reading recovery research articles

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

A popular program for teaching kids to read just took another hit to its credibility

Emily Hanford

Christopher Peak

New research could prompt schools to reexamine their investment in Reading Recovery, one of the world's most widely used reading intervention programs. Gary John Norman/Getty Images hide caption

New research could prompt schools to reexamine their investment in Reading Recovery, one of the world's most widely used reading intervention programs.

One of the world's most widely used reading intervention programs for young children has taken another hit to its credibility.

Reading Recovery — a one-on-one tutoring program for first graders — has long been controversial because it's based on a theory about how people read that was disproven decades ago by cognitive scientists. A 2019 story by APM Reports helped bring public attention to the fact that reading programs based on this theory teach the strategies struggling readers use to get by. In other words: Children are taught to read the way that poor readers read.

Now, a new, federally funded study has found that, by third and fourth grade, children who received Reading Recovery had lower scores on state reading tests than a comparison group of children who did not receive Reading Recovery.

Why Millions Of Kids Can't Read And What Better Teaching Can Do About It

"It's not what we expected, and it's concerning," said lead author Henry May, director of the Center for Research in Education and Social Policy at the University of Delaware. May delivered the findings at an April gathering of education researchers in San Diego.

At least 2.4 million students in the United States have participated in Reading Recovery or its Spanish-language counterpart since 1984, when the program first came to America from New Zealand. The program is also used in Australia, Canada and England, among other countries .

The new research could prompt schools to reexamine their investment in Reading Recovery, and consider other ways to help struggling first-graders.

The new research shows children make initial gains, then fall behind

May was the principal investigator of an earlier federally funded study of Reading Recovery, one of the largest ever randomized experiments of an instructional intervention in elementary schools. That study, which began in 2011, found evidence of large positive gains in first grade, as has other research. The program's advocates have pointed to that research as evidence that the instructional approach is effective and based on sound science.

But whether the initial gains last and translate into better performance on state reading tests remained a question. This new study on the long-term impact of Reading Recovery is the largest, most rigorous effort to tackle that question, according to May.

The Gap Between The Science On Kids And Reading, And How It Is Taught

The fact that students who participated in Reading Recovery did worse in later grades than similar students who did not get the program surprised May.

"Was Reading Recovery harmful? I wouldn't go as far as to say that," he said. "But what we do know is that the kids that got it for some reason ended up losing their gains and then falling behind."

In a written response to the study, the Reading Recovery Council of North America, the organization that advocates for the program in the United States, disputed some of the research methodology and maintained that their program is effective. It also said: "Reading Recovery has and will continue to change in response to evidence gathered from a wide range of studies of both students having difficulties with early reading and writing and their teachers."

U.S. schools have been dropping Reading Recovery

At one point, Reading Recovery was in every state. But school districts have been dropping the program – today, it's in nearly 2,000 schools in 41 states, according to the most recent data.

In fact, the first district to implement the program in the U.S. recently decided to stop using it.

Leslie Kelly, executive director of teaching and learning at Columbus City Schools in Ohio, said the decision to drop Reading Recovery is part of a larger effort to bring "the science of reading" to the district. She said she and her colleagues realized that their approach to reading instruction, including Reading Recovery, didn't align well with that science.

Her advice to other districts that are still using Reading Recovery is to take a close look at the program's effectiveness: "Do your research. Read a lot, and really look at do you have evidence of impact? That's really the key. Do you have evidence of impact, and how do you know? And if you don't have evidence of impact, you have to ask yourself why and then what are you going to do about it?"

Reading Recovery was already controversial

Critics of Reading Recovery have long contended that children in the program do not receive enough explicit and systematic instruction in how to decode words. In addition, they say, children are taught to use context, pictures and other clues to identify words, a strategy that may work in first-grade books but becomes less effective as text becomes more difficult. They say kids can seem like good readers in first grade but fail to develop the skills they need to be good readers in the long run.

Rethinking How Students With Dyslexia Are Taught To Read

May said this could explain his latest research findings. "If you don't build up those decoding skills, you're going to fall behind, even though it looked like you had caught up in first grade."

He said the results could also be explained by the fact that about 40% of the students who received Reading Recovery got no further intervention after first grade. "Because the kids didn't get the intervention that they needed in second and third grade, they lost those gains," May said. "I think that's a plausible hypothesis."

But the study also found that the students who were in Reading Recovery were more likely than the comparison group to receive extra help for reading after first grade. Advocates for Reading Recovery have justified the program's high cost — estimated to be up to $10,271 per student — by saying that the program reduces the need for further reading intervention.

This new research comes as schools and states are looking for ways to help students recover from the disruptions of the pandemic, including disruptions to their reading development. May's findings are something for policymakers and school leaders to consider as they make decisions about what programs to invest in.

Emily Hanford is a senior correspondent and Christopher Peak is a reporter for APM Reports, the documentary and investigative reporting group at American Public Media. This story was adapted from their earlier reporting . A collection of stories from APM Reports on how kids learn to read can be found here.

New research shows controversial Reading Recovery program eventually had a negative impact on children

Initial gains from first-grade intervention didn’t last and kids performed worse in third and fourth grade.

April 23, 2022 | by Emily Hanford and Christopher Peak

One of the world’s most widely used reading intervention programs for young children took a hit to its credibility today following the release of a new study at the American Educational Research Association conference. 

Reading Recovery — a one-on-one tutoring program for first graders — has long been controversial because it’s based on a theory about how people read words that was disproven decades ago by cognitive scientists. A 2019 story by APM Reports helped bring widespread public attention to the fact that reading programs based on this theory teach kids the habits of struggling readers . 

The new, federally funded study found that children who received Reading Recovery had scores on state reading tests in third and fourth grade that were below the test scores of similar children who did not receive Reading Recovery. 

“It's not what we expected, and it's concerning,” said lead author Henry May, director of the Center for Research in Education and Social Policy at the University of Delaware, who delivered the findings at the prestigious, annual gathering of education researchers being held this year in San Diego.

The findings could prompt school districts nationwide to reexamine their investment in Reading Recovery and consider other ways to help struggling first-graders. 

