|
includes/content/subnav.asp NOINDEX
|
Comparing Instructional Models
for the Literacy Education of
High Risk First Graders
Comparing Instructional Models for the Literacy Education of High
Risk First Graders
G.S. Pinnell, C.A. Lyons, D.E. DeFord, A. Bryk, & N. Seltzer.
(1994). Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 8-39.
Background
Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer's study systematically
compared Reading Recovery to three other instructional models of
early intervention. In this study (N=324) the lowest-achieving
first-grade students from 40 different schools in 10 different
school districts were randomly assigned within schools to one of
five groups.
Reading Recovery,
- a Reading Recovery-like intervention with partially trained
teachers,
- a skills-based individual intervention,
- small group instruction offered by Reading Recovery
teachers, or
- a control group.
Measures included those used in Reading Recovery as well as
generally known reading tests (Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test and
Woodcock Reading Mastery). The study employed a formal experimental
design that used split plots to control effects that may result from
differing cultures among school districts or individual schools. The
difficulty of small standard errors in analysis of data at the
student level was addressed by using the Hierarchical Linear Model
for data analysis.
Researchers at the University of Chicago independently analyzed the
data. In addition, a renowned national panel of researches not
involved in Reading Recovery provided oversight for analyzing
results.
Findings
The results of the study were definitive: Reading Recovery subjects
performed significantly better than any other treatment and
comparison group on all measures. Essential differences were related
to individual instruction, the lesson framework (combination of
techniques), and teacher training.
For more information see Six Reading Recovery Studies: Meeting
the Criteria for Scientifically Based Research.
(PDF version)
This abstract first appeared in What Evidence Says
About Reading Recovery (2002). Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery
Council of North America.
|
