Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing Instructional Models for the Literacy Education of High-Risk First Graders

Pinnell, Gay Su, Lyons, Carol A., DeFord, Diane E., Bryk, Anthony S., Seltzer, Michael·1994·Reading Research Quarterly

Abstract

Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk first graders THIS TUDY was designed to examine the effectiveness of Reading Recovery as compared to three other instructional models. Treatments included (a) a treatment modeled on Reading Recovery provided by teachers trained in a shortened program, (b) a one-onone skills practice model, and (c) a group treatment taught by trained Reading Recovery teachers. The lowest achieving first-grade readers (N= 324) from 10 school districts were randomly assigned to one of the four interventions orto a comparison group. A hierarchical linear model analysis revealed that Reading Recovery children performed significantly better on four measures (dictation, text reading level, Gates-MacGinitie, and Woodcock) than any of the other treatment groups and the comparison group. A macroanalysis of videotaped lessons revealed that essential program components related to success were one-on-one lessons, the lesson framework, and the Reading Recovery teacher staff development model. Comparaison de moddles d'intervention en lecture-.criture d'enfants de premidre anmWe haut risque CEITE RECHERCHE a &t r6alise pour examiner l'efficacit6 de la RWducation e Lecture par rapport ' trois autres modules d'intervention educative: a) un entrainement model6 sur la R education en Lecture par des enseignants ayant regu une formation courte, b) un entrainement en t&e a t&te, et c) un entrainement par groupe effectu6 par des enseignants form6s a la R6ducation en Lecture. Les plus mauvais lecteurs de premiere ann&e de 10 circonscriptions scolaires (N = 324) on 6t6 affect6s au hasard a l'une des quatre modalit6s ou ' un groupe temoin. Un modele d'analyse lin6aire hi&archique a montr6 que les enfants de la RMeducation en Lecture reussissent significativement mieux dans quatre evaluations (dict&e, niveau de lecture de texte, Gates-MacGinitie, et Woodcock) que n'importe l quel des autres groupes de traitement e que le groupe temoin. Une macro analyse des leqons enregistr~es en video a revele que les composantes essentielles du programme libes a la reussite &taient les leqons en tate I tate, la structure de la leqon, et le module de developpement en equipe pedagogique de la RMeducation en Lecture. Comparacidn de modelos de enselanza para la alfabetizacidn de niftos de alto riesgo de primer grado ESTE STUDIO fue disefiado para examinar la eficacia del programa Recuperaci6n en Lectura (Reading Recovery) en comparaci6n con otros tres modelos de ensefianza. Las condiciones fueron: a) un modelo desarrollado a partir de Recuperaci6n en Lectura con maestros entrenados en un programa abreviado, b) un modelo de practica en habilidades de lectura con cada nifio por separado y c) un grupo instruido por maestros entrenados en Recuperaci6n en Lectura. Los lectores de primer grado con mayores dificultades (N=w 324) de 10 distritos escolares fueron asignados al azar a uno de los cuatro tipos de intervenci6n o a un grupo de control. Un anrlisis de modelo lineal jerarquico revel6 que desempefiaron los nifios asignados a Recuperaci6n en Lectura se desemporaron significativamente mejor que los nifios en los otros tipos de intervenci6n y que los del grupo de control en cuatro evaluaciones (dictado, nivel de lectura de texto y los tests de lectura Gates-MacGinitie y Woodcock). Un macroanalisis de las lecciones grabadas en video mostr6 que los componentes del programa esenciales para el exito fueron las lecciones tomando a los nifios de a uno, el marco general de las lecciones y el modelo de desarrollo de un cuerpo docente capacitado en Recuperaci6n en Lectura. Vergleich von Lebrmodellen zum Erwerb von Leseund Schreibfihigkeiten fir gefibhrdete ErstklUssler DIE STUDIE wurde konzipiert, um die Effektivitit des Aufholens von Lesefihigkeiten im Vergleich mit drei anderen Lehrmodellen zu untersuchen. Die Versuchsaufmodelle umfalten (a) eine Behandlungsweise zur Lesebefihigung, die von Lehrern in einem gekirzten Programm gegeben wurde, (b) ein individuelles Kompetenzverbesserungsprogramm und (c) Gruppenarbeit, die von einem ausgebildeten Sprachlehrer betreut wurde. Die schwichste Lesegruppe der ersten Klasse (N = 324) aus zehn Schulbezirken wurde mit Zufallsverfahren einer der vier Interventionsoder Vergleichsgruppen zugeordnet. Eine hierarchisch-lineare Modellanalyse zeigte, dal% die Kinder des Leselernprogramms in vier Mel~kategorien (Diktat, Lesefihigkeit, Gates-MacGinitie und Woodcock) erfolgreicher agierten als jede andere Arbeitsoder Vergleichsgruppe. Eine Makroanalyse von mit Videogerit aufgezeichneten Unterrichtsstunden zeigte, daJl erfolgsrelevante Programmeinheiten der Individualunterricht, das Unterrichtssystem und der Lehrk6rper des Leseaufholprogramms waren.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/747736

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M.
Venue
Reading Research Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1994-01
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
8
ISSN
0034-0553 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124484541
Cited by
334
References
2
FWCI
23.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing Instructional Models for the Literacy Education of High-Risk First Graders. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/747736
The paper
Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M. (1994). Comparing Instructional Models for the Literacy Education of High-Risk First Graders. Reading Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/747736

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.