National Reading Panel (NRP) - About the NRP - September 10, 1998 Panel Meeting

The National Reading Panel met in Washington, DC on Thursday, September 10 in the Phillips Collection Ballroom at the Radisson Barcelo Hotel.

The meeting was called to order by Dr. Duane Alexander, director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at 8:16 a.m.

Panelists attending were Donald Langenberg, Gloria Corerro, Linnea Ehri, Gwenette Ferguson, Norma Garza, Michael Kamil, Cora Marrett, S.J. Samuels, Tim Shanahan, Sally Shaywitz, Thomas Trabasso, Joanna Williams, Dale Willows, and Joanne Yatvin.

Panel Executive Director F. William Dommel, Jr. entertained a motion from the floor to approve minutes from the April 24 and July 24-25 NRP meetings, as well as the minutes from the five regional meetings held in Chicago, Portland (OR), Houston, New York, and Jackson (MS). The minutes were approved without objection.

Panel members then discussed the possibility of presenting the Panel’s findings at a number of national conferences and meetings in 1999. Williams announced an invitation from the American Educational Research Association. Shaywitz announced an invitation from the Society for Pediatric Research. Ferguson announced an invitation from the Texas Council of Teachers of English. Yatvin announced an invitation from the Oregon Reading Association. Ehri suggested the possibility of speaking to the International Reading Association, and Shanahan said he would look into it. Yatvin said she would approach the National Council of Teachers of English. Kamil noted the importance of the National Reading Conference. Correro offered to look into possibilities with the American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education and the Association of Teacher Educators. Dommel announced an invitation from the International Dyslexia Association.

It was agreed that the Panel staff would look into identifying other presentation opportunities for the 1999 calendar year.

Dr. Ehri provided a report from the Alphabetics Subgroup. The subgroup interpreted its task as identifying a claim about an important alphabetic process in learning to read. The subgroup focused much of its discussion on phonemic awareness – the ability to focus on the smallest units of sound in words. Ehri noted that there is evidence that phonemic awareness is one of the two best predictors (the second being letter-name knowledge) of how well children will learn to read.

Once the subgroup selected a claim to test, it was then able to identify selection criteria for identifying studies concerning the claim. It must be an experiment, a quasi-experiment or multiple baseline method. It must test the hypothesis stated. It must have a control group. And, it must be published in a peer-reviewed journal or book.

Once the subgroup selected the studies through a careful screening process, the studies were analyzed using an evaluation form developed by the subgroup. Once the studies were evaluated, they were laid out on a spreadsheet so they could be compared to other studies.

Drs. Willows and Yatvin noted some of the problems the subgroup had discovered with the process. First, it is a long process, requiring many hours of work per study analyzed. Second, the process is geared toward expert researchers, making it difficult for practioners to implement the process.

The Panel recessed from 10:00 a.m. to 10:21 a.m.

Dr. Kamil provided a report from the Comprehension Subgroup. Kamil noted that the subgroup was in a more difficult position that the others because the questions and variables associated with comprehension are not as clear as those associated with the other groups. To deal with this problem, the subgroup focused on a specific question (much like the Alphabetics Subgroup).

The Comprehension Subgroup decided to look at reciprocal teaching, and examine the claim that reciprocal teaching improves comprehension. The subgroup developed a set of criteria, identifying what was important in evaluating single studies, multiple studies, and existing reviews of research.

The subgroup focused primarily on the tools to be used in analyzing single studies, including looking at both the internal and external validity of the studies and looking at their cost-benefit analysis.

Kamil agreed with the Alphabetics Subgroup that these analyses take a great deal of effort, and the current process of analysis is still too cumbersome a procedure to do a large volume of research immediately.

While tackling the charge to the Comprehension Subgroup may be significant, Panel members agreed they would make a real contribution if they could establish an accepted definition for the term "comprehension."

Dr. Kamil provided a report from the Technology Subgroup. He offered a brief computer demonstration on dealing with the data collected on the topic, noting that there are not a great number of articles on technology in the reading journals.

The Panel recessed from 11:57 a.m. to 1:10 p.m.

Dr. Shanahan provided a report from the Fluency Subgroup. He gave a history of fluency study and the formulation of specific instructional strategies for teaching fluency in reading. He also noted that many educators still conceptualize fluency as part of comprehension or learning the alphabetic code.

To initiate research, the subgroup referred to a recently published review of the literature and brainstormed terms for conducting a search. The subgroup developed two large pools of information – the first, on any aspect of fluency instruction, and the second, on studies specifically focused on reading. Anything that was not an empirical study was dropped from the pool. An evaluation system similar to the one used by the Alphabetics Subgroup would then to be applied to the remaining studies in the pool.

The Panel agreed that dissertations, while valuable, should not be included in the subgroups’ evaluation process.

Dr. Marrett provided a report from the Professional Development Subgroup, which was formed at the July Panel meeting. While the subgroup has just begun its work, it has recognized that there is very little literature on teacher professional development programs. While there is some research on in-service learning experiences for teachers, pre-service studies are vitually non-existent.

Marrett noted that much of what the subgroup will discover will also be covered in reviews by the other subgroups. Therefore, she said the Professional Development Subgroup should rely heavily on what will be the findings of the other major subgroups.

Kamil pointed to some studies that the subgroup should use in its research, specifically the Santa Ana study from California.

Dr. Alexander noted that the Panel should not shy away from publishing a negative result if what has been found is important, but lacks the strength of research support.

Discussion of and Consensus on Literature Search Criteria and Evaluation Criteria

Panel members determined that the October 18th and 19th dates set aside for a full Panel meeting would be better used as times for the subgroups to meet.

The Panel discussed a possible format for its final report, detailing the structure needed to highlight the evaluation criteria and procedures used by each of the subgroups.

No individuals offered public comment to the Panel.

Langenberg said he was pleased with the progress of the Panel, especially in its development of an assessment methodology. He said while the Panel may have limited findings, it will present an enormous amount of questions and future studies for the field to consider.

Panel members discussed the need for more time for their work, noting that the original target deadline for the final report was in November. While many of the subgroups are moving ahead, they all sought and emphasized the need for additional time for study and analysis.

Dr. Alexander said the Panel is expected to look at the most common approaches to teach reading, and it is not expected to provide an exhaustive look. The Panel will have to make a determination of what it can and cannot do and give a priority listing of subset analyses that are important to do either from what is available or additional research that has to be done because there is not enough data available.

The Panel then discussed the possibility of developing a permanent group that would be responsible for continuing reading research analyses and ensuring that the criteria developed by the Panel are used on future studies.

The Panel recessed from 3:16 p.m. to 3:27 p.m.

The Panel agreed that October 18th and 19th should be used for continued subgroup meetings. The subgroup chairs would then meet on October 19th. The full Panel will next meet on November 9th and 10th.

The Panel also discussed the need for a working group meeting in January. Dr. Trabasso noted that he would be teaching in Japan during the spring semester.