Chapman & Tunmer: 'Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues' July 2018

Downloads and links to relevant research and articles, along with book recommendations.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Chapman & Tunmer: 'Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues' July 2018

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:44 am

Here is another important paper written by James Chapman and William Tunmer published in the UK journal, Review of Education:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... /rev3.3121

Original Article

Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues

James W. Chapman William E. Tunmer

First published: 10 July 2018


Abstract

Reading Recovery (RR) was developed in New Zealand in the early 1980s to provide 30 minutes of daily individualised literacy instruction over 20 weeks for students struggling with learning to read after one year of formal schooling. Considerable research has been undertaken on the RR programme. While results indicate short‐term success for some students, each year 15–30% of students do not successfully complete the programme and are therefore ‘unrecovered’. Research on the characteristics of these unrecovered students is sparse. This review examines findings on the characteristics of unrecovered students. These RR students typically have limited phonemic awareness and phonemically based decoding skills, and lower scores on RR screening measures on entry to RR than ‘recovered’ students. In New Zealand, unrecovered students tend to be enrolled in schools serving lower socio‐economic neighbourhoods, and tend to be from Māori or Pasifika (Polynesian Pacific Island heritage) backgrounds. These students typically receive more RR lessons than recovered students. We conclude that RR does not tailor instruction to meet the needs of individual students, as claimed. The RR instructional model, developed in the 1970s, fails to recognise the importance of explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and the use of letter–sound relations. Such instruction is essential for most students who struggle with literacy learning during their early years of schooling and especially important for students who experience the most difficulty with learning to read. Suggestions are presented for strengthening the RR programme and for reducing the number of unrecovered students.


[DH: I've added the 'bold' and red colouring.]
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Chapman & Tunmer: 'Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues' July 2018

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:53 am

I'm cross-referencing this thread with previous papers written by James Chapman and William Tunmer featuring review of Reading Recovery and its outcomes on children with various reading profiles - the question is, will Reading Recovery ever be modified to be fully in line with the findings of a body of research on reading instruction and take up suggestions offered by James and Bill? So far, it's not looking likely:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=570
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Chapman & Tunmer: 'Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues' July 2018

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:59 am

You can read more about the work of IFERI committee members, James Chapman and Bill Tunmer here:

Professor James Chapman:

http://www.iferi.org/team-members-profi ... ew-Zealand

Professor William Tunmer:

http://www.iferi.org/team-members-profi ... ew-Zealand
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Chapman & Tunmer: 'Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues' July 2018

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:44 pm

https://iferi.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... 2018-2.pdf

Reading Recovery’s unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues

James W. Chapman* and William E. Tunmer

College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Chapman & Tunmer: 'Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues' July 2018

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:50 am

Concluding paragraphs:

Similar concerns about the efficacy of RR contributed to the decision by the New South Wales Department of Education to discontinue supporting the programme in that Australian state. According to Smith (2017), the RR programme in New South Wales costs A$50 million to run, but the programme is ineffective, and improvements for some students are often short-lived.


The ongoing failure of RR to meet the needs of those children who most require literacy learning supports appears to stem from the failure of those responsible for the programme to accept changes to RR based on contemporary scientific research. If the RR programme cannot be changed to reflect contemporary scientific research on reading interventions, it should be dropped and replaced by a more contemporary, research-based reading intervention approach.


My red colouring!

How long will it take, or will it ever happen, that RR's claim about 'reading recovery' is fully laid bare - and the world moves on with a truly shared understanding about reading instruction in the English language based on research findings and truly leading-edge practice?
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Chapman & Tunmer: 'Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues' July 2018

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:01 pm

Page 3 of the report:

Similarly, University College London’s Institute of Education in England, which hosts the RR programme in the UK, claims ‘that no other system achieves such good results so swiftly and so long lasting’ as RR (University College London, 2018, p. 1).


Read the report and consider whether this claim is justified.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Chapman & Tunmer: 'Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues' July 2018

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:00 am

Twitter exchange re the entrenchment of Reading Recovery in England - with Professor Daniel Muijs, head of research for Ofsted (the inspectorate in England):

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1062&p=2090#p2090
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2118
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Chapman & Tunmer: 'Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues' July 2018

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:00 pm

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=861

The Reading Wars and Reading Recovery: What Educators, Families, and Taxpayers Should Know

Pamela Cook
Deborah R. Rodes
Kay L. Lipsitz

Return to “Research and Recommended Reading”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests