NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ1020925
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2013
Pages: 15
Abstractor: As Provided
ISSN: ISSN-0144-3410
EISSN: EISSN-1469-5820
The Effects of Reading Recovery on Children's Literacy Progress and Special Educational Needs Status: A Three-Year Follow-Up Study
Holliman, Andrew J.; Hurry, Jane
Educational Psychology, v33 n6 p719-733 2013
Reading Recovery (RR) is an intensive one-to-one reading intervention programme designed for five- to six-year-old children who are the lowest literacy achievers after one year of formal tuition. RR has been shown to have impressive effects in the short-term, particularly on those measures tailored to, and designed for, the programme. However, less is known about the programme's long-term effectiveness. The present study followed up at the end of Year 4: 120 comparison children, 73 children who had received RR three years earlier, and 48 children in RR schools who had not received RR. We found that the children who had received RR achieved an average National Curriculum (NC) level of 3b in reading which indicates being on track for Level 4 at the end of Key Stage 2. The comparison children were on average at Level 2a in reading, significantly lower than the RR. RR children were also significantly less likely than comparison children to be identified as having a special educational need at the end of Year 3. These findings indicate that effects of the RR programme are still apparent three years post-intervention.
Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Location: United Kingdom (London)
Identifiers - Assessments and Surveys: British Ability Scales
Grant or Contract Numbers: N/A
What Works Clearinghouse Reviewed: Does Not Meet Evidence Standards