May was the principal investigator of an earlier federally funded study of Reading Recovery, one of the largest ever randomized experiments of an instructional intervention in elementary schools. That study, which began in 2011, found evidence of large positive gains in first grade, as has other research. The program’s advocates have pointed to that research as evidence that the instructional approach is based on sound science and is effective. 

But whether the initial gains last and translate into better performance on state reading tests remained a question. The new study on the long-term impact of Reading Recovery is the largest, most rigorous effort to tackle that question, according to May. 

The fact that students who participated in Reading Recovery did worse in later grades than similar students who did not get the program surprised May. “Was Reading Recovery harmful? I wouldn't go as far as to say that,” he said. “But what we do know is that the kids that got it for some reason ended up losing their gains and then falling behind.”

At least 2.4 million students in the United States have participated in Reading Recovery or its Spanish-language counterpart since 1984, when the program first came to America from New Zealand. The program is in nearly 2,000 schools in 41 states. 

A spokesperson for the Reading Recovery Council of North America, the organization that advocates for the program in the United States, declined an interview request. In a written response to the study, the organization said: “Reading Recovery has and will continue to change in response to evidence gathered from a wide range of studies of both students having difficulties with early reading and writing and their teachers.” 

Critics of Reading Recovery have long contended that children in the program do not receive enough explicit and systematic instruction in how to decode words. In addition, they say, children are taught to use context, pictures, and other clues to identify words, a strategy that may work in first-grade books but becomes less effective as text becomes more difficult. They say kids can seem like good readers in first grade but fail to develop the skills they need to be good readers in the long run. 

May said this could be what is happening. “If you don't build up those decoding skills, you're going to fall behind, even though it looked like you had caught up in first grade.” 

He said the results could also be explained by the fact that about 40 percent of the students who received Reading Recovery got no further intervention after first grade. “Because the kids didn't get the intervention that they needed in second and third grade, they lost those gains,” May said. “I think that's a plausible hypothesis.” 

But the study also found that the students who were in Reading Recovery were more likely than the comparison group to receive further intervention, which undercuts the program’s claims that children who are successful in the program won’t need further reading intervention. In fact, advocates for Reading Recovery have justified the program’s high cost — estimated to be up to $10,271 per student — by saying that children who are successful in the program won’t need additional help.

A proven model of success

Reading Recovery is an early intervention for literacy learning that has helped children all over the world lift their literacy performance. Reading Recovery is backed by an extensive body of research, over many years, in many countries: ‍ > Research Bibliography > Monitoring and Reporting > Investigative Research

Rangitaki / Blog

Explore professional insights from our literacy experts in the blog articles below!

Fact checking against anti-Balanced literacy campaigns

It is important that we guard against misinformation by anti-Balanced literacy campaigns and campaigners. ‍ Please click the link below to access links to literature and essays from literacy researchers and academics.

Monitoring and reporting outcomes in different countries

New zealand.

Reading Recovery Evaluation: This report by Education Counts published in June 2020 presents a summative process and outcome evaluation of Reading Recovery in Aotearoa showing evidence of long term gain in the Aotearoa NZ context. Read report here . The New Zealand Ministry of Education collects data online from school on the progress and outcomes for every child. An annual report is published by Education Counts , a research division of the Ministry of Education.

The Annual Monitoring of Reading Recovery can be viewed here .

United States

A report by What Works Clearinghouse in the US published a report in June 2023 showing evidence of sustained progress three years after the intervention. Read more about it here . ‍ The International Data Evaluation Centre (IDEC), Ohio State University, collects outcome data from all Reading Recovery and Descubriendo La Lectura (Spanish language) sites annually. They publish comprehensive technical reports on the IDEC website .

United Kingdom

Department for Education (2011). Evaluation of Every Child a Reader (ECaR) showed that Reading Recovery has a positive impact on pupils. View report here .

Investigative Research

Schmitt, M. C., et. al. (2005). Changing futures: The influence of Reading Recovery in the United States. Worthington, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America. View report here .

Clay, M.M. (2015). Change over time in children's literacy development. Auckland: Marie Clay Literacy Trust. View report here .

The Reading Recovery Council of North America, RRCNA publishes an extensive range of reference and research material including the Journal of Reading Recovery. See the Reading Recovery Community website.

Improvement Science in Education

Teachers refine classroom programmes for specific learners. The question is not about 'what works'; the question is what will work for this particular learner, under these circumstances.

Effective teachers evaluate the impact of teaching for learners, and adjust to incorporate their strengths as resources that help them learn more. Knowing what works is only the first step to understanding why it works.

Researchers and teachers work together to design, review and evaluate what is working, for whom, and what needs improvement. Results are interrogated in ongoing cycles of re-design. Research is used understand observed effects.

Learning through partnership

National Reading Recovery seeks ongoing advice from our Sector Advisory Group, the Steering Committee of Universities and our international Reading Recovery networks.

