This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reading Recovery article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I heard somewhere that Australia had dropped the programme citing cost-ineffectiveness ; is there any truth in that and if so shouldn't that be incorporated into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.96.226 ( talk) 10:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, but it reads far more like an advertisement. -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 11:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Quite so. it reads like an advertisement, taken directly from the site. This could even be a copyvio, you never know where this sort of stuff comes from. Someone needs to clean it up, and it sure as hell aint gonna be me! Well... not until exams are over anyway. THE KING 11:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The page was not a copyvio: The webpage where it came from was explicitely public domain. BUT, it was pro-Reading Recovery. I cleaned up the following:
-- Mkill 20:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Reading Recovery is currently used to teach English, French and Spanish language literacy in North America. 173.206.231.16 ( talk) 23:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Reading Recovery is a very expensive program that the What Works Clearinghouse deemed effective based on its review of 5 studies, most of which were conducted by proponents of the program. The Clearinghouse has research requirements that do not consider "who" conducted the research. The program, in its annual report, does not include data for ALL students who were served by the program. Alleged initial gains made by children do not "stick," because the program fails to incorporate what the National Reading Panel has deemed essential-systematic phonics. Yes...Queensland, Australia has dropped the program entirely because independent analyses demonstrate that children served do not benefit in the long run. Proponents are very quick to "co-opt" language found in the Panel's report, but the "devil is in the details." Check out the statements about the program made by a group of independent, respected, well-known researchers that were posted on the internet not so long ago. The Reading Recovery website even posts tips for "lobbying" congress members so that the program receives funds. In Ohio, the state budget continues to have a line item, approved by the governor, ensuring that public funds are set aside for a program that has failed to produce.
Rrgoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.52.63 ( talk) 14:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Beside a much too long introductory paragraph, this entry is full of small errors and larger problems such as a lack of in-line citations and what strikes me as a very non-NPOV. This article looks like the victim of the politicized debate over reading instruction rather than a objective description.
Will work on some of it. CercareVerita ( talk) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is nothing more than an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.184.70 ( talk) 14:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly controversy, but in the context of public education it does not seem that this program is the best use of resources. Whilst the program does 'work', there are alternatives which are cheaper and more effective. Given the limited budget for public education, the question of cost effectiveness is very real. This article directed at teachers and parents probably sums it up well http://www.musec.mq.edu.au/community_outreach/musec_briefings#3 "Reading Recovery appears to be mildly effective but possibly not as effective as it should be given its high cost and limited utility." 60.240.207.146 ( talk) 06:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I added the advert tag to this page, since it appears that this is written from a non-NPOV that is very heavily biased towards this subject, and it appears that talk along these lines has started to develop once or twice in the past ten years on this talk page but nothing's been done yet. Makaristos ( talk) 02:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The "Further Reading" section of the article includes quite a few references to papers published in "The Journal of Reading Recovery" and "Literacy Teaching and Learning". Both of these are controlled by the Reading Recovery Council of North America, an organization which specifically advocates for the Reading Recovery program: https://readingrecovery.org/rrcna/about-rrcna/#_vision-mission.
QUESTION: Should these references be removed?
Tagging in User:Beeblebrox, User:Makaristos, User:Mkill.
Davebraze ( talk) 00:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
No idea about this program, but the first sentence referring to a concept as "discredited" and citing a couple papers from last year seems pretty non-Neutral-POV. BoosterBronze ( talk) 20:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Reading Recovery was reevaluated by the What Works Clearinghouse in 2023, following a study that many point to as discrediting the intervention. However, that research study was found in reevaluation to have multiple problems that delimit the studies findings:
1. There was a 75% attrition rate in the study. Only 25% of the original group of students were available for data collection. Additionally, third-grade test scores were available for approximately 27% of the total sample and fourth-grade test scores were available for approximately 17% of the total number of control students. This level of attrition delimits any inferences that can be drawn from this study. 2. The control group and the treatment group were not equivalent. The control group students did not receive Reading Recovery because they were not the lowest literacy learners in their first-grade classrooms and were able to learn with classroom teaching. 3. The types of instructional support and materials provided in years, two, three, and four were not considered by May’s study.
May’s study indicated that children did not continue to make adequate progress over time. However, it is important to note that in interviews, the author of this study recommended schools continue using Reading Recovery and provide further monitoring to maintain the highly positive early effects of the intervention.
