VoiceofEvidence.pdf

About Brookes Publishing Co.

The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research
Praise for About the Editors
About the Book
The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research

Reading Instruction Today

Criticism of the National Reading Panel Report

Criticism 1: Some Important Reading Topics Have Been Neglected
Criticism 2: The Panel Was Too Narrow in Its Research Paradigm
Criticism 3: The Panel Should Not Have Opposed Encouraging
Criticism 4: This Wasn’t a Very Good Panel, It Did the Wrong Stuff
Criticism 5: The National Reading Panel Report is a Fool’s Errand

Responses to Criticisms of the NRP Report

Findings and Responses to the NRP Report
Further Parameters of Studies Analyzed
About the National Reading Panel (NRP)

Key Findings

• Schools should try to improve children's reading abilities and close the achievement gap between rich and poor, black and white, and other social, cultural, and economical distinctions.
• Research evidence had to be analyzed in a manner consistent with the highest standards for research synthesis to limit the influence of personal belief, self-interest, and other biasing factors.

NRP Report

In April 2000, the NRP released its scientific based research focusing on children’s reading development in the age/grade range from preschool to grade 12. The report noted:

• Experimental or quasi-experimental design with a control group.
• Used quantitative data as the sole means of the investigation.
• Studies were subjected to 3 criteria to determine their credibility and worthiness of inclusion in the NRP's report.

Criticism and Response

Criticism 1: Some Important Reading Topics Have Been Neglected

Argument: Important areas related to comprehension, phonics, and fluency were excluded.

Criticism 2: The Panel Was Too Narrow in Its Research Paradigm

Argument: Many relevant qualitative studies were not included.

Criticism 3: The Panel Should Not Have Opposed Qualitative Research

Argument: There is an important role for qualitative data in educational research.

Conclusion

The critiques highlight significant gaps and suggest a need for ongoing discussion about the standards and methods used in reading research.