Scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction tops list
by Jack Cassidy and Drew Cassidy
Scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction is the hottest topic in literacy for 2005, according to the ninth annual survey of 25 top literacy leaders.
The term scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction refers to quantitative research that is usually conducted with a control group and an experimental group and an adequate number of students randomly assigned to each group. After a suitable time period, results are statistically analyzed to see if the strategies or materials were effective.
Ideally, the results of these studies are then published in peer-reviewed journals. In the United States, this emphasis on scientific research can mean that long-established practices such as sustained silent reading are deemphasized because there are insufficient numbers of peer-reviewed studies that prove their effectiveness.
Particularly affected by this emphasis on scientific research are the publishers of educational materials. Many publishers lack the resources to carry out large-scale studies on the effectiveness of their materials. Having schools agree to the randomized assignment of children is difficult, as is controlling for all the other variables that may affect achievement besides the particular materials used.
Nevertheless, some major publishers of basal programs have compiled pages of data that purportedly demonstrate the effectiveness of their programs. However, getting these results published in peer-reviewed journals has proven nearly impossible.
The U.S. schools that are most affected by the emphasis on scientific research are those seeking Reading First funding. IRA has a position statement on this overall topic entitled “What Is Evidence-Based Reading Instruction?” The position statement may be downloaded free at the Association’s website.
The annual “What’s Hot, What’s Not” survey of literacy leaders has been conducted since 1996. Between May and September, 25 literacy leaders are interviewed, either in person or by phone. All are read a standard 178-word paragraph defining “hot” and “not hot.” Basically, “hot” refers to the level of attention a given topic is currently receiving. It is also explained to respondents that their ratings of “hot” and “not hot” do not necessarily reflect their personal interest, or lack thereof, in a given topic.
After hearing the introductory paragraph, each respondent is asked to rate a given topic as “hot” or “not hot.” Respondents are then asked if the topic “should be hot” or “should not be hot.” The chart on this page reflects this year’s results.
It is interesting that most of this year’s group of literacy leaders who rated scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction as “hot” also said that the topic “should not be hot.” Many of them believed that there was too much emphasis on this type of research and that other types of research, such as qualitative and correlational studies, were being ignored.
Each year the 25 literacy leaders who had responded to the topics the previous year are sent the previous year’s list and asked to make modifications, additions, and deletions. A self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for them to send back their responses. If some of the literacy leaders fail to respond, they are called or e-mailed and urged to respond. For the 2005 survey, all of the 2004 leaders eventually provided suggestions for additions, modifications, and deletions.
Based on their input, we constructed this year’s list. Four topics from 2004 were eliminated: balanced reading, grouping, performance assessment, and sociopolitical influences on literacy. Five topics were added: informational texts, literacy coaches/reading coaches, motivation, political/policy influences on literacy, and scripted instruction.
We briefly considered classifying political/policy influences on literacy as just a modification of sociopolitical influences on literacy. However, the connotations of the two phrases appeared to be very different so we considered political/policy influences on literacy a new topic. Many of the 2004 literacy leaders also wanted gender issues in literacy eliminated, but since that topic has been on the list for a relatively short period of time, we decided to keep it for at least one more year
We select each year’s respondents based on a number of criteria. The first and most important criterion is that they must have a national or international perspective on literacy. Thus, we often select those who are on the boards of prominent literacy organizations such as IRA, the National Reading Conference, and the College Reading Association. Some editors of the major journals in the field are usually included as well.
We also select the literacy leaders from various geographical areas in the United States, from Canada, and from outside North America. The percentage of IRA members in a given area determines the number of literacy leaders we interview from that area. For instance, the Eastern region of the United States has approximately 27% of IRA’s individual members. Therefore, we should probably interview about seven literacy leaders from the East; this year we interviewed exactly seven from that area.
In assembling our list, we also try to see that different job categories are represented (e.g. teachers, college professors, administrators) and that the list is ethnically diverse. However, the main criterion for inclusion in the respondent group is still that the literacy leader has knowledge of trends and issues at the national or international level.
The chart shows what the literacy leaders think is “hot” or “not hot” as well as what they think “should be hot” and “should not be hot.” One check in a column indicates that a majority of those interviewed gave a particular response; we call these topics “hot” or “not hot.” Two checks indicate that at least 75% of those surveyed gave a particular response; we call those topics “very hot” or “cold.” Three checks indicate 100% agreement; we call these topics “extremely hot“ or “extremely cold.”
On the chart, a (+) indicates that the topic is hotter for 2005 than it was for 2004. A (-) indicates that the topic is less hot for 2005 than it was for 2004. An (*) indicates that the topic is new for 2005
It is possible that some of the items surveyed may be unfamiliar to some readers. Therefore, we offer an explanation for the following terms.
Decodable text refers to prose that children can decipher using the phonics skills they have been taught. For instance, children could decode a phrase such as “Pat the fat rat” if they had been taught the rime pattern “at” and the onsets or initial consonant sounds f, p, and r.
In the United States, certain states have tried to dictate that a very high percentage of the words in the earliest texts be decodable according to letter–sound correspondences that children have been taught. Advocates argue that this kind of text enables students to practice the phonics skills they have been taught. Critics argue that this kind of text is stilted and unnatural.
High-stakes assessment generally refers to test results used to make major (high-stakes) decisions about an individual child, teacher, school, or district. Such decisions could result in a child repeating a grade in school, a school losing its funding, a teacher losing a job, or a district being placed under special administration.
Recent federal legislation in the United States has resulted in such assessments becoming mandatory. Critics believe that no one test should be used alone to make such decisions. Advocates believe that such assessments enforce greater accountability among all the educational stakeholders.
