In 1997, Congress asked the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in concert with the Secretary of Education to convene a national panel to assess the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read. Thus, there was a congressional charge to examine the research on reading instruction. Remember that the NRC did not specifically address how critical reading skills were most effectively taught or what instructional methods, materials, or approaches were most beneficial for students with varying skill levels. Thus, the National Reading Panel (NRP) was born and given its charge.
Fourteen individuals including leading scientists in reading research, representatives from colleges of education, reading teachers, educational administrators, and parents comprised the Panel. It should be noted that the original deadline for the report was late 1998 but due to the immensity of the undertaking, the report was published in 2000.
The NRP held regional hearings across the country to hear directly from consumers of this important information. Following these regional hearings, the Panel decided on the following topics for intensive study:
Alphabetics (including phonemic awareness instruction and phonics instruction)
Fluency
Comprehension (including vocabulary instruction, text comprehension instruction, and teacher preparation and comprehension strategy instruction)
Teacher education and reading instruction
Computer technology and reading instruction
They also developed a research review process including specific review criteria.
Due to the overwhelming amount of research, the NRP formed subgroups. Some Panel members served on more than one subgroup. The subgroups devised seven broad questions to guide their efforts. These included the following:
Does instruction in phonemic awareness improve reading? If so, how is this instruction best provided?
Does phonics instruction improve reading achievement? If so, how is this instruction best provided?
Does guided repeated oral reading instruction improve fluency and reading comprehension? If so, how is this instruction best provided?
Does vocabulary instruction improve reading achievement? If so, how is this instruction best provided?
Does comprehension strategy instruction improve reading? If so, how is this instruction best provided?
Do programs that increase the amount of children's independent reading improve reading achievement and motivation? If so, how is this instruction best provided?
Does teacher education influence how effective teachers are at teaching children to read? If so, how is this instruction best provided?
In order to expand on the work of the NRC, the NRP developed an objective research review methodology including search procedures for articles, source of publications (peer-reviewed or not), types of research evidence and breadth of research methods considered, coding of data, and data analysis procedures. The NRP then used this methodology to conduct a formal, evidence-based analysis of the experimental and quasi-experimental research literature on teaching children to read. In their review, the NRP considered approximately 100,000 research studies on reading published since 1966, and another 15,000 appearing before that time.
Given the extensive findings noted in the NRP Report (which is over 500 pages in length), we will address key findings in Course #3, as well as provide definitions, teaching strategies, and other critical information on alphabetics (i.e., phonemic awareness and phonics instruction), fluency, and comprehension noted as critical for effective reading instruction. It should be noted that besides the lengthy NRP Report, a summary was also developed for ease of use. Both of these documents can be retrieved from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development webpage. We encourage you to read the summary of the NRP and, more importantly, the full NRP Report to appreciate the efforts that went into this scientific analysis of the reading research.
In fairness, a Minority View was provided by Joanne Yatvin as an addendum to the National Reading Panel Report. Dr. Yatvin was one of the 14 panel members who believed that the NRP did not fulfill its obligation to determine “which of the many teaching methods used in schools, and promoted by advocates, really work best" (p. 1). This sole panel member noted that the review was too narrow and was biased toward the particular philosophical orientation of the majority of the NRP members.
In addition to the NRP Report, a user-friendly guide was developed by the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) and was funded by the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL). This guide, Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read was written by Armbruster, Lehr, and Osborn (2006). The purpose of this document was to make evidence-based reading research available to those with an interest in helping people learn to read well including educators, parents, and policymakers. The findings and conclusions were drawn from the NRP Report.
The Put Reading First document is divided into five areas of reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension. Each section defines the skill, describes the research evidence, suggests implications for the classroom, notes proven strategies for teaching reading skills, and provides frequently addressed questions (with responses). This document is a must for anyone wanting an easy-to-understand and user-friendly approach on how best to provide reading instruction to students. We have chosen to expand on the five areas highlighted in the Put Reading First document (which again stemmed from the NRP Report) in Course #3.