A Review of Reading Recovery for Those Who Most Need Early Literacy Supports

Nine years ago in this publication, we asked the question, does Reading Recovery work? (Chapman & Tunmer, 2011). We concluded that Reading Recovery (RR) "appears to be beneficial for some struggling readers but not others" (p. 23). We referred to the high percentage of students who did...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Perspectives on language and literacy 2020-01, Vol.46 (1), p.41-45
Main Authors: Chapman, James W, Tunmer, William E
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Children
Early literacy
Education
Learning
Literacy
Reading
Reading acquisition
Reading difficulties
Reading Failure
Reading instruction
Reading Materials
Students
Teaching
Teaching Methods
Tutoring
Whole language approach
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Nine years ago in this publication, we asked the question, does Reading Recovery work? (Chapman & Tunmer, 2011). We concluded that Reading Recovery (RR) "appears to be beneficial for some struggling readers but not others" (p. 23). We referred to the high percentage of students who did not successfully complete the program. We also noted that significant numbers of the lowest performing 6-year-old children were excluded from RR because they were considered unlikely to benefit from the program or because they did not make sufficient progress during enrollment in RR. We recommended that to increase the effectiveness of RR, significant changes based on contemporary scientific research were required in the instructional approach. Little, if anything, has changed since we reached that conclusion, which at the time identified RR as "by far the most widely researched and used tutoring program in the world" (Slavin, Lake, Davis, & Madden, 2011, p. 6).Given the widespread use of RR, it is timely to consider again evidence in support of the program along with the persistent failures of the program in meeting the needs of children who struggle the most with learning to read. We outline the nature and development of RR, summarize views regarding the benefits of the program, discuss evidence showing the limitations of RR, and conclude by recommending that the program should either be significantly changed or abandoned.
ISSN:1935-1291