A comparative study of individual patterns of literacy acquisition within two literacy intervention contexts based on Reading Recovery technique

A combination of single-subject experimental design and a case-study qualitative approach was used to explore achievement and patterns of progress for six first-grade students qualifying for Reading Recovery within two intervention contexts: the one-on-one Reading Recovery intervention and a small-group intervention utilizing Reading Recovery techniques. The data for this study were gathered by the teacher/researcher as she taught and observed three students in each intervention context for up to 18 weeks.;Findings indicate that two of the three Reading Recovery students (Level 2 and Level 3) and one small-group student (Level 3) in this study achieved educationally significant acceleration in 18 weeks or less. In this study, educationally significant acceleration was defined as reaching the class average text level. The other Reading Recovery student (Level 1) and one small-group student (Level 2) did, however, experience a jump-start during intervention which enabled them to achieve educationally significant acceleration by the end of the year with continued alternative intervention. Only one student (Level 1 small-group) did not achieve educationally significant acceleration during intervention or by year end. However, this student did not receive further intervention after the initial 18-week intervention.;A visual analysis of text level graphs suggested different patterns of text level and writing vocabulary progress for those students achieving educationally significant acceleration and those who did not. Interestingly, data on hearing sounds revealed no pattern which differentiated the two groups: Students who did not achieve educationally significant acceleration had hearing sound scores at postintervention and maintenance that paralleled their more successful peers. Identification and description of patterns of participation contributed to greater understandings of why educationally significant acceleration occurred for some students and not for others.;Several hypotheses regarding quality and cost-effective intervention emerged from the data. These findings provide direction for future research.