Reading Recovery Methodology As Special Education

READING RECOVERY METHODOLOGY AS SPECIAL EDUCATION LITERACY INTERVENTION ______________! A University Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, East Bay ______________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Special Education ______________ By Robert Mead Chamberlin September 2015 Table of Contents List of Figures..........................................iv Chapter One. Introduction................................1 General Statement of the Problem.....................1 Literacy, Evidence Based Practices and Scientifically Based Research........................1 Reading Recovery Research and Intervention...........4 Chapter Two. Literature Review...........................6 Chapter Three. Methodology..............................22 Research Design.....................................22 Participants........................................22 Student One: Ivan..............................24 Student Two: Duane.............................24 Student Three: Joseph..........................25 Measures: Dependent Variables......................26 Procedures..........................................29 Chapter Four. Results...................................31 Student One: Ivan...................................34 Student Two: Duane..................................37 Student Three: Joseph..............................39 Chapter Five. Discussion................................43 Student Outcomes....................................43 Student One: Ivan..............................43 Student Two: Duane............................45 Student Three: Joseph.........................47 Limitations.........................................48 Importance of Outcomes to Existing Research.........49 Implications for Further Research...................51 Chapter Six. Summary....................................53 References...............................................55 ! """! List of Figures Figure 1. Baseline and Ending Running Record Levels for Ivan, Duane and Joseph.........................31 Figure 2. Baseline and Ending Letter Identification Levels for Ivan, Duane and Joseph..............32 Figure 3. Baseline and Ending Word Identification Levels for Ivan, Duane and Joseph.....................32 Figure 4. Baseline and Ending Concepts About Print scores for Ivan, Duane and Joseph..............33 Figure 5. Baseline and Ending Running Record Levels for Ivan, Duane and Joseph.........................33 Figure 6. Baseline and Ending Hearing sounds in Words (HSIW) scores for Ivan, Duane and Joseph.......34 Figure 7. Ivan’s weekly Running Record Levels............35 Figure 8. Ivan’s weekly reading accuracy percentages.....35 Figure 9. Ivan’s weekly count of known words.............36 Figure 10. Duane’s weekly Running Record Levels..........37 Figure 11. Duane’s weekly reading accuracy percentages...38 Figure 12. Duane’s weekly count of known words...........38 Figure 13. Joseph’s weekly Running Record Levels.........40 Figure 14. Joseph’s weekly reading accuracy percentages..41 Figure 15. Joseph’s weekly count of known words..........41 ! "#! ! "! Chapter One INTRODUCTION General Statement of the Problem The present study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Reading Recovery methodology in increasing the literacy skills of students with moderate to severe disabilities. Literacy, Evidence Based Practices and Scientifically Based Research. While school districts, publishers, general education classroom teachers and school administrators scramble to address the literacy learning of the general education population in response to the new Common Core reading and writing standards, special education teachers continue to search for effective, evidence-based practices that will address the complex needs of their students with moderate to severe disabilities. In 2000 the National Reading Panel concluded its exhaustive study of research based reading and published its recommendations of the most effective evidence-based methods for teaching children to read. Their analysis ! ! #! made it clear that the best approach for teaching children to read included: explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, systematic phonics instruction, methods to improve fluency and vocabulary as well as ways to enhance comprehension, (National Reading Panel, 2000). Shortly after the National Reading Panel (NRP) report was released the National Institute for Literacy published its summary of the findings of the NRP and included suggestions on how the findings can be translated into practice. Sections include phonemic awareness instruction, phonics instruction, vocabulary instruction, fluency instruction, and text comprehension instruction (National Institute for Literacy, 2001).! The Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 (IDEA) aligned IDEA closely to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. NCLB defined the term 'scientifically based research' as (A) meaning research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs. IDEA addresses scientifically based research in the following context: ! ! $! “…Professional development activities for teachers and other school staff to enable such personnel to deliver scientifically based academic instructional and behavioral interventions, including scientifically based literacy instruction, where appropriate…providing educational and behavioral evaluations, services and supports, including scientifically based literacy instruction” [IDEA 2004 {(613(f)(2)(A)(B)}]. Over the course of the last decade this new knowledge about reading and a general push toward scientifically based literacy instruction has driven extensive research toward existing literacy programs which integrated these proven literacy practices and were found effective at increasing literacy for students with disabilities. Many literacy programs traditionally delivered to general education students had not been researched as a special education intervention. By reviewing and analyzing what scientific research studies existed researchers have been determining what comprehensive literacy instructional programs and interventions exist for students with disabilities. While primarily focusing on literacy interventions for students with more significant disabilities, studies that address significant learning disabilities should be considered by those working in the field as relevant to ! ! %! determining effective practices for students who are struggling to learn to read. Reading Recovery Research and Intervention The Reading Recovery program was developed in the 1970’s by New Zealand educator and researcher, Marie M. Clay, and is designed as a short-term reading and writing intervention targeting first graders identified as having the lowest performance in their grade, through the standardized Observation Survey. Lessons are individualized to each individual student’s needs and delivered by teachers specifically trained to assess what the child knows and what they need to learn next, and to design lessons to teach that. Over the course of 12 to 20 weeks students will typically make rapid growth in their reading skills, with entering first grade students being the lowest in their grade and achieving an end of first grade reading level in order to be exited successfully from the program. As of July 2013, What Works Clearinghouse, established by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES), found Reading Recovery to “…have positive effects on general reading achievement and ! ! &! potentially positive effects on alphabetics, reading fluency, and comprehension for beginning readers” (p.1) While there are 30 years of research describing the effectiveness of the Reading Recovery program as it is prescribed there seems to be little research around its use as a methodology to be used for students with moderate to severe disabilities. At the same time, there seem to be limitations in the variety of research surrounding evidence-based practices that are effective in teaching, reinforcing, and/or furthering the early literacy skills of students with moderate to severe disabilities. The studies cited and discussed in chapter two constitute much of the recent published research. At its core, the specific, individualized nature of the Reading Recovery Program seems ideal to meet the needs of special education students struggling with the reading process. ! ! '! Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW In 2009, Browder, Gibbs, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade, Mraz and Flowers published an article that proposed a conceptual foundation for early literacy instruction for students with severe developmental disabilities. These authors had examined the components of reading outlined by the National Reading Panel as well as research recommendations offered by No Child Left Behind and found that students with severe developmental disabilities were not part of the reformative movement in Literacy instruction. After conducting a review of evidence based research strategies and justifications for early literacy instruction for students with severe developmental disabilities Browder, Gibbs et al., (2009) were able to suggest two targeted outcomes for literacy instruction: increased access to literature and increased independence as a reader. Their model of instruction focuses on meaningful interactions with text through shared literature readings as well as increasing the student’s independence as a reader

Load more