Research bibliography

Hurry, J., Fridkin, L., & Holliman, A. J.(2021). Reading intervention at age 6: Long-term effects of Reading Recovery inthe UK on qualifications and support at age 16. British Educational Research Journal . ‍ Borman GD, Borman TH, Park SJ, Houghton S. (2020) A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effectiveness of Descubriendo la Lectura. American Educational Research Journal. 57(5). doi:10.3102/0002831219890612 Bodman, S. (2019). 10 Years On: The Impact of ReadingRecovery [online] Available from: https://www.teachwire.net/news/10-years-on-the-impact-of-reading-recovery   Hurry, J. and Fridkin, L. (2018) The impact of ReadingRecovery ten years after intervention: A report for the KPMG Foundation. UCL Institute of Education. Schwartz, R. M. (2018). Reading Recovery: How Do We Rank? Journal of Reading Recovery, 17(2), 61-65. May, H., Sirinides, P., Gray, A. & Goldsworthy, H.(2016). Reading Recovery: An Evaluation of the Four-Year i3 Scale-Up. CPRE Research Reports. D'Agostino, J.V., & Harmey, S.J. (2016),  An International Meta-Analysis of Reading Recovery, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), Vol 21, NO.1, 29-46 ‍ Schwartz, R. M. (2016). Effective early intervention: Lessons from the i3 evaluation of Reading Recovery. Journal of Reading Recovery , 16 (1), 47-53. Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). (2013, 2014, 2016). Evaluation of the i3 Scale-up of Reading Recovery reports. May, H., Gray A., Sirinides P., Goldsworthy H., Armijo M., Sam C., Gillespie J.N.,Tognatta N. (2015), 'Year One Results Fromthe Multisite Randomized Evaluation of the i3 Scale-Up of Reading Recovery', American Educational Research Journal,52, (3). The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) (2013). Evaluation of the i3 scale-up of Reading Recovery: Year one report. View report here . Institute of Education Sciences (2013). Beginning reading intervention report: Reading Recovery. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_readrecovery_071613.pdf Schwartz, R.M. Schmitt, M.C. and Lose, M.K. (2012), 'Effects of teacher-student ratio in response to intervention approaches' The Elementary School Journal, 112(4), 547-567  Slavin, R.E., Lake, C., Davis, S. & Madden, N.A. (2011) Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis.Educational Research Review, 6, pp.1-26. Department for Education (2011), 'Evaluation of EveryChild a Reader (ECaR)' , DFE-RR114 Holliman, A. J., Hurry, J., & Douetil, J. (2010). 'Standardisation of the Observation Survey in England and Wales, UK'. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Watson, B., & Askew, B. (Eds.). (2009). Boundless horizons: Marie Clay's search for the possible in children's literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Every Child a Chance Trust (2009). The long term costs of literacy difficulties. View report here . What Works Clearinghouse (2008) 'Intervention report: Reading Recovery' U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences Burroughs-Lange,S. and Douetil, J. (2007) 'Literacy progress of young children from poor urban settings: A Reading Recovery comparison study'. Literacy Teaching and Learning , 12 (1), pp 19-46. Burroughs-Lange,S. and Douetil, J. (2006) 'Evaluation of Reading Recovery in London schools: Every Child a Reader 2005-2006'. University of London: Institute of Education . North American Trainers Group Research Committee (2006) 'Six Reading Recovery studies: Meeting the criteria for scientifically based research'. Reading Recovery Council of NorthAmerica: Columbus, OH, USA. Schwartz, R. M. (2005) 'Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the Reading Recovery early intervention'. Journal ofEducational Psychology , 97 (2), 257-267. Schwartz, R. M. (2005). Literacy Learning of At-Risk First-Grade Students in the ReadingRecovery Early Intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology ,97(2), 257-267. McDowall, S., Boyd, S., & Hodgen, E. with van Vliet, T. (2005). Reading Recovery in New Zealand: Uptake, implementation, and outcomes, especially in relation to Māori and Pasifika students. View report here . D'Agostino, J.V., and Murphy, J.A. (2004) A meta-analysis of Reading Recovery in United States schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 26 (1), 23-38.. View report here . Quay,L. C., Steele, D. C., Johnson, C. I. and Hortman, W. (2001) 'Children's achievement and personal and social development in a first-year Reading Recovery program with teachers in training'. LiteracyTeaching and Learning , 5 (2), 7-25. Schmitt, M. C., (2001) 'The development of children's strategic processing in Reading Recovery'. Reading Psychology, 22 (2), 129-151. Ashdown, J. and Simic, O. (2000) 'Is early literacy intervention effective for English language learners? Evidence from Reading Recovery'. Literacy Teaching and Learning , 5 (1), 27-42. Neal, J.C. and Kelly, P.R. (1999) 'The success of Reading Recovery for English language learnersand descubriendo la lectura for bilingual students in California'. LiteracyTeaching and Learning , 4 (2), 81-108. Phillips,G. and Smith, P. (1997) 'Closing the gaps: Literacy for the hardest to teach'. New Zealand Council for Educational Research: Wellington, 3, 1-36. Center,Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L. & McNaught, M. (1995). An Experimental Evaluation of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly , 30, 240-263. Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A. S. and Seltzer, M (1994) 'Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders'. Reading Research Quarterly , 29 (1), 8-39. Iversen, S. J. & Tunmer, W.E. (1993). Phonological Processing Skills and the Reading Recovery Program. Journal of Educational Psychology , 80(4), 437-447. Pinnell, G. S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping At-Risk Children Learn to Read. TheElementary School Journal , 90, 161-183. Watson, B., & Askew, B. (Eds.). (2009). Boundless horizons: Marie Clay's search for the possible in children's literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. View report here .

Burroughs-Lange, S., & Douetil, J. (2005-2006). Every child a reader: An evaluation of Reading Recovery in London schools. View report here .

Schwartz, R. M. (2005). Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the Reading Recovery early intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 257-267. View report here .

Iowa Reading Research Center

Research Article of the Month: April 2024

This blog post is part of our  Research Article of the Month series. For this month, we highlight “ Designing an Intervention in Reading and Self-Regulation for Students With Significant Reading Difficulties Including Dyslexia ,” an article published in the journal Learning Disability Quarterly in 2021. Important words related to research are bolded, and definitions of these terms are included at the end of the article in the “Terms to Know” section.

Why Did We Pick This Paper?

Self-regulation is the ability to modify one’s thinking, emotions, and behavior to achieve a goal. Some self-regulation strategies include setting goals, becoming aware of emotions, practicing positive self-statements (“I am doing my best” or “I will not give up”), and believing in the ability to grow and learn. 

Self-regulation contributes to reading proficiency (Berkeley & Larson, 2018), and students with reading difficulties tend to have impaired self-regulation (Cutting, et al., 2009). Fortunately, training in self-regulation has been shown to improve the use of self-regulation strategies and reading comprehension outcomes (Spörer & Schünemann, 2014). This study examined the feasibility and effects of a reading intervention that explicitly teaches self-regulation strategies. Reading interventions that target self-regulation may support the reading outcomes of students with reading disabilities (RDs). 

What Are the Research Questions or Purpose?

