| Summary: | Thesis (M.Ed.)--Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2002. Educational Psychology Bibliography: leaves 153-165 The effectiveness of the Reading Recovery™ program for students who are identified "at-risk" of reading and writing failure was evaluated in a two-year longitudinal study involving 36 participants within the Labrador School Board. The study not only demonstrated the effectiveness of Reading Recovery™, W also the implications for effective programming to meet the needs of children such as those of a multi-cultural background and isolated environments. To evaluate the impact of Reading Recovery™, the study consisted of three groups: the Treatment group, consisting of participants who were successfully discontinued from Reading Recovery™ in grade 1 the previous year, the Reference Group consisting of participants considered to be "average-achieving" within the classroom, and a Comparison Group consisting of students considered to be "at-risk" of reading and writing failure who were unable to access Reading Recovery™. Participants were assessed over a two-year period from fall, 1998 to the spring, 2000. There were four testing trials, two in the fall and two in the spring using dependent measures to assess reading instructional levels, instructional comprehension levels, spelling, word recognition skills and fluency development ratings. A repeated measures analysis of variance research design was implemented to determine significant differences for within-group and between-group differences. The results suggested the Reading Recovery™, participants demonstrated significantly higher scores than their "at-risk" peers who did not participate in Reading Recovery™ and also demonstrated comparable achievement to that of their "average-achieving" classmates. Despite the significant differences in the Comparison Group and both the Treatment Group and the Reference Group, all groups made positive gains over the two-year study period on all five-dependent measures (i.e. Diagnostic Reading Inventory: Reading Passages, Lhagnostic Reading Inventory: Reading Comprehension, Burt Word Reading Test, Gentry Spelling Assessment, and Fluency Rating). On three of the five dependent measures (i.e. Diagnostic Reading Inventory: Reading Comprehension, Gentry Spelling Assessment, and Fluency Rating) the Comparison Group demonstrated a similar pattern of progress as the Treatment Group and the Reference Group. Questionnaires and Student Record Forms were also provided to classroom teachers, Reading Recovery™ teachers, and school administrators to determine the impact of Reading Recovery™ on teaching and school development. The questionnaires were analyzed both qualitatively, to examine written responses and quantitatively, to determine percentages and mean averages of responses that validate research finding and to investigate other areas of the Reading Recovery™ program as identified in the literature.
|
|---|