At the same conference, a study from the United Kingdom, Hurry, Fridkin and Holliman’s study [1] showed long-term positive effects of Reading Recovery on UK students at age 16. Multiple longitudinal studies on Reading Recovery outcomes in the U.S. have shown positive results. Other peer-reviewed studies show positive long-term gains, including "Reading intervention at age 6: Long-term effects of Reading Recovery in the UK on qualifications and support at age 16." [16]
Reading Recovery has twice been found effective by US Department of Education's What Works Clearinghouse and also by Evidence for ESSA. Uberbink ( talk) 14:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reading Recovery article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I heard somewhere that Australia had dropped the programme citing cost-ineffectiveness ; is there any truth in that and if so shouldn't that be incorporated into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.96.226 ( talk) 10:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, but it reads far more like an advertisement. -- Angr/ tɔk tə mi 11:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Quite so. it reads like an advertisement, taken directly from the site. This could even be a copyvio, you never know where this sort of stuff comes from. Someone needs to clean it up, and it sure as hell aint gonna be me! Well... not until exams are over anyway. THE KING 11:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The page was not a copyvio: The webpage where it came from was explicitely public domain. BUT, it was pro-Reading Recovery. I cleaned up the following:
-- Mkill 20:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Reading Recovery is currently used to teach English, French and Spanish language literacy in North America. 173.206.231.16 ( talk) 23:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Reading Recovery is a very expensive program that the What Works Clearinghouse deemed effective based on its review of 5 studies, most of which were conducted by proponents of the program. The Clearinghouse has research requirements that do not consider "who" conducted the research. The program, in its annual report, does not include data for ALL students who were served by the program. Alleged initial gains made by children do not "stick," because the program fails to incorporate what the National Reading Panel has deemed essential-systematic phonics. Yes...Queensland, Australia has dropped the program entirely because independent analyses demonstrate that children served do not benefit in the long run. Proponents are very quick to "co-opt" language found in the Panel's report, but the "devil is in the details." Check out the statements about the program made by a group of independent, respected, well-known researchers that were posted on the internet not so long ago. The Reading Recovery website even posts tips for "lobbying" congress members so that the program receives funds. In Ohio, the state budget continues to have a line item, approved by the governor, ensuring that public funds are set aside for a program that has failed to produce.
Rrgoo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.52.63 ( talk) 14:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Beside a much too long introductory paragraph, this entry is full of small errors and larger problems such as a lack of in-line citations and what strikes me as a very non-NPOV. This article looks like the victim of the politicized debate over reading instruction rather than a objective description.
Will work on some of it. CercareVerita ( talk) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is nothing more than an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.184.70 ( talk) 14:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly controversy, but in the context of public education it does not seem that this program is the best use of resources. Whilst the program does 'work', there are alternatives which are cheaper and more effective. Given the limited budget for public education, the question of cost effectiveness is very real. This article directed at teachers and parents probably sums it up well http://www.musec.mq.edu.au/community_outreach/musec_briefings#3 "Reading Recovery appears to be mildly effective but possibly not as effective as it should be given its high cost and limited utility." 60.240.207.146 ( talk) 06:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I added the advert tag to this page, since it appears that this is written from a non-NPOV that is very heavily biased towards this subject, and it appears that talk along these lines has started to develop once or twice in the past ten years on this talk page but nothing's been done yet. Makaristos ( talk) 02:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The "Further Reading" section of the article includes quite a few references to papers published in "The Journal of Reading Recovery" and "Literacy Teaching and Learning". Both of these are controlled by the Reading Recovery Council of North America, an organization which specifically advocates for the Reading Recovery program: https://readingrecovery.org/rrcna/about-rrcna/#_vision-mission.
QUESTION: Should these references be removed?
Tagging in User:Beeblebrox, User:Makaristos, User:Mkill.
Davebraze ( talk) 00:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
No idea about this program, but the first sentence referring to a concept as "discredited" and citing a couple papers from last year seems pretty non-Neutral-POV. BoosterBronze ( talk) 20:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Reading Recovery was reevaluated by the What Works Clearinghouse in 2023, following a study that many point to as discrediting the intervention. However, that research study was found in reevaluation to have multiple problems that delimit the studies findings:
1. There was a 75% attrition rate in the study. Only 25% of the original group of students were available for data collection. Additionally, third-grade test scores were available for approximately 27% of the total sample and fourth-grade test scores were available for approximately 17% of the total number of control students. This level of attrition delimits any inferences that can be drawn from this study. 2. The control group and the treatment group were not equivalent. The control group students did not receive Reading Recovery because they were not the lowest literacy learners in their first-grade classrooms and were able to learn with classroom teaching. 3. The types of instructional support and materials provided in years, two, three, and four were not considered by May’s study.
May’s study indicated that children did not continue to make adequate progress over time. However, it is important to note that in interviews, the author of this study recommended schools continue using Reading Recovery and provide further monitoring to maintain the highly positive early effects of the intervention.
At the same conference, a study from the United Kingdom, Hurry, Fridkin and Holliman’s study [1] showed long-term positive effects of Reading Recovery on UK students at age 16. Multiple longitudinal studies on Reading Recovery outcomes in the U.S. have shown positive results. Other peer-reviewed studies show positive long-term gains, including "Reading intervention at age 6: Long-term effects of Reading Recovery in the UK on qualifications and support at age 16." [16]
Reading Recovery has twice been found effective by US Department of Education's What Works Clearinghouse and also by Evidence for ESSA. Uberbink ( talk) 14:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)