The Effects of Varying Group Size on the Reading Recovery Approach to Preventive Early Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether an early intervention program based on the Reading Recovery (RR) format could be developed for pairs of struggling readers that would allow them to make accelerated progress similar to that experienced in the 1-to-1 RR tutorial. A preliminary pilot study showed that the RR lesson format could be adapted for teaching pairs of struggling readers without compromising the integrity of the lesson content, provided that the average length of the lesson was increased to 41 min. An experimental study comparing the effectiveness of 1-to-1 RR instruction with RR instruction in pairs showed that although RR instruction in pairs required somewhat longer lessons (42 min vs. 33 min), there were no major differences between the two groups on any measures at discontinuation and at the end of the year, nor was there a significant difference between the groups in mean number of lessons to discontinuation. The results further indicated that by discontinuation, the children in the treatment groups were performing within the average range on all measures, and that these positive effects were maintained on end-of-year measures. Thus, by increasing instructional time by about a quarter, RR teachers can double the number of students served without making any sacrifices in outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".