Applying Research to Reading Instruction: What’s Next? Timothy Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago

Why research? Lack of growth in reading achievement in more than 3 decades: need to do better Deep divisions in the profession: must have way to solve disagreements Higher accountability demands: greater need for certainty

Settling the Reading Wars The National Reading Panel: a public review of research Nature of acceptable evidence Findings become the basis of public standards: Reading First

However, NRP findings are not yet in place RF Implementation Study: Not much change in comprehension instruction in RF ETR Survey (ETR): many teachers still unaware of SBRR NCTQ study on teacher education Let’s do a quick review of NRP…

Phonemic Awareness Studies show that young children need to learn to hear the separable sounds within words PA is not phonics Teachers need to know how to teach PA (and they need to be able to distinguish the sounds in words)

Phonics Studies show that phonics gives young children (K-2) a clear benefit in learning to read Phonics instruction needs to be systematic Teachers need to know how to teach phonics and they need to provide a substantial amount of phonics in early grades and in remedial interventions

Oral reading fluency Studies show that teaching students to read aloud fluently improves reading achievement Fluency instruction requires oral reading practice with repetition and feedback Teachers need to provide substantial fluency instruction Cleveland study

Vocabulary (word meaning) Studies show that explicit teaching of word meanings improves reading achievement Teachers need to provide substantial vocabulary instruction NELP panel findings NLP panel findings

Reading comprehension Studies show that teaching reading comprehension strategies improves reading achievement Strategies instruction is more than comprehension practice Teachers need to provide substantial amounts of comprehension instruction Are strategies necessary?

Why do we need to get beyond those points? Those five things are essential, but there are many other issues in the teaching of reading There has not been a sufficient continuous federal effort to keep the research picture updated (new panel coming)

Importance of time Amount of instruction is the number one determinant of school learning Need to ensure that teachers spend sufficient amounts of time teaching reading and writing Schools are finding ways for providing more time

Need for Greater Literacy Effort in Pre-K and K Importance of alphabetic code including phonological sensitivity, letter names, print awareness, oral language and no difference pre-K and K (NELP) More explicit idea of vocabulary knowledge (NELP, in process) Oregon evaluation of all-day K NELP: positive findings for phonological and print instruction, reading to kids, parent efforts, preschool, and oral language ERF study due in fall

Greater focus on content area reading What are we preparing kids for? The ACT study Greater attention to content reading instructionCarnegie projects

Need for greater ELL effort ELL students are a growing population, and as a group they have lower comprehension They often match first language students on basic skills The elements work, but not as well as they do with first language students Need for vocabulary and comprehension efforts (intensity)

Need for writing instruction Writing is a key element of literacy Research is clear that writing instruction (not just practice) can raise reading achievement Many aspects of reading benefit from the greater intensity of writing instruction

Need for on-going professional development Most neglected finding in NRP was that professional development for teachers led to higher reading achievement for students NCTQ study (Philadelphia, etc.) Successful districts do more than buy programs—they make sure teachers can use programs effectively

Conclusion We’ll never make progress in reading achievement until we rigorously apply research findings But that isn’t a static process Research evidence needs to continue to accumulate for continued improvement

Thank you. Timothy Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago