Literacy Learning of At-Risk First-Grade Students in the Reading Recovery Early Intervention.

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness and efficiency of the Reading Recovery early intervention. At-risk 1st-grade students were randomly assigned to receive the intervention during the 1st or 2nd half of the school year. High-average and low-average students from the same classrooms provided additional comparisons. Thirty-seven teachers from across the United States used a Web-based system to register participants (n 148), received random assignment of the at-risk students from this system, and submitted complete data sets. Performance levels were measured at 3 points across the year on M. M. Clay's (1993a) observation survey tasks, 2 standardized reading measures, and 2 phonemic awareness measures. The intervention group showed significantly higher performance compared with the random control group and no differences compared with average groups. Further analyses explored the efficiency of Reading Recovery to identify children for early intervention service and subsequent long-term literacy support. Early intervention is based on the premise that low-performing students can be identified and provided supplemental support after a relatively short exposure to classroom literacy instruction. This approach differs from remedial programs that often require a 2-year discrepancy between the child's reading level and either his or her grade level or reading potential (Stanovich, 1991). Early intervention has potential costs and benefits. A promising benefit is that the instruction helps many children develop a processing system for reading and writing so they can continue to learn within the ongoing classroom program. Another potential benefit is that an intervention program can serve as a prereferral service, reduc- ing the number of students who might otherwise need long-term literacy support. A possible disadvantage is that valuable and costly resources may be devoted to intervention programs for children who might have made adequate progress in the classroom context without the intervention. The current study investigated four interrelated questions central to judging the effectiveness and efficiency of an early intervention program. First, does the intervention increase the literacy achieve- ment of at-risk students compared with similar students participat- ing in classroom-based instruction? Second, does the intervention help at-risk students to close the achievement gap with their average peers in first-grade classrooms? Third, what percentage of students identified for interventions at the start of the school year make adequate literacy gains without an intervention program? Finally, what percentage of students need long-term literacy sup- port after receiving an intervention program? The first two ques- tions raise issues of effectiveness; the latter two relate to effi- ciency. The study examined these aspects of effectiveness and efficiency for at-risk first-grade students who had been identified to participate in the Reading Recovery (RR) early intervention program. The often-observed relation between end-of-first-grade reading performance and subsequent achievement supports one argument in favor of early intervention. Juel (1988) provided longitudinal evidence on the reading and writing development of 54 children from first through fourth grades, 24 of whom were identified as poor readers at the end of first grade. Juel reported that the