This study examined the feasibility of implementing a specific reading intervention with self-regulation instruction by addressing the following questions:

• Is the intervention associated with stronger effects on reading outcomes than the interventions currently provided to students with RDs in the participating schools?
• Can teachers implement the intervention as designed?
• What are the barriers to consistent implementation and to student progress in the intervention?
• What are teachers’ perceptions of the self-regulation component of the intervention?
• What parts of the intervention should be maintained as they are and how should the intervention be revised?

What Methodology Do the Authors Employ?

To assess the feasibility of the intervention and explore its potential effects on reading outcomes, the study employed a quasi-experimental design. 

A group of special education teachers, dyslexia specialists,  and reading interventionists were randomly assigned to teach the intervention (the experimental condition) or continue delivering their typical instruction (the business-as-usual , or BAU, condition). Instruction was delivered in small groups of 2-4 students, 4 days a week for 26 weeks.

A total of 21 instructors participated in the study (10 in the intervention and 11 in the BAU condition), as well as 43 students in Grades 2-4 (23 in the intervention and 20 in the BAU condition).

The students were assessed on a number of reading skills, including word recognition, decoding, reading comprehension, and oral reading fluency, at the beginning and end of the study. Pre- and post-test scores were compared in order to assess students’ growth in the measured skills over the course of the study.

The intervention consisted of word study, text reading, reading comprehension, and self-regulation, as described below:

• Word study: The word study component included instruction in phonemic awareness, decoding, word recognition, and spelling. 
• Text reading: For the text-reading component, students read high-interest, motivating decodable texts that included phonics and spelling patterns the students had been explicitly taught. They also applied these skills on authentic texts to practice extending these skills to new contexts. 
• Comprehension: The comprehension component included guiding questions to focus students’ attention and activate prior knowledge. Teachers asked questions that would stimulate students to recall events, generate inferences, make connections across texts, paraphrase, identify main ideas, monitor their understanding, generate questions, and visualize. Teachers modeled comprehension skills and provided students with multiple practice opportunities. 
• Self-regulation: The self-regulation component included activities designed to support a growth mindset (the belief that one can grow and achieve success in the future despite present challenges), emotional self-regulation (the ability to identify emotions), reflection on comprehension strategy use, positive self-statements, and goal setting. 

These components were delivered in two phases: the first phase focused on foundational reading skills, and the second phase addressed more advanced skills. For all components, students received direct instruction and modeling from teachers, and they practiced skills using multiple modalities (e.g., reading, writing, and manipulation of letter tiles). 

Students in the BAU condition received instruction using other evidence-based programs.

The researchers monitored the fidelity and quality of implementation for the intervention by recording videos of classroom instruction. The researchers conducted an analysis of covariance with pre- and post-test scores to determine whether the intervention was associated with greater effects than traditional instruction. The intervention teachers also participated in two focus groups to provide feedback on the feasibility of the intervention. 

What Are the Key Findings?

Research question 1: is the intervention associated with stronger effects on reading outcomes than the interventions currently provided to students with rds in the participating schools.

Students’ pre-test scores on all reading skill variables were higher in the BAU condition compared to the experimental condition, but there were no significant differences between groups for any measures on the post-test. Thus, the intervention was not associated with stronger effects on reading outcomes than other interventions used in the participating schools.

Research Question 2: Can teachers implement the intervention as designed?

The fidelity and quality of implementation were reported as a percentage to measure if the intervention was implemented as designed. The mean word study and text reading fidelity rating was 88%, and the quality rating was 92%. For comprehension and self-regulation, the mean fidelity rating was 81%, and the quality rating was 94%. The lower fidelity rating for the comprehension and self-regulation components indicates that these components were more difficult for teachers to implement as intended. 

Research Question 3: What are the barriers to consistent implementation and to student progress in the intervention?

Teachers identified context barriers, including scheduling, limited school resources, limited instructional and planning time, and logistics related to providing the intervention at two different schools on the same day. They also identified student-related barriers, including student frustration with literacy tasks, lack of confidence and inconsistent focus, and behavior management. 

Research Question 4: What are teachers’ perceptions of the self-regulation component of the intervention?

In focus groups, teachers voiced their support for the self-regulation component of the intervention, citing the positive effects of growth mindset instruction on students’ confidence and self-esteem. Teachers also noted the benefits of recognizing negative self-statements and substituting them with positive ones. 

Research Question 5: What parts of the intervention should be maintained as they are and how should the intervention be revised?

The teachers requested a better approach for organizing and managing materials (e.g., letter tiles, books, visual aids). They suggested that future versions of the intervention should focus more on active student participation rather than teacher talk. They wanted a stronger fluency component of the intervention and guidance on incorporating technology into instruction. Overall, the teachers highlighted that the strengths of the intervention include its well-designed curriculum and content, the material resources provided, and the variety of activities that support student interest and participation.

What Are the Limitations of This Paper?

The study examined the implementation of a multi-component intervention for reading and self-regulation for students with RDs. Teachers highlighted several challenges they faced in implementing this intervention, including managing materials and coordinating the pace of the different lesson components. This complexity could potentially limit the intervention’s ease of implementation, as educators may struggle to implement it effectively without substantial preparatory training or additional support and technology. Enhancing teacher readiness through targeted professional development sessions, along with providing ongoing support and technology, could improve the fidelity and quality of implementing of this complex intervention. 

Additionally, the study was constrained by its small sample size, which limits the statistical power in detecting the possible effectiveness of the intervention. A small number of participants can make it challenging to detect smaller but statistically significant effect sizes or subtle differences between treatment and BAU groups. For further research on the effectiveness of the intervention, a greater number of participants is needed to validate the results and conclusions drawn from this study. 

