University of Northern Iowa UNI ScholarWorks Curriculum & Instruction Faculty Publications Faculty Work Spring 2004 How Reading Recovery Teaches the Five Essential Elements of Reading Instruction and More: Second of a Two-Part Series Salli Forbes University of Iowa Mary Anne Doyle University of Connecticut Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright ©2004 Salli Forbes and Mary Anne Doyle. The copyright holder has granted permission for posting. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/ci_facpub Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons Recommended Citation Forbes, Salli and Doyle, Mary Anne, "How Reading Recovery Teaches the Five Essential Elements of Reading Instruction and More: Second of a Two-Part Series" (2004). Curriculum & Instruction Faculty Publications. 29. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/ci_facpub/29 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Work at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Curriculum & Instruction Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Teaching How Reading Recovery Teaches the Five Essential Elements of Reading Instruction and More Second of a Two-Part Series Salli Forbes, The University of Iowa Mary Anne Doyle, University of Connecticut This article is the second in a two-part Reading Recovery instruction in those sion instruction at various grade lev- series that provides information about three areas. In addition to a detailed els. In contrast to the focus of the how Reading Recovery instruction fits description of these elements and NRP’s work, Reading Recovery proce- the recommendations of the National Reading Recovery instruction, we pro- dures are designed for only the lowest- Reading Panel (NRP; NICHD, vided a brief description of what we achieving readers and writers after one 2000a, 2000b). In the first article, refer to as the sixth essential element: year of literacy instruction in the published in the fall 2003 issue of the processing. It is through processing classroom (first grade only in the Journal of Reading Recovery, we that readers gain control of and use United States). The objective of explained how and why the NRP was the five essential elements. Teaching Reading Recovery instruction is for created and described its recommen- for processing is indeed the heart of the lowest-achieving students to accel- dations. The NRP investigated Reading Recovery instruction. erate their learning so that they can research in three areas of reading com- read and write (process text) as well as This article will review the NRP rec- petence that were identified as essen- successful readers and writers do. ommendations for the essential ele- tial for reading instruction: alphabet- ments of vocabulary and comprehen- In addition the procedures used in ics, fluency, and comprehension. In sion instruction and describe Reading Reading Recovery were developed for relation to these three areas, the NRP Recovery teaching for these elements use in one-to-one instructional set- detailed the five essential elements of the reading process. Perhaps most tings, not for use with groups of chil- listed below: importantly, we will address what we dren in a classroom. Many of the A. Alphabetics are calling the sixth essential element approaches studied by the NRP are 1. Phonemic Awareness of processing and its critical impor- not suitable for Reading Recovery Instruction tance in the literacy development of instruction because they are intended 2. Phonics Instruction young readers. for classroom group instruction. B. Fluency Conversely, in this article we are not Note of caution: We emphasize that 3. Fluency Instruction recommending the use of procedures the purpose of the NRP’s work was to C. Comprehension designed for Reading Recovery consider research related to reading 4. Vocabulary Instruction instruction either in a classroom set- instruction for use in the classroom. 5. Text Comprehension ting or for children who can learn to Although some of the studies in the Instruction read and write from classroom NRP’s review of research were of instruction alone. Reading Recovery teachers provide struggling readers, the objective of the instruction in all five essential ele- NRP was to consider research that Reading Recovery teachers and ments. In the previous article we was “relevant to instruction of reading teacher leaders should consider the described the NRP’s recommenda- or comprehension among normal recommendations of the NRP critical- tions in three of the five essential ele- readers” (NICHD, 2000b, p. 4-41). ly, giving attention to the age, grade, ments—phonemic awareness, phon- In addition, the NRP considered and ability level of the students in the ics, and fluency—and discussed studies of vocabulary and comprehen- studies and the instructional setting 16 Journal of Reading Recovery Spring 2004 Teaching instruction, the Panel searched the methods” (NICHD, 2000b, p. 4-18). The term vocabulary research literature published from Therefore, the Panel suggests the encompasses all the words 1979–2000 on vocabulary and text importance of considering age and comprehension instruction. Even ability differences when planning learners understand and though the identification process vocabulary instruction. use in meaningful acts of yielded 50 vocabulary studies that met The term vocabulary encompasses all the criteria for inclusion, this was not communication: speaking, the words learners understand and use a sufficient number to conduct a for- listening, reading, writing. in meaningful acts of communication: mal meta-analysis. Instead, the Panel speaking, listening, reading, writing. examined the identified set to discern The Panel labels those words known trends across studies. Their examina- and used in listening and speaking as tion revealed a wide range of method- for which the recommendations are the oral vocabulary and the words ologies, implementations, and concep- intended. Despite the differences we known and used in reading and writ- tions of vocabulary instruction. The have noted, Reading Recovery teach- ing contexts as the print vocabulary. Panel also reported that while the ers do effectively teach the essential The Panel states that “the larger the studies involved 73 grade-level sam- elements of vocabulary development reader’s vocabulary (either oral or ples, almost three-fourths of that and comprehension, using procedures print), the easier it is to make sense of number (53) were distributed from that are highly effective with the spe- text” (NICHD, 2000a, p. 13). cific population of struggling students Grades 3 to 8. It reported finding very Nonreading first-grade children enter they teach. few studies of vocabulary instruction with pupils in Grades K, 1, and 2. school with an oral vocabulary that is Vocabulary Instruction The Panel offers several possible The NRP report explains that the explanations for the limited research identification of vocabulary as an of vocabulary instruction in the early essential element of reading instruc- grades. One suggestion is that vocabu- tion emerged from an initial analysis lary instruction at these levels is “not of reading comprehension research. separate from other instruction” The Panel’s review confirms that read- (NICHD, 2000b, p. 4-18) and is ing comprehension “cannot be under- therefore not a specific focus of stood without a clear description of research investigations. Another obser- the role that vocabulary development vation is that “much of early reading and vocabulary instruction play in the is, at least theoretically, done with understanding of what has been read” texts that do not exceed the vocabu- (NICHD, 2000a, p. 13). The report laries of most early readers” (NICHD, references the seminal work of F. B. 2000b, p. 4-18). On the other hand, Davis (1942) and echoes the conclu- even little books contain new and sions of other researchers in linking interesting language and terms (e.g., knowledge of word meanings to read- vintage car, earwig), and teachers pro- ing comprehension (Adams, 1990; vide instruction in new or unfamiliar Clay, 1991; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, vocabulary in order to support com- 1998). Therefore, the goal of the prehension. Panel’s review was to examine the sci- In spite of the limited amount of entific evidence related to the effect of research evidence, the Panel reports vocabulary instruction on reading per- that one trend in the data “suggests Interesting writing messages are built from interest- formance. that various ability levels and age dif- ing vocabulary, and growth in vocabulary knowl- In order to establish evidence-based ferences can significantly affect learn- edge may be observed over time. Writer Christopher recommendations for vocabulary ing gains from vocabulary instruction Haskins is a Reading Recovery student at North Franklin Elementary, South-Western City Schools. Spring 2004 Journal of Reading Recovery 17 Teaching knowledge through authentic reading should include task restructur- Reading Recovery instruc- experiences. ing as necessary and should actively engage the student. tion provides opportunities The Panel found that oral and print Finally, dependence on a single vocabularies are acquired through for the instruction of word vocabulary instruction method both indirect methods and direct meth- meanings across the lesson. will not result in optimal learn- ods. Indirect methods do not involve ing (NICHD, 2000a, p.