Reading Recovery is an intensive school-based intervention for children with low literacy attainment aged 5 to 6 years. It is delivered by a trained teacher to children individually. The intervention aims to improve children’s reading and writing to enable them to read at age-appropriate levels.
The information above is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
5 to 7 years old
Individual
Reading Recovery is a school-based intervention for children with low literacy attainment aged 5 to 6 years.
It is delivered by a highly trained teacher to children individually. Children receive between 60 and 100 sessions until they are found in assessment to have completed the intervention successfully. Reading Recovery begins with a diagnostic assessment of children’s reading strengths and needs. Each session is tailored to children and typically includes:
These sessions therefore aim to improve phonemic awareness, vocabulary, reading fluency, and reading comprehension, as well as children’s ability to monitor, problem-solve, and correct themselves as they read and write increasingly complex texts.
The intervention aims to improve children’s reading and writing to enable them to read at age-appropriate levels, or to refer them to further supplemental or longer-term support if they do not reach these levels.
5 to 6 years
Children with low literacy attainment aged 5 to 6 years
Disclaimer: The information in this section is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
Science-based assumption
Lack of functional literacy is a barrier to academic achievement and positive life chances.
Science-based assumption
Lack of functional literacy and low engagement in reading in childhood is a barrier to accessing the curriculum and achieving at school.
Science-based assumption
Pupils who are reading at below the age-expected level.
Intervention
Trained teachers have daily session with pupils to improve reading skills, including decoding and comprehension, through reading and writing practice, and work on phonics and vocabulary.
Short-term
Improved pupil reading (decoding)
Improved pupil reading (comprehension)
Improved pupil writing.
Medium-term
Improved access to the curriculum
Increased academic achievement.
Long-term
Increased academic achievement
Improved life chances in adulthood.
Children with low literacy attainment aged 5 to 6 years.
Reading Recovery is delivered in 60 to 100 daily sessions of half an hour duration each by one practitioner, to individual children.
During sessions, which are tailored to individual children’s needs, children typically:
Are assessed in their independent reading at instructional level, to inform teaching decisions.
The practitioner who delivers this intervention is a Reading Recovery Teacher.
The practitioners have 20 half days of intervention training over the course of a year. Booster training of practitioners is recommended (teachers who continue to teach Reading Recovery attend six half-day sessions of continuing professional development to maintain their accreditation).
It is recommended that practitioners are supervised by one host-agency supervisor, with one full-time year of intervention training to qualify as a Teacher Leader.
Intervention fidelity is maintained through the following processes:
Organisation: Institute of Education, UCL
Email address: ioe.ilc@ucl.ac.uk
Website: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/reading-recovery-europe/about-reading-recovery/
*Please note that this information may not be up to date. In this case, please visit the listed intervention website for up to date contact details.
Reading Recovery’s most rigorous evidence comes from two RCTs which were conducted in the United States. This intervention can be described as evidence-based: it has evidence from at least one rigorously conducted RCT or QED demonstrating a statistically significant positive impact on at least one child outcome, as well as at least one more RCT or QED.
These studies identified statistically significant improvements in children’s reading and writing abilities, and early literacy skills.
Improved reading ability
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Improved reading ability
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Improved reading ability
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Improved concepts about print
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Improved writing ability
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Improved phonics
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Improved early literacy
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Improved early literacy
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Improved reading (comprehension)
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
| Identified in search | 20 |
| Studies reviewed | 3 |
| Meeting the L2 threshold | 1 |
| Meeting the L3 threshold | 2 |
| Contributing to the L4 threshold | 0 |
| Ineligible | N/A |
| Study design | RCT |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | 94 first-grade children, approximately 6 years old, across 47 classrooms in 14 US states |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities |
|
| Population risk factors |
|
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes |
|
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 3 |
| Citations | Schwartz, R. M. (2005) Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the Reading Recovery early intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology. 97 (2), 257. |
| Study design | RCT |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | 9,784 children with the lowest 8 scores in their school’s first grade on the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement, across 1,254 schools |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities |
|
| Population risk factors |
|
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes |
|
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 3 |
| Citations | May, H., Sirinides, P., Gray, A. & Goldsworthy, H. (2016) Reading Recovery: An evaluation of the four-year i3 scale-up. A research report. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. |
| Study design | QED |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | 592 children aged 5 years 10 months to 7 years 7 months |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities |
|
| Population risk factors | Children in the Reading Recovery group were in the 20% lowest achieving first-grade pupils in each school |
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes |
|
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 2 |
| Citations | D’Agostino, J. V., Lose, M. K. & Kelly, R. H. (2017) Examining the sustained effects of Reading Recovery. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR). 22 (2), 116–127. |
The following studies were identified for this intervention but did not count towards the intervention’s overall evidence rating. An intervention receives the same rating as its most robust study or studies.
Baenen, N., Bernhole, A., Dulaney, C. & Banks, K. (1997) Reading Recovery: Long-term progress after three cohorts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. 2 (2), 161–181. This reference refers to a randomised control trial, conducted in the USA.
Burroughs-Lange, S. & Douetil, J. (2006) Evaluation of Reading Recovery in London schools: Every Child A Reader, 2005-2006. Institute of Education, University College London.
Burroughs-Lange, S. & Douetil, J. (2007) Literacy progress of young children from poor urban settings: A Reading Recovery comparison study. Literacy Teaching and Learning. 12 (1), 19–46. This reference refers to a quasi-experimental design, conducted in the UK.
Center, Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L. & McNaught, M. (1995) An evaluation of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly. 30 (2), 240–263. This reference refers to a quasi-experimental design, conducted in Australia.
Chapman, J. W., Tunmer, W. E. & Prochnow, J. E. (2001) Does success in the Reading Recovery program depend on developing proficiency in phonological-processing skills? A longitudinal study in a whole language instructional context. Scientific Studies of Reading. 5 (2), 141–176. This reference refers to a quasi-experimental design, conducted in New Zealand.
D’Agostino, J. V. & Murphy, J. A. (2004) A meta-analysis of Reading Recovery in United States schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 26 (1), 23–38. This reference refers to a meta-analysis.
D’Agostino, J. V. & Harmey, S. J. (2016) An international meta-analysis of Reading Recovery. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR). 21 (1), 29–46. This reference refers to a meta-analysis.
Gapp, S. C., Zalud, G. & Pietrzak, D. (2009) End of Intervention Reading Recovery® decisions and subsequent achievement. Reading Improvement. 46 (1), 9. This reference refers to a quasi-experimental design, conducted in the USA.
Hurry, J. & Sylva, K. (2007) Long-term outcomes of early reading intervention. Journal of Research in Reading. 30 (3), 227–2. This reference refers to a randomised control trial, conducted in the UK.
Hurry, J. (2012) The impact of Reading Recovery five years after intervention. Report for the Every Child a Reader Trust. Institute of Education, University College London. This reference refers to a quasi-experimental design, conducted in the UK.
Iversen, S., Tunmer, W. E. & Chapman, J. W. (2005) The effects of varying group size on the Reading Recovery approach to preventive early intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 38 (5), 456–472. This reference refers to a quasi-experimental design, conducted in the USA.
Pinnell, G. S., DeFord, D. E. & Lyons, C. A. (1988) Reading Recovery: Early intervention for at-risk first graders. Educational Research Service. This reference refers to a randomised control trial, conducted in the USA.
Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., Deford, D. E., Bryk, A. S. & Selzer, M. (1994) Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly. 29, 8–39. This reference refers to a randomised control trial, conducted in the USA.
Ruhe, V. & Paula, M. (2005) The impact of Reading Recovery on later achievement in reading and writing. ERS Spectrum. 23 (1), 20–30. This reference refers to a pre-post study, conducted in the USA.
Schmitt, M. C. & Gregory, A. E. (2005) The impact of an early literacy intervention: Where are the children now? Literacy, Teaching and Learning. 10 (1), 1. This reference refers to a randomised control trial, conducted in the USA.
Note on provider involvement: This provider has agreed to Foundations’ terms of reference (or the Early Intervention Foundation's terms of reference), and the assessment has been conducted and published with the full cooperation of the intervention provider.
Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.
Click here for more information.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.
Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.
Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.
Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.
Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.
Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.
Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.
Click here for more information.
