Abstract
Summary The findings and methodology of evaluative studies of Clay's Reading Recovery scheme are examined and the extent to which they provide evidence for success is considered. It is argued that the very large claims made by apologists for Reading Recovery receive only limited support and that further carefully designed evaluative studies are required. There follows a comparison of Clay's theoretical stance with that of a modern theorist, Marilyn Adams. It is argued that while Clay claims to adopt a pragmatic and eclectic practical position, her ‘top‐down’ approach has militated against the systematic utilisation of various ‘lower order’ strategies which would appear to enhance the scheme, in particular the inclusion of phonological recoding strategies as advocated by Iversen and Tunmer (1993). Several related matters are then examined: the efficacy of early intervention; the appropriateness of parental involvement to the scheme; the relevance of the integration debate. It is concluded that Reading Reco...
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call