Terms to Know

• Feasibility:  A feasibility study follows the implementation of a project or process (such as a new reading instructional program) in order to assess its potential for success. Researchers may gather data and feedback to inform future revisions.
• Quasi-experimental: Experimental research aims to determine whether a certain treatment influences a measurable outcome—for example, whether a certain instructional method influences students’ reading comprehension scores. To do this, participants are assigned to one of two groups: the experimental group, which receives the treatment, and the control group, which does not receive the treatment. In an experimental study, these groups are randomly assigned, meaning each participant has equal probability of being in either the treatment or the control group. A quasi-experimental study is similar to an experimental study except that participants are not randomly assigned to groups. In educational research, groups often are assigned by classroom rather than through random assignment, making this kind of research quasi-experimental. In either case, participants in both groups are tested before and after the treatment, and their results are compared.
• Business-as-usual (BAU) condition:  The business-as-usual condition is another name for the control group in an experimental or quasi-experimental study.   This group does not receive the experimental treatment and therefore serves as a point of comparison for the experimental group. 
• Fidelity:  Fidelity is a measure of the extent to which a process, such as an instructional approach, is implemented as intended.
• Covariance:  Covariance , in statistics, is a measure of the relationship between two variables and the extent to which they change together.
• Effects:  In statistics, effect size is a measure of the strength of the relationship between two variables in statistical analyses. A commonly used interpretation is to refer to effect size as small (g = 0.2), medium (g = 0.5), and large (g = 0.8) based on the benchmarks suggested by Cohen (1988), where “g” refers to Hedge’s g, a statistical measure of effect size.
• Focus groups:  A focus group gathers participants for a guided discussion or interview in order to elicit feedback about a product or process.

Berkeley, S., & Larsen, A. (2018). Fostering self–regulation of students with learning disabilities: Insights from 30 years of reading comprehension intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 33 (2), 75-86.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12165  

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge Academic.

Cutting, L. E., Materek, A., Cole, C. A. S., Levine, T. M., & Mahone, E. M. (2009). Effects of fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension performance. Annals of Dyslexia , 59, 34–54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-009-0022-0  

Denton, C. A., Montroy, J. J., Zucker, T. A., Cannon, G. (2021). Designing an intervention in reading and self-regulation for students with significant reading difficulties, including dyslexia. Learning Disability Quarterly , 44 (3), 170-182.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948719899479  

Spörer, N., & Schünemann, N. (2014). Improvements of self-regulation procedures for fifth graders' reading competence: Analyzing effects on reading comprehension, reading strategy performance, and motivation for reading. Learning and Instruction , 33 , 147-157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.05.002  

• emotional control
• goal setting
• growth mindset
• interventions
• learning disabilities
• Research Article of the Month
• self regulation
• self-esteem
• self-monitoring

Research Article of the Month: March 2024

Research Article of the Month: February 2024

Research Article of the Month: January 2024

We’re All Reading Wrong

To access the full benefits of literature, you have to share it out loud.

Listen to this article

Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.

Updated at 4:32 p.m. ET on May 3, 2024

Reading, while not technically medicine, is a fundamentally wholesome activity. It can prevent cognitive decline , improve sleep , and lower blood pressure . In one study, book readers outlived their nonreading peers by nearly two years. People have intuitively understood reading’s benefits for thousands of years: The earliest known library , in ancient Egypt, bore an inscription that read The house of healing for the soul .

But the ancients read differently than we do today. Until approximately the tenth century , when the practice of silent reading expanded thanks to the invention of punctuation, reading was synonymous with reading aloud. Silent reading was terribly strange, and, frankly, missed the point of sharing words to entertain, educate, and bond. Even in the 20th century, before radio and TV and smartphones and streaming entered American living rooms, couples once approached the evening hours by reading aloud to each other.

But what those earlier readers didn’t yet know was that all of that verbal reading offered additional benefits: It can boost the reader’s mood and ability to recall . It can lower parents’ stress and increase their warmth and sensitivity toward their children. To reap the full benefits of reading, we should be doing it out loud, all the time, with everyone we know.

Reading aloud is a distinctive cognitive process, more complex than simply reading silently, speaking, or listening. Noah Forrin, who researched memory and reading at the University of Waterloo, in Canada, told me that it involves several operations—motor control, hearing, and self-reference (the fact that you said it)—all of which activate the hippocampus, a brain region associated with episodic memory. Compared with reading silently, the hippocampus is more active while reading aloud, which might help explain why the latter is such an effective memory tool. In a small 2012 study , students who studied a word list remembered 90 percent of the words they’d read aloud immediately afterward, compared with 71 percent of those they’d read silently. (One week later, participants remembered 59 percent of the spoken words and 48 percent of the words read silently.)

So although you might enjoy an audiobook narrated by Meryl Streep, you would remember it better if you read parts of it out loud—especially if you did so in small chunks, just a short passage at a time, Forrin said. The same goes for a few lines of a presentation that you really want to nail. Those memory benefits hold true whether or not anyone is around to hear your performance.

Verbal reading without an audience is, in fact, surprisingly common. While studying how modern British people read aloud, Sam Duncan, a professor of adult literacies at University College London, found that they read aloud—and alone—for a variety of reasons. One woman recited Welsh poetry to remember her mother, with whom she spoke Welsh as a girl. One young man read the Quran out loud before work to better understand its meaning. Repeating words aloud isn’t just key to memorization, Duncan told me—it can be key to identity formation too.

From the August 1904 issue: On reading aloud

Plenty of solitary vocal reading no doubt consists of deciphering recipes and proofreading work emails, but if you want to reap the full perks, the best selections are poetry and literature. These genres provide access to facets of human experience that can be otherwise unreachable, which helps us process our own emotions and memories, says Philip Davis, an emeritus professor of literature and psychology at the University of Liverpool. Poetry, for example, can induce peak emotional responses , a strong reaction that might include goose bumps or chills. It can help you locate an emotion within yourself, which is important to health as a form of emotional processing.

Poetry also contains complex, unexpected elements, like when Shakespeare uses god as a verb in Coriolanus : “This last old man … godded me.” In an fMRI study that Davis co-authored in 2015, such literary surprise was shown to be stimulating to the brain. Davis told me that literature, with its “mixture of memory and imagination,” can cause us to recall our most complex experiences and derive meaning from them. A poem or story read aloud is particularly enthralling, he said, because it becomes a live presence in the room, with a more direct and penetrative quality, akin to live music. Davis likens the role of literature and live reading to a spark or renewal, “a bringing of things back to life.”

