October 13-14, 1999
Bethesda, MD
Meeting Minutes

October 13, 1999

Introduction

The National Reading Panel met in Bethesda, MD on Wednesday, October 13 and Thursday, October 14, 1999 at the Marriott Residence Inn.

Wednesday, October 13

The October 13 meeting was called to order at 8:10 a.m. by George Gaines, Legislative Liaison for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).

Panel members in attendance included Dr. Donald Langenberg (chair of the Panel), Dr. Linnea Ehri, Ms. Gwenette Ferguson, Ms. Norma Garza, Dr. Michael Kamil, Dr. Cora Marrett, Dr. S.J. Samuels, Dr. Timothy Shanahan, Dr. Sally Shaywitz, Dr. Thomas Trabasso, Dr. Joanna Williams, Dr. Dale Willows, and Dr. Joanne Yatvin. Also in attendance were Mr. F. William Dommel, Jr., executive director of the National Reading Panel, Panel consultants Dr. David Francis and Dr. Harris Cooper, and Dr. Duane Alexander, Director of the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development.

Report from the Alphabetics/Decoding Subgroup

Dr. Ehri presented the report on behalf of the Alphabetics/Decoding Subgroup. She noted that the report was not yet complete, due in part to a large and complicated database. The Subgroup is close to completing its meta-analysis of phonemic awareness, but still has yet to tackle the meta-analysis of phonics research.

In reporting on phonemic awareness, Dr. Ehri laid out the Subgroup's plan in addressing the work, detailing the dependent and moderator variables that were used in determining the value of research studies. She also outlined the Subgroup's likely conclusions, including:

• Phonemic awareness training is effective to help acquire phonemic awareness skills;
• Phonemic awareness training is effective to help children learn to read; and
• Phonemic awareness should play a larger role in pre-K and kindergarten instruction.

Following the presentation of the Alphabetics Subgroup report, Dr. Langenberg noted that the greatest challenge facing the Panel was determining how the Panel's findings could be expressed in a manner easily understood by the average parent.

Recess

The Panel recessed from 8:55 a.m. to 9:16 a.m.

Report from the Comprehension Subgroup

Dr. Kamil presented the vocabulary report for the Comprehension Subgroup, with Dr. Trabasso giving the report on comprehension and comprehension instruction and Dr. Williams presenting the report on reading comprehension strategy instruction and teacher preparation.

Dr. Kamil laid out the Panel's findings on vocabulary instruction, including discussions on conclusions, instructional recommendations, and research recommendations. Some of the conclusions offered include:

• Age and ability affect vocabulary learning;
• Computers are being used for vocabulary instruction; and
• Vocabulary instruction leads to gains in comprehension.

In terms of recommendations, Dr. Kamil noted that:

• Vocabulary should be taught both directly and indirectly;
• Repetition and multiple exposures to vocabulary produce better learning;
• Vocabulary can be acquired through incidental learning; and
• Multiple instructional methods should be used.

Dr. Trabasso then presented the Subgroup's findings on comprehension and comprehension instruction. He enumerated the criteria used in accepting research findings, including:

• Relevance to instruction of reading on comprehension;
• Publication in a scientific journal;
• Must be an experimental study; and
• Experiment must be randomly assigned to treatment and control groups.

Because the Comprehension Subgroup did not use a meta-analysis, Dr. Alexander stressed that the Subgroups need to be sure to identify why studies were either included or excluded from Panel and Subgroup review.

Dr. Williams then presented the Subgroup report on reading comprehension strategy instruction and teacher preparation. Her summary provided a number of recommendations, including:

• Full descriptions in methodological standards;
• Acknowledging the relationship of comprehension to word level process and fluency;
• Using strategic instruction in the classroom;
• Using both vocabulary and writing activities; and
• Recognizing K-2 instruction and the relation to listening comprehension.

Following the presentation of the Comprehension Subgroup reports, Dr. Langenberg said that the Panel final report should include a glossary of terms to identify a common vocabulary.

Dr. Kamil noted that the Panel must look toward ways to teach teachers to think independently. The Panel should not be scripting teachers.

Dr. Alexander reminded the Panel that they are to provide research-based conclusions in the final report. These conclusions must be based on and documented by the literature review conducted by the Panel.

Recess

The Panel recessed from 12:16 p.m. to 1