Literacy coaches/reading coaches are terms used to refer to reading specialists who work primarily with teachers to improve those teachers’ skills in developing the reading and writing abilities of their students. Unlike the reading specialists of the past, literacy coaches/reading coaches usually have no direct responsibility for working on a sustained basis with groups of struggling readers.
The primary responsibility of the reading coach/literacy coach is to provide staff development for teachers. This staff development is usually accomplished by modeling lessons in the classroom and by conferring with the classroom teachers. Thus, individuals who have these positions are expected to have very good interpersonal skills.
The underlying philosophy of the literacy coaching model relies heavily on the professional literature on peer coaching that was quite prevalent in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Unfortunately, in some cases, these new literacy coaches/reading coaches have minimal training in reading. IRA has a position statement on reading coaches that can be accessed through the IRA website.
Scripted instruction refers to commercial reading programs that have highly structured lessons, often specific time allotments for teaching specific skills, and often word-for-word scripts of what the teacher is to say. Critics say that such programs stifle teachers’ creativity, undermine teachers’ expertise, and fail to provide for the diverse needs of many classrooms. Advocates see it as the easiest way to provide teachers with the essential elements of effective reading instruction.
Each year we take particular note of the hottest topics in the field. This year, in addition to scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction, which is “extremely hot,” nine other topics were classified as “very hot”: comprehension, direct/explicit instruction, English as a second language/English-language learners, fluency, high-stakes assessment, literacy coaches/reading coaches, phonemic awareness, phonics, and political/policy influences on literacy.
Seven of these topics were also the hottest topics on the 2004 list. The additions to the 2005 list are English as a second language/English-language learners, literacy coaches/reading coaches, and political/policy influences on literacy.
Undoubtedly, the No Child Left Behind legislation in the United States (political/policy influences on literacy) has had a major influence on the hottest topics. Comprehension, fluency, phonemic awareness, and phonics form the basis for much of the recommended reading instruction in President George W. Bush’s reading initiatives.
Also targeted are children whose first language is not English (English as a second language/English-language learners). The formation of the National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth (www.cal.org/natl-lit-panel), chaired by Timothy Shanahan, undoubtedly contributed to the attention that this topic is receiving.
States and districts must also demonstrate that they are using valid and reliable measures in their accountability measures (high-stakes assessment). Many of the advocated programs also make extensive use of explicit, teacher-directed instruction (direct/explicit instruction). Literacy coaches/reading coaches help teachers implement the emphasized strategies and programs. All of the programs and methods must demonstrate a strong scientific research base (scientific evidence-based reading research and instruction).
Although the legislation of the Bush administration affected the topics on the “hot” list, it was the meta-analysis of reading research done by the National Reading Panel (www.nationalreadingpanel.org ) that laid the groundwork for this legislation. The National Reading Panel looked at studies using scientific evidence-based research methodology and identified five areas that had sufficient research to justify drawing some positive conclusions. Those included: comprehension, fluency, phonemic awareness, phonics, and word meaning/vocabulary.
Four of these topics were rated “very hot,” and for the first time word meaning/vocabulary made the “hot” list. Reading experts have long maintained that vocabulary knowledge is crucial to reading comprehension. Perhaps we will now see more research and program development being done on this important topic.
The five coldest topics on this year’s list are gender issues in literacy, literature-based instruction, motivation, multicultural literature, and writing. Two of these (gender issues in literacy and literature-based instruction) were also the coldest topics last year.
In the early years of this survey, we would often receive communications from readers of the list alleging that publication of such material contributes to a “bandwagon effect” resulting in researchers and teachers focusing on only the hottest topics. We always take pains to make sure that the term “hot” is not synonymous with the word “important.” That distinction became clearer when we added the “should be hot” and “should not be hot” columns in 2000.
The purpose of the survey has always been to acquaint readers with those issues that are receiving attention, thus perhaps encouraging them to investigate these topics in more depth. We also hope that the discrepancies between the “hot” list and the “should be hot” list will encourage our readers to be more active advocates for the best literacy practices in their own schools and political arenas.
Survey respondents
Participants in this year's survey were Richard Allington, University of Florida; Donna Alvermann, University of Georgia; Betsy Baker, Columbia Public Schools, Missouri; Rita Bean, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Heather Bell, New Zealand Educational Review Office; Cathy Collins Block, Texas Christian University; Alan E. Farstrup, International Reading Association; James Flood, San Diego State University, California; Linda Gambrell, Clemson University, South Carolina; F. Todd Goodson, Kansas State University; John Guthrie, University of Maryland; David Hernandez, III, Washington, DC, Public Schools; James V. Hoffman, University of Texas; Susan Davis Lenski, Portland State University, Oregon; G. Reid Lyon, National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, Maryland; Lesley Mandel Morrow, Rutgers University, New Jersey; Susan Neuman, University of Michigan; P. David Pearson, University of California at Berkeley; Timothy Rasinski, Kent State University, Ohio; D. Ray Reutzel, Utah State University; Victoria J. Risko, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; Carol Minnick Santa, Montana Academy; Timothy Shanahan, University of Illinois, Chicago; Jon Shapiro, University of British Columbia; and Dorothy Strickland, Rutgers University, New Jersey.
Jack Cassidy, a former IRA president, is director of the Center for Educational Development, Evaluation, and Research (CEDER) and associate dean for graduate studies for the College of Education at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. Drew Cassidy teaches at the same university. Questions or comments about this survey can be directed to jcassidy@falcon.tamucc.edu.
What’s hot, what’s not for 2005, by Jack Cassidy and Drew Cassidy. (December 2004/January 2005). Reading Today, 22(3), 1.
What’s Hot, What’s Not chart
Journals
Reading Today