Reading Recovery and Evidence‐based Practice: A response to Reynolds and Wheldall (2007)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reynolds and Wheldall reviewed research relating to Reading Recovery (RR) and concluded that “RR has provided an excellent model in demonstrating how to plan, promote, and implement an intervention across an educational system and how to design a professional development programme” (Citation2007, p. 218). They balanced this praise with concerns about the research base for RR, its effectiveness for the lowest‐performing first‐grade students, long‐term change in literacy achievement for RR students and RR’s cost‐effectiveness. This response aims to address these concerns by discussing four central issues of evidence‐based practice from their review: evidence of effectiveness; sustained gains; programme evaluation data from a response to intervention perspective; and cost‐effectiveness versus cost‐benefit.
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 | 0.108 | 0.260 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.074 | 0.097 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".