Reading Recovery

By Tammy Mills, Ph.D., University of Maine

Teaching young children to read and write, especially if they experience difficulty, is a complicated task. Each child brings a variety of experiences and unique backgrounds to the endeavor. In spite of the advances made in teaching all students to read, some students struggle with literacy learning and require early intervention. If children experience difficulty, leveraging their backgrounds and experiences, building on their strengths, and understanding their areas of weakness takes on a sense of urgency.

Diverse approaches exist to teach students to read (e.g., Allington, 2002; Lose, 2007; NICHD National Reading Panel Report, 2000; Shanahan, 2003, 2004). Some literacy scholars prefer a more linear approach that emphasizes direct instruction of systematic phonics (NICHD, 2000). Others favor a complex, integrated approach; one that includes the development of students’ phonics knowledge and skills, and understands literacy learning as a process of problem-solving whereby students draw on their prior knowledge of language, texts, words, and the world (e.g., Allington, 2002; Clay, 2005, 2015, 2016; D’Agostino & Murphy, 2004).

Reading Recovery (RR) is an intervention that takes a complex view of literacy learning and seeks to make the most of a student’s knowledge and skills. RR is a literacy intervention that helps first-grade students reach the average of their class within 12-20 weeks (What Works Clearinghouse [WWC], 2013). Specifically, RR is a preventative intervention designed to facilitate the accelerated literacy learning of first-grade children who experience difficulty with literacy learning and seeks to accomplish two goals:

• Accelerate the learning of most first-grade children who struggle with literacy learning and help them develop an independent system for continued learning; and
• Identify those children who may need further evaluation and long-term support (Denton, 2006).

In a review of literacy programs conducted by the federal government’s What Works Clearinghouse (WWC, 2013), RR emerged as the only intervention that makes a significant difference in reading achievement for young children. The question could be, then, what works about RR? Students’ accelerated literacy learning appears to depend on the complex network of continued teacher professional learning, successful implementation, and ongoing research, development, and evaluation that make up the broader system of RR (e.g., May, Sirinides, Gray, & Goldsworthy, 2016). Further, aforementioned scholars contend there are no simple answers when it comes to teaching reading and writing to young children. Rather, RR suggests that:

• Literacy teaching and learning are complex, and sometimes hard, especially for children who have difficulty learning to read and write (Burroughs & Douetil, 2007);
• There are no silver bullets, no “teacher replacements,” no quick or easy apps by which children can learn to read and write (Lose, 2007);
• A knowledgeable, skilled teacher, using evidence-based teaching procedures, can follow a child’s lead, and create an authentic child-centered approach to learning (Taylor, 2018);
• Investment in the ongoing development of teacher knowledge pays off in student achievement (Taylor, 2018);
• A complex theory of literacy processing helps researchers and educators to understand how the development of literacy changes over time for each child and how literacy learning can be accelerated in children experiencing difficulty with learning to read and write (Clay, 2015); and
• Literacy teaching and learning are about problem-solving. As children read to understand meaningful messages from print, they use many sources of information. They come to conclusions about what they are reading by checking sources of information against each other, a problem-solving process (Clay, 2016).

A complex view of literacy learning such as RR focuses researchers and educators on how children reach common outcomes (an effective system of reading and writing) by different paths (Clay, 2016).

Thus, children will draw simultaneously on many sources of information to make sense of text, including their knowledge of the language, print, and the world. A complex view of literacy teaching means teachers develop an understanding of the unique experiences and needs of each child and use those experiences to help the child develop a system for successful, independent literacy learning.

To that end, RR teachers teach RR students in a one-on-one context, intervening when necessary, using evidence-based teaching procedures, and focusing on leveraging the child’s strengths to mitigate weaknesses at the moment of intervention. RR teachers closely observe children and record literacy behavior and activity as children read and write text to assess the sources of information they use throughout the problem-solving process. RR teachers base their teaching decisions on their close observation of each child and aim to help each child become a more efficient and strategic problem solver. By prompting for and/or demonstrating problem-solving strategies that will accelerate a child’s learning when reading print, RR teachers help children become more efficient, productive problem solvers of texts.