Discussing the literature that you read aloud can be particularly valuable. Davis told me doing so helps penetrate rigid thinking and can dislodge dysfunctional thought patterns. A qualitative 2017 study led by Josie Billington at the University of Liverpool found that, for those who have chronic pain and the depression that tends to come with it, such discussion expands emotional vocabulary —a key tenet of psychological well-being— perhaps even more so than cognitive behavioral therapy . (The allure of an audience has one notable exception: If you’re anxious, reading aloud can actually reduce memory and comprehension . To understand this effect, one need only harken back to fifth grade when it was your turn to read a paragraph on Mesopotamia in class.)

Read: How to keep your book club from becoming a wine club

The health benefits of reading aloud are so profound that some doctors in England now refer their chronic-pain patients to read-aloud groups. Helen Cook, a 45-year-old former teacher in England, joined one of these groups in 2013. Cook had a pelvic tumor that had sent anguish ricocheting through her hip and back for a decade, and medication never seemed to help. Before she joined the reading group, Cook had trouble sleeping, lost her job, and “had completely lost myself,” she told me. Then, she and nine other adults began working their way through some 300 pages of Hard Times , by Charles Dickens.

Cook told me she recognized her experience in the characters’ travails, and within months, she “rediscovered a love for life,” even returning to college for a master’s degree in literature. She’s not the only one who found relief: In Billington’s 2017 study, everyone who read aloud in a group felt emotionally better and reported less pain for two days afterward.

Hearing words read aloud to you also has unique advantages, especially for kids. Storytelling has been shown to increase hospitalized children’s levels of oxytocin while decreasing cortisol and pain. Julie Hunter, who for more than 20 years has taught preschool kids (including my daughter), told me that interactive reading increases young children’s comprehension , builds trust , and enhances social-emotional skills . A recent study by researchers at the Brookings Institution found that children smiled and laughed more when being read to by a parent than when listening to an automatically narrated book alone.

Read: An ode to being read to

Anecdotal evidence suggests that adults, too, can benefit from such listening. For 25 years, Hedrick and Susan Smith, ages 90 and 84, respectively, have read more than 170 books aloud. They started by reading in the car, to pass the time, but it was so much fun that they started reading every night before they turned out the light, Hedrick told me. Together, they tried to comprehend One Hundred Years of Solitude , narrated Angela’s Ashes in four different Irish accents, and deduced clues in John le Carré thrillers. They felt more connected, and went to sleep in brighter moods. If they liked the book, they couldn’t wait for the other to read the next chapter aloud—even, and perhaps especially, when the sound of the other’s voice sent them off to sleep.

Due to an editing error, this article originally misidentified the author of a 2017 study.

Phase Two: The Reach

• Posted May 7, 2024
• By Ryan Nagelhout
• Evidence-Based Intervention
• Language and Literacy Development
• Learning Design and Instruction
• Student Achievement and Outcomes

When Reach Every Reader was launched in 2018 with the lofty goal of ending the early literacy crisis and improving reading outcomes for children in the United States, researchers adhered to a simple refrain about the project’s aims: serve science, serve people. 

A partnership between the Ed School, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Integrated Learning Initiative, and the Florida Center for Reading Research and College of Communication & Information at Florida State University, Reach Every Reader is now reaching the end of its first phase, which included work in 47 states reaching more than 58,000 children, 28,000 educators, and 7,000 parents and caregivers through research studies and offering public resources. 

Each team in the partnership tackled a different aspect. At the Ed School, Professor James Kim ’s READS Lab partnered with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District in North Carolina to develop the Model of Reading Engagement (MORE) , a set of tools focused on improving students’ ability to read for understanding in science, social studies, and English. “The message from our study is that it’s not just reading, it’s reading complex nonfiction text. That’s the reading crisis in America,” says Kim. “In order to help kids do that, you need to have all those basic skills, but you really have to build background and vocabulary knowledge. And that’s what our program did well.” 

Kim worked as an adviser with the district before Reach Every Reader began, but the grant that funded Reach Every Reader allowed for MOREs development and implementation. The MORE program features a “spiral” curriculum about science topics that builds upon itself as students matriculate from first to third grade. 

The research showed improvement in third grade reading comprehension as well as math testing, which Kim described as a “really exciting” transfer of skills Reach Every Reader hopes to replicate in other districts during its next phase. The project recently received a federal Education, Innovation, and Research grant that will allow MORE programming to expand into 100 different school districts around the country in the next five years. 

“The message from our study is that it’s not just reading, it’s reading complex nonfiction text. That’s the reading crisis in America.” Professor James Kim

Kim described a student’s reading ability by third grade as a “very sticky indicator” of a variety of student outcomes, which is often why those metrics garner so much focus. 

“If you’re not reading proficiently by third grade, you’re more likely to drop out of high school, you’re less likely to be college and career ready,” Kim says. “There are all kinds of downstream consequences of not being ready to read. But you can’t solve the problem in third grade, you have to start earlier.” 

The urgency of the literacy crisis was only amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in the middle of MORE's research phase. That crisis — and the impact the pandemic had on learning loss and schools struggling to help students — presented the team with a choice: continue to provide the intervention to just the treatment group, as planned, or disrupt the original research focus and offer it to all students in the district. Kim and his team chose to help all students. 

“When you have extreme circumstances like the pandemic, you’re faced with more extreme choices,” says Senior Lecturer Elizabeth City, Ed.M.'04, Ed.D.'07, Reach Every Reader’s executive director. “We landed on, ‘We’re going to serve people, and then we’re going to figure out how to serve science from there.’” 

City raved about the MORE team’s ability to be “nimble” in responding to the pandemic’s challenges, a “beautiful example” of the tension that comes with putting research into practice. 

“One of the hardest things in academia is to have really rigorous research that actually gets into practice and makes a difference for learners,” says City. “We were able to do incredibly rigorous research and also help people in real time. I think Jimmy’s team is our very best example of that.” 

City noted the “enormous amounts of work left to do” in the field, but also working to scale the MORE programming in new school districts is a huge step forward for the project’s next phase. She pointed to something a Reach Every Reader colleague from Florida State likes to say about the work as it enters year six. 

