阅读战争与阅读复苏:教育工作者、家庭和纳税人应该知道的

IF 0.5 Q4 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Pam Cook, Deborah R. Rodes, Kay L. Lipsitz
{"title":"阅读战争与阅读复苏:教育工作者、家庭和纳税人应该知道的","authors":"Pam Cook, Deborah R. Rodes, Kay L. Lipsitz","doi":"10.18666/LDMJ-2017-V22-I2-8391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reading Recovery, a meaning-based reading program designed for young children at risk of reading failure, is widely implemented across the United States. We discuss the recent Reading Recovery $45 million four-year i3-funded scaleup study that was designed to “cover the expansion of Reading Recovery around the U.S.” (May, Sirinides, Gray, & Goldsworthy, 2016, p. 1). While one of the two goals of the study was to determine the long-term impact of Reading Recovery, this study, described by its authors as “highly successful” (p. 4), found a “not significant” long-term effect on students’ reading skills. Subsequent Reading Recovery publications have failed to mention this “not significant” effect. With the exception of year one of the study, there are no publicly available test score data for the students when they were in Grades 2 or 3. Further, it appears that the actual lowest achieving students (special education students, students retained in first grade, and others) were systematically excluded from Reading Recovery instruction. Overall, there is very limited evidence of Reading Recovery’s efficacy as an effective long-term reading intervention. We discuss the limitations of the Reading Recovery approach, how Reading Recovery can be improved, and strongly recommend that schools do not adopt this program unless it incorporates all components of evidence-based reading instruction. Subscribe to LDMJ","PeriodicalId":42442,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"3 1","pages":"12-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know\",\"authors\":\"Pam Cook, Deborah R. Rodes, Kay L. Lipsitz\",\"doi\":\"10.18666/LDMJ-2017-V22-I2-8391\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Reading Recovery, a meaning-based reading program designed for young children at risk of reading failure, is widely implemented across the United States. We discuss the recent Reading Recovery $45 million four-year i3-funded scaleup study that was designed to “cover the expansion of Reading Recovery around the U.S.” (May, Sirinides, Gray, & Goldsworthy, 2016, p. 1). While one of the two goals of the study was to determine the long-term impact of Reading Recovery, this study, described by its authors as “highly successful” (p. 4), found a “not significant” long-term effect on students’ reading skills. Subsequent Reading Recovery publications have failed to mention this “not significant” effect. With the exception of year one of the study, there are no publicly available test score data for the students when they were in Grades 2 or 3. Further, it appears that the actual lowest achieving students (special education students, students retained in first grade, and others) were systematically excluded from Reading Recovery instruction. Overall, there is very limited evidence of Reading Recovery’s efficacy as an effective long-term reading intervention. We discuss the limitations of the Reading Recovery approach, how Reading Recovery can be improved, and strongly recommend that schools do not adopt this program unless it incorporates all components of evidence-based reading instruction. Subscribe to LDMJ\",\"PeriodicalId\":42442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"12-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2017-V22-I2-8391\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2017-V22-I2-8391","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

阅读恢复是一个基于意义的阅读计划,专为有阅读失败风险的幼儿设计,在美国广泛实施。我们讨论了最近一项耗资4500万美元的为期四年的阅读恢复研究,该研究旨在“覆盖阅读恢复在美国的扩展”(May, Sirinides, Gray, & Goldsworthy, 2016,第1页)。虽然该研究的两个目标之一是确定阅读恢复的长期影响,但该研究被其作者描述为“非常成功”(第4页),发现对学生阅读技能的长期影响“不显著”。随后的阅读恢复出版物没有提到这种“不显著”的影响。除了研究的第一年,没有公开的学生在二年级或三年级的考试成绩数据。此外,实际表现最差的学生(特殊教育学生、留级学生等)似乎被系统地排除在阅读恢复指导之外。总的来说,关于阅读恢复作为一种有效的长期阅读干预的有效性的证据非常有限。我们讨论了阅读恢复方法的局限性,如何改进阅读恢复,并强烈建议学校不要采用该计划,除非它包含了基于证据的阅读教学的所有组成部分。订阅LDMJ
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know
Reading Recovery, a meaning-based reading program designed for young children at risk of reading failure, is widely implemented across the United States. We discuss the recent Reading Recovery $45 million four-year i3-funded scaleup study that was designed to “cover the expansion of Reading Recovery around the U.S.” (May, Sirinides, Gray, & Goldsworthy, 2016, p. 1). While one of the two goals of the study was to determine the long-term impact of Reading Recovery, this study, described by its authors as “highly successful” (p. 4), found a “not significant” long-term effect on students’ reading skills. Subsequent Reading Recovery publications have failed to mention this “not significant” effect. With the exception of year one of the study, there are no publicly available test score data for the students when they were in Grades 2 or 3. Further, it appears that the actual lowest achieving students (special education students, students retained in first grade, and others) were systematically excluded from Reading Recovery instruction. Overall, there is very limited evidence of Reading Recovery’s efficacy as an effective long-term reading intervention. We discuss the limitations of the Reading Recovery approach, how Reading Recovery can be improved, and strongly recommend that schools do not adopt this program unless it incorporates all components of evidence-based reading instruction. Subscribe to LDMJ
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
6.20%
发文量
4
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信