The accelerated progress of RR is rooted in the complex theory of literacy processing and the constantly evolving relationships among the RR child, the RR teacher, RR teacher learning, RR teaching procedures, and a system of ongoing, sensitive observation. During a typical RR tutoring session, the child reads and writes continuous text under the close observation of the RR teacher. Ongoing teaching decisions are aimed at accelerating the learning of each child and are based on the teacher’s close observations of a child’s reading and writing activity with continuous text.

The RR teacher enacts teaching decisions throughout a tutoring session by implementing specific, evidence-based RR teaching procedures (Clay, 2016). Examples of teaching procedures include prompting the child, if necessary, for specific activity in order to initiate or to scaffold the child’s attempt at problem-solving. For example, if a child miscues the word “yes” for the word “you,” the RR teacher might say, “That word looks right because it begins with a Y. Look all the way through to the end of that word and think about what would sound right.”

Education Essential Reads

Why So Many Students Are Not Learning

30 Million College Grade Records Reveal the Power of Names

Other procedures include sorting magnetic letters to promote a child’s noticing of specific features of particular letters, help a child learn onset and rime, and learn to apply what they know or nearly know about words to solve new words. In this way, the RR teacher accelerates child learning by using a deep understanding of literacy processing theory, a knowledge of what that particular child might need at a particular moment, and an ability to flexibly apply RR teaching procedures.

The use of such a child-centered approach is successful when teachers base their teaching decisions on their sensitive observations of child behavior (Clay, 2005). Those observations begin with the use of the Observation Survey (OS; Clay, 2015).

RR students are identified for the intervention through the administration of the OS, a multifaceted, standardized assessment that uses national norms for performance at the beginning, middle, and end of first grade. The OS is administered in a one-on-one setting during which a teacher closely observes the behavior and activity of a child when they complete a variety of literacy tasks. The individualized administration of the OS gives teachers an opportunity to observe and record the unique literacy behaviors of each child. In this way, the OS provides teachers with meaningful, actionable information regarding the complex processes children use to problem solve and gain meaningful messages from text. As a child progresses in RR, teachers use the OS and other observation RR observation protocols and materials to continuously hone their skills.

Despite literacy activities being grounded in sound theoretical principles, the translation of theory to actionable practice can be difficult. Observations of literacy activities provide opportunities for RR teachers to delve deep insight into the multiple ways each child develops literacy abilities and to learn about the different knowledge and skills each child brings to the task of problem-solving.

With the guidance of a more knowledgeable other (RR teacher leader), RR teachers connect theory to practice by observing each other teach students in two settings, the tutorial setting within each other’s schools, and the clinical setting. The clinical setting includes a one-way glass behind which a RR teacher and student engage in a lesson. On one side of the glass, the RR teacher leader and fellow RR teachers engage in ongoing dialog about the RR lesson taking place on the other side. In each context (tutorial and behind the glass), RR teachers use inquiry and discussion to explore the theoretical rationale behind teaching decisions and examine resulting child outcomes. In this way, RR teachers operationalize reflection by continuously deconstructing and examining their use of RR protocols and teaching procedures.

In designing RR, Clay (2015) alluded to the learning of both teachers and children, “If literacy teaching only brings a simple theory to a set of complex activities, then the learner has to bridge the gaps created by the theoretical simplification” (p. 105). Clay felt it was necessary to expose teachers and children to the complexities that underlie the problem-solving processes of literacy learning. She feared that simplifying complexity (e.g., through the use of scripted programs that emphasize one feature of literacy learning or linear views that assume all children develop literacy in one way) would leave teachers (and children) to their own devices to fill in the gaps. That is, they would create processes for problem-solving based on their own theories of how things work. In doing so, they run the risk of drawing murky conclusions (Clay, 2016).

According to Clay (2016), when complex theories of literacy learning are used to create clear teaching procedures, protocols, and materials, design ongoing professional development, provide opportunities to reflect on teaching decisions and child outcomes, teachers and children are able to learn literacy through expanded, theoretically sound systems for independent problem-solving.