Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i12IVhI20272; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:31:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:31:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040202133129.01b05420@pop.utk.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Brenda Bell <bsbell@utk.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2667] re: more on reading research X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Status: O Content-Length: 5251 Lines: 91 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:13:25 -0500 From: "Amy R. Trawick" <atrawick@charter.net> To: "National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE" <aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org> When I reviewed the side-by-side of the AEFL reauthorization, I was struck by the language (and intent?) of both versions in regard to scientifically-based reading instruction. I would like to check my understanding with others to see if I'm off-base. The House version states (talking about NIFL): "...serving as a national resource for information on reading instruction programs that contain the essential components of reading instruction (emphasis mine) as supported by scientifically based reading research, and that can lead to improved reading outcomes for children, youth, and adults;" The Senate version states at one point: "Same as current law, but strikes 'phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension' and replaces with 'the essential components of reading instruction.''" (emphasis mine) Both define "the essential components of reading instruction" as "explicit and systematic instruction" in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, reading fluency and reading comprehension strategies. [I won't even go into the fact that the research usually touted (National Reading Panel Report, primarily) did NOT say that instruction in all these areas should be "systematic"; and there was much more to the research findings than a call to be "explicit."] Since policymakers are primarily using the National Reading Panel report to identify these "essential components of reading instruction," I think it is important that we understand how the authors describe the decision to study these particular 5 topics (plus teacher education and computer-based instruction). The authors of the National Reading Panel report (2000) say: The Panel undertook "comprehensive, formal, evidence-based analyses of the experimental and quasi-experimental research literature relevant to a set of (emphasis mine) selected topics judged to be of central importance in teaching children to read. ...Selection of prioritized topics was necessitated by the large amount of published reading research literature relevant to the Panel's charge to determine the effectiveness of reading instructional methods and approaches. A screening process was, therefore, essential." (p. 1-1) In "Research-based Reading Instruction: Myths about the National Reading Panel report" (Reading Teacher, April 2003), Tim Shanahan, a member of the panel, reiterates comments in the report explaining how the panel chose from among 30 or so topics that had been identified through public hearings and internal deliberations: "Fundamentally, we chose topics that we considered to be most promising (i.e., most valuable to policymakers and practitioners) and encouraged NICHD and other government agencies to create future panels to analyze remaining issues (emphasis mine). How did we decide what was most promising? We carefully reviewed the information provided to us at the various public hearings, we discussed (and argued about) these recommendations and our own insights at length in public, and, ultimately, we voted...I am pleased to say that several additional panels are now getting underway to supplement and extend our work (one on second-language literacy, one on early literacy, and one on qualitative literacy research)." Critics have argued that the areas ultimately studied were, in fact, determined a priori, but I include Shanahan's comments to emphasize that other potentially "essential" elements didn't get the prestigious label *only because they were not studied*. I think it is incredibly important to understand that the questions that the panel studied were not of the "What are the essential elements of reading instruction" sort. Rather, once the topics were decided, questions then looked like this: "Does instruction in [something in particular, like phonics, comprehension strategies] improve reading? If so, how is this instruction best provided?" (p. 1-3). The panel could have asked, "Does instruction in writing improve reading?" If the panel had found a positive answer to that question, then writing would now be an "essential" element. As reports are issued from the other panels Shanahan mentions, I suppose there will eventually be instructional practices added to the list of "essentials." It's bad enough that what is considered literacy is being narrowed to include only reading (or even reading, writing, speaking, and math); it's even worse to further narrow the content of reading instruction erroneously based on one government-sanctioned report in which the authors clearly spell out limitations of time and resources (at least this is the rationale made explicit) which led them to restrict their study to a subset of the possibly essential elements available to them. So, a big concern here is not just the use of "scientifically-based instruction;" it's the required use of 1) a *particular subset* of scientifically-based research that 2) has been (mis)interpreted and (mis)appropriated in ways to serve a particular agenda. Amy Trawick atrawick@charter.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:23 EST