Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:56 pm
I'm flagging up this important thread again.
an International Online Synthetic Phonics Programme
http://www.phonicsinternational.com/forum/
http://www.phonicsinternational.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=586
3. 'Every Child a Reader.' Here is an example of our ignorance and the failure to insist on proper scientific evidence in making critical decisions. This project was supported by the government, and funded by the tax payer with support from KPMG and Esmee Fairbairn. It resurrects the old, failed Reading Recovery programme that relies mainly on sight word memorization (see submission from Jennifer Chew for details). Several years ago, a letter was sent to members of the U.S. Congress with 31 signatures of the top researchers in the field of reading urging Congress to suspend support for RR because independent research showed the method had no effect. It is extremely costly to implement, re teacher training, tutoring time, and materials. Not only this, but RR "research" is notorious for misrepresenting the data. In a recent publication by the Institute of Education, the same problems appear. 1. Nearly half of the children from the 145 strong "RR-tutoring group" were dropped from the study at post-testing, while the control group remained intact. (Barely a mention of this, and no attempt to solve the problem this creates.) 2. The RR group received individual tutoring, the control group got none. One could go on. The published paper bears the hallmarks of a bona fide "scientific" journal, until a closer inspection reveals it is published by Reading Recovery. No chance for an impartial peer review process here.
Reading Recovery's unrecovered learners: Characteristics and issues
James W. Chapman
William E. Tunmer
First published: 10 July 2018