Maintaining Gains from Reading Interventions

Research suggests that young learners who are struggling with reading can make significant gains with interventions such as Reading Recovery. The evidence as to whether these gains are sustained over time, however, is more equivocal. Some studies find that achievement is maintained, while other studies find that many learners slip back to unsatisfactory levels of achievement within a few years.

Researchers from the University of Auckland wanted to probe some of the factors that may influence the maintenance of gains from these early interventions. The study was conducted in two phases.

Firstly, data from 41 different schools (relating to 505 students) was analyzed to determine how students who had received a Reading Recovery intervention in Grade 2 compared with national averages, and with the average of their own class cohort, in reading and writing achievement in Grades 4-6 (so between two and four years after the intervention had been discontinued).

Schools were then identified where students had maintained the gains they had made in the Reading Recovery program, and teachers and leaders from those schools were interviewed in order to begin to build a picture of the factors that might drive the gains to be made during a Reading Recovery intervention.

What were the results of the study?

• Around 60 percent of students who had received Reading Recovery interventions two to four years earlier were achieving at or above national average achievement levels; 40 percent were achieving below average; and 15 percent were achieving at levels that would warrant serious concern.

• Average writing scores for discontinued Reading Recovery students were well below national averages.

• The students who had been in Reading Recovery generally achieved significantly below their peers in the same class cohort. There was a great deal of variability on this measure, however. In one school in particular, the ex-Reading Recovery students were achieving on par with their peers and close to national norms.

• Students who had exited from Reading Recovery at higher levels generally achieved higher levels on the standardized tests.

• Five common themes emerged from the interview data, as possible school level factors affecting the likelihood of students maintaining the gains they had made:

1. A sense of collective responsibility for student achievement, with systems being in place across the school for collaboration and communication.

2. Systematic ongoing monitoring and recording of student progress.

3. A focus on literacy for all students in the school, not just those needing extra support.

4. High expectations for all students, including a focus on self-efficacy, with systems in place to make sure students knew where they were against learning targets and, and what next steps to take.

5. Strong partnerships with families, where parents were encouraged to attend some of the Reading Recovery sessions and given specific guidance on how to support their children’s literacy progress at home.

What might this mean for our classrooms?

The researchers note that the apparent “washout” of the gains made during the reading intervention does not seem to be unique to Reading Recovery; research suggests similar results for other literacy interventions.

It seems that gains from interventions such as Reading Recovery can only be truly sustained where ongoing support and monitoring systems beyond the intervention itself are in place across the school. The strategies learned during the intervention need to be continually modified and added to, as students progress to reading and writing more complex material.

In order for this to happen successfully, students must also develop what these researchers term a “self-extending system” so that they can monitor and adjust their own progress. There can be a danger with one-on-one interventions such as Reading Recovery, e.g. that students rely too much on the teacher; this is why a whole school focus on self-efficacy seems particularly important.

Reference

Jesson, R., and Limbrick, L. (2014) “Can gains from early literacy interventions be sustained?” Journal of Research in Reading, 37 1 pp. 102-117.

---

Please fill out the form below if you would like to post a comment on this article:

Nickname

(this will appear with your comments)

Email

Comments

---

Comments

There are currently no comments posted. Please post one via the form above.

MORE FROM

GORDON ELDRIDGE: LESSONS IN LEARNING