“Phase one was about the reader, and phase two is about the reach,” City recited. “Really trying to understand what’s going to work for every reader is phase one. Now let’s get the reach.”

Ed. Magazine

The magazine of the Harvard Graduate School of Education

Related Articles

Virtual Running Records During the Pandemic

Navigating Literacy Challenges, Fostering a Love of Reading

With ongoing debates around the best ways to teach reading, what makes for truly effective literacy instruction?

To Weather the "Literacy Crisis," Do What Works

Reading Recovery Europe

• About Reading Recovery
• For school leaders and teachers
• For researchers
• For parents
• Reading Recovery Network
• News and media coverage about RRE

Celebrating the impact of Reading Recovery

Reading Recovery professionals in Europe are celebrating their work and the achievements of children who participated in the Reading Recovery programme. 

Reading Recovery professionals in schools across Ireland, Malta and the UK are celebrating the achievements of children who have participated in Reading Recovery.

During the two weeks of 13 th  - 24 th  May 2024 we will be asking:

• What’s special about Reading Recovery?
• What does progress look like?  
• What do Reading Recovery teachers do?  
• What difference has Reading Recovery made?  
• How do we know that Reading Recovery works?  
• Why does Reading Recovery work?

Read more about Celebating the impact of Reading Recovery .

Related News

Rre success.

In the last 32 years Reading Recovery Europe has helped 220,342 children who were non readers to succeed in literacy.  

In Europe, 17 out of 20 children who complete Reading Recovery catch up with their classmates within 20 weeks.  This level of success, evidence based, has been consistent for over 30 years. 

• 8956 teachers trained to deliver RR in schools
• 234 teacher leaders trained to provide professional development and support for RR teachers

TechRepublic

8 Best Data Science Tools and Software

Apache Spark and Hadoop, Microsoft Power BI, Jupyter Notebook and Alteryx are among the top data science tools for finding business insights. Compare their features, pros and cons.

EU’s AI Act: Europe’s New Rules for Artificial Intelligence

Europe's AI legislation, adopted March 13, attempts to strike a tricky balance between promoting innovation and protecting citizens' rights.

10 Best Predictive Analytics Tools and Software for 2024

Tableau, TIBCO Data Science, IBM and Sisense are among the best software for predictive analytics. Explore their features, pricing, pros and cons to find the best option for your organization.

Tableau Review: Features, Pricing, Pros and Cons

Tableau has three pricing tiers that cater to all kinds of data teams, with capabilities like accelerators and real-time analytics. And if Tableau doesn’t meet your needs, it has a few alternatives worth noting.

Top 6 Enterprise Data Storage Solutions for 2024

Amazon, IDrive, IBM, Google, NetApp and Wasabi offer some of the top enterprise data storage solutions. Explore their features and benefits, and find the right solution for your organization's needs.

Latest Articles

How Can Businesses Defend Themselves Against Common Cyberthreats?

TechRepublic consolidated expert advice on how businesses can defend themselves against the most common cyberthreats, including zero-days, ransomware and deepfakes.

Top 10 CRM Features and Functionalities

Discover the top CRM features for business success. Explore a curated list of key capabilities to consider when choosing the right CRM solution, including marketing tools, activity tracking and more.

Combatting Deepfakes in Australia: Content Credentials is the Start

The production of deepfakes is accelerating at more than 1,500% in Australia, forcing organisations to create and adopt standards like Content Credentials.

The Top 5 Pipedrive Alternatives for 2024

Discover the top alternatives to Pipedrive. Explore a curated list of CRM platforms with similar features, pricing and pros and cons to find the best fit for your business.

The Australian Government’s Manufacturing Objectives Rely on IT Capabilities

The intent of the Future Made in Australia Act is to build manufacturing capabilities across all sectors, which will likely lead to more demand for IT skills and services.

Udemy Report: Which IT Skills Are Most in Demand in Q1 2024?

Informatica PowerCenter, Microsoft Playwright and Oracle Database SQL top Udemy’s list of most popular tech courses.

Gartner: 4 Bleeding-Edge Technologies in Australia

Gartner recently identified emerging tech that will impact enterprise leaders in APAC. Here’s what IT leaders in Australia need to know about these innovative technologies.

Llama 3 Cheat Sheet: A Complete Guide for 2024

Learn how to access Meta’s new AI model Llama 3, which sets itself apart by being open to use under a license agreement.

Zoho vs Salesforce (2024): Which CRM Is Better?

Look at Zoho CRM and Salesforce side-by-side to compare the cost per functionality and top pros and of each provider to determine which is better for your business needs.

9 Innovative Use Cases of AI in Australian Businesses in 2024

Australian businesses are beginning to effectively grapple with AI and build solutions specific to their needs. Here are notable use cases of businesses using AI.

How Are APAC Tech Salaries Faring in 2024?

The year 2024 is bringing a return to stable tech salary growth in APAC, with AI and data jobs leading the way. This follows downward salary pressure in 2023, after steep increases in previous years.

Anthropic Releases Claude Team Enterprise AI Plan and iOS App

The enterprise plan seeks to fill a need for generative AI tools for small and medium businesses. Plus, a Claude app is now on iOS.

Top Tech Conferences & Events to Add to Your Calendar in 2024

A great way to stay current with the latest technology trends and innovations is by attending conferences. Read and bookmark our 2024 tech events guide.

TechRepublic Premium Editorial Calendar: Policies, Checklists, Hiring Kits and Glossaries for Download

TechRepublic Premium content helps you solve your toughest IT issues and jump-start your career or next project.

IBM Acquires HashiCorp for $6.4 Billion, Expanding Hybrid Cloud Offerings

The deal is intended to strengthen IBM’s hybrid and multicloud offerings and generative AI deployment.

Create a TechRepublic Account

Get the web's best business technology news, tutorials, reviews, trends, and analysis—in your inbox. Let's start with the basics.

* - indicates required fields

Sign in to TechRepublic

Lost your password? Request a new password

Reset Password

Please enter your email adress. You will receive an email message with instructions on how to reset your password.

Check your email for a password reset link. If you didn't receive an email don't forgot to check your spam folder, otherwise contact support .

Welcome. Tell us a little bit about you.

This will help us provide you with customized content.

Want to receive more TechRepublic news?

You're all set.

Thanks for signing up! Keep an eye out for a confirmation email from our team. To ensure any newsletters you subscribed to hit your inbox, make sure to add [email protected] to your contacts list.

Search Reading Recovery

Search all of our online content from one place.

• Reading Recovery
• Descubriendo la Lectura
• Intervention préventive en lecture-écriture
• Literacy Lessons
• Principles of Reading Recovery
• Reading Recovery Lessons
• Scientific Research Base
• Training for Teachers
• Training for Teacher Leaders
• Training for University Trainers
• Assessment and Systematic Observation
• Diagnostic Instruction
• Systematic Evaluation and Accountability
• Steps for Collecting Student Data
• Evaluating Reading Recovery’s Effectiveness
• Research Agenda
• Annual Research Questions
• IDEC National Summary Reports
• Observation Survey
• Early Literacy Processing Theory
• Biography of Marie Clay
• Books by Marie Clay
• JRR Tribute to Marie Clay
• Remembering Marie Clay
• Historical Videos of Marie Clay
• Common Questions
• Getting Started
• Executive Council
• Improvement Sciences Hub
• Training Centers
• Committees & Workgroups
• Professional Staff
• Associate Members
• E-Learning Center
• Listening Library
• Research Article Database
• Effective Literacy Videos
• Teacher Resources
• Lesson Forms
• Changing Futures
• Promising Literacy for Every Child
• Professional Learning Toolkits
• Standards & Guidelines
• Responding to Critics
• Legislative Resources
• School & District Leadership
• Teacher Communication
• Voices from the Field
• Customizable Resources
• Teacher Leader Institute 2024
• Regional and International Events
• Community Forum

Reading Recovery Overview

Reading Recovery is a trademark intervention with standards and guidelines to ensure the integrity of the intervention and the high quality of expected results. The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) engaged in a 4-year evaluation of Reading Recovery in an i3 scale-up grant (May et al., 2016). CPRE assessed program fidelity by analyzing consistency with the Standards and Guidelines of Reading Recovery in the United States . Their analysis revealed strong fidelity to the program model across all years of the study, supporting the validity of their impact findings.

Reading Recovery serves the lowest-achieving first graders—the students who are not catching on to the complex set of concepts that make reading and writing possible. Individual students receive a half-hour lesson each school day for 12 to 20 weeks with a specially trained Reading Recovery teacher. As soon as students can meet grade-level expectations and demonstrate that they can continue to work independently in the classroom, their lessons are discontinued, and new students begin individual instruction.

Reading Recovery Basics

Overarching goal.

To intervene early (first grade) before students’ literacy difficulties become lifelong obstacles.

Aim for students

To develop effective reading and writing strategies in order to make faster than average progress and work successfully and independently in classrooms.

Available in other languages

For students whose literacy instruction is delivered in Spanish ( Descubriendo la Lectura ) in the United States; also available in French in Canada ( L’intervention préventive en lecture- écriture ).

Short-term individualized literacy instruction

30 minutes daily for 12 to 20 weeks for first graders having the most literacy difficulties (supplementing good classroom instruction).

Continuous professional development

Initial training for an academic year and subsequent ongoing professional development for school-based teachers, site/district-based teacher leaders, and university trainers.

Research-based instruction

Carefully designed intensive instructional practices; individual instruction based on informed decision making by a knowledgeable teacher using appropriate assessments and systematic observation.

Multilevel evaluation

(a) data collected daily by Reading Recovery teachers to inform instruction,

(b) descriptive and outcome data for every child served collected and reported by Ohio State University’s International Data Evaluation Center, and

(c) research validating the effectiveness of the intervention.

Planned systemic implementation

Fidelity of implementation based on adherence to trademark standards and guidelines for teaching, training, and implementation at school and district levels.

Community of support

Includes university training centers, North American Trainers Group, Reading Recovery Council of North America, International Data Evaluation Center, Canadian Institute of Reading Recovery, state/regional teacher leaders and teachers.

Essential Components

As an early intervention, Reading Recovery is best described using four essential components. Click on each component to learn more about it.

1. Instructional Component

The instructional component requires commitment to three processes:

• Carefully Designed Intensive Instructional Practices
• Individual Instruction Based on Informed Decision Making On the Run.

2. Continuous Professional Development

Continuous Professional Development involves:

• University-Site Partnership
• Reading Recovery Teacher Leader Training and Field Year
• Reading Recovery Teacher Training Year
• Regular, Ongoing Professional Development for Teacher Leaders and Teachers

3. Systems Implementation

Systemic Implementation involves:

• Developing Long-Range Plans
• Scheduling to ensure efficiency and impact
• Planning for implementation
• Planning for Full Coverage
• Using a Network of Support Locally and Nationally

4. Intervention Evaluation

Evaluation of Reading Recovery Students involves:

• Submitting pre-test and post-test data for every Reading Recovery Student compared to a randomly selected control group’s pre-test and post-test data to a secure website at The Ohio State University’s International Data Evaluation Center (IDEC).
• Two positive outcomes of the Intervention

THE JOURNAL OF READING RECOVERY

Spring 2024.

Constructing a More Complex Neural Network for Working on Written Language That Learns to Extend Itself by Carol A. Lyons

Reading Recovery IS the Science(s) of Reading and the Art of Teaching by Debra Semm Rich

Predictions of Progress: Charting, Adjusting, and Shaping Individual Lessons by Janice Van Dyke and Melissa Wilde

Teachers Designing for Context: Using Integrity Principles to Design Early Literacy Support in Aotearoa New Zealand by Rebecca Jesson, Judy Aitken, and Yu Liu

Missing Something ?

We recently launched our new site. If you’re having trouble finding something, use this form to let us know and we’ll help you find it.

[ Placeholder content for popup link ] WordPress Download Manager - Best Download Management Plugin