementary education program as well as the UNL literacy
group. He received his Ph.D. in 2002 in Education from the
University of California Riverside. Dr. Trainin focuses his
research in the areas of reading acquisition, motivation and
research methods. He is currently serving as an external
evaluator to the Nebraska “Reading First” grant as
well as a large Federal demonstration grant in Literacy and Art.
He has conducted research focusing on the impact of reading
interventions as mediated by program fidelity. Dr. Trainin has
collaborated in the creation and testing of several early
literacy assessments currently in press.
Mindy Murphy Easley
Mindy received her M.Ed. in special education from the University
of Nebraska-Lincoln. She has taught for Lincoln Public Schools
for the last 9 years first as a teacher of special education and
then as a Reading Recovery teacher. For the last 7 years she has
worked as a Reading Recovery teacher at Cavett Elementary. She is
currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Teaching, Learning and Teacher
Education with an emphasis in reading and is currently a member
of the Nebraska Reading First evaluation team.
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment