1. Jane Braddock & Kelli Knight

2. Beginning to Read Thinking and Learning about Print By Marilyn Adams Why Phonics? Compared to other approaches phonics is very successful. Analysis of success with phonics is a good predictor of reading success. Quotes many previous researchers: Bond & Dykstra (1967), Chall (1967), Huey (1908).

3. What Needs to Be Taught? Hints from Skilled Readers Should be based on models of proficient readers. Outside-What do proficient readers look like when they read? How do they behave? Inside-What knowledge do they possess to be able to read proficiently? How do they organize knowledge? Efficiency of processing is directly related to a readers comprehension potential.

4. Thinking, Learning and Reading Reflection or study strengthens learning. Associations register experiences to provide a thought—but they do not think. Learning to read words is to understand text. Reading depends on connections between spellings, speech sounds, and meanings.

5. Learning How to Read Phonics first verses read for meaning. Recognizing the spelling of a word depends on having processed the individual letters in order to make meaning.

6. Early Reading First The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 created the Early Reading First (ERF) program to provide funding to preschools, particularly those that serve children from low-income families, to support the development of children's language and literacy skills.

7. Early Reading First Grants Funds can be used: Enhance children’s language, cognitive, and early reading skills through professional development of teachers Provide early language and reading development and instructional materials Provide pre-school age children with rich learning opportunities Screen to identify children at risk for reading failure Improve existing programs

8. Effective Beginning Reading Instruction: A Paper Commissioned by the National Reading Conference by Michael Pressley 1998: Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (PRD) 1997: Congress charge the director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Secretary of Education to appoint a panel who would report back to Congress and the public in early 2000 (NRP)

9. PRD Emphasized schools serving normally-achieving students, work of members of the reporting team was emphasized 7 of the 17 members were experts in lower-order reading skills Emphasized the opinions of the experts writing the report

10. NRP: focused on true experiments and quasi-experiments and limit the focus Alphabetics Fluency Comprehension Teacher education Computer technology

11. NRP Conclusions Phonemic awareness instruction is effective in promoting early reading Systematic phonics instruction improves reading and spelling and, to a lesser extent, comprehension (Chall, 1967) Guided oral reading and repeated reading increases fluency during elementary years Vocabulary instruction in a variety of ways makes sense Comprehension strategies improves comprehension

12. NRP Conclusions (con’t) Professional development can change teachers’ instruction in reading and therefore, student achievement Computer technology has great potential for improving beginning reading achievement In summary, the panel found much support for skills- based instruction

13. Pressley’s findings were that the study was unacceptable due to its narrow nature. “Had you locked the 10 best experimeters studying children’s reading in a room and required them to produce a list of the most defensible elementary reading instructional practices based on experimental research, their exit-the-room list would have included most-and probably all-the major points made by the panel. That could have been accomplished in a few hours rather than several years the Panel required” (Pressley, 2001, p, 9).

14. Emerging Findings Recommended by Pressley to be Worthy of Consideration Instruction at home: for example, teaching parents to read story books to increase language skills (Arnold, Lonigan, Whitehurst, & Epstein, 1994) Television: public television and its positive effects by the lessons taught by Big Bird and associates (Anderson & Collins, 1998) Community Resources Whole Language Instruction versus literature driven instruction with rich conversation

15. Pressley’s Recommendations (con’t) Separating the “instructional wheat from the instructional chaff in whole language in what is conventional instruction” (Pressley, 2004, p. 14) Language of instruction: should instruction occur in the child’s first language School reform movements No quick fixes: takes time, early intervention, teaching researching and writing

16. What Pressley Believed NRP Ignored Qualitative lengthy studies when comprehension strategies were taught over conventional whole language instruction which occurred in real classrooms School level analysis: research on effective elementary schools that had strong administrative leadership, high expectations for all children, safe and orderly environments, monitering of student progress, and basic school skills

17. Pressley’s Own Studies By developing Pressley and his colleagues developed grounded theory research from what happens in effective first grade classrooms where there were massive instructional differences such as more academic instruction is going on, student self- regulation is emphasized, scaffolding occurs, instructional balance occurs.

18. Pressley’s List of Don’ts Don’t decide to investigate only a few topics in reading instruction. Don’t choose just a few scientists to document a national study. Don’t rely on a literature-integration methodology requiring many replications for conclusions to be drawn. Don’t limit evidence only from experiments. Don’t let an any agency involved in funding of research control the agenda.

19. References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Anderson, D.R., & Collins, P. A. (1988). The impact of children’s education; Television’s influence on cogntive development. (Office of Research Working Paper No.2), Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Chall, J.S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Pressley, M. (2001), Effective Beginning Reading Instruction. Executive Summary and Paper Commissioned by the National Reading Conference. Chicago, EL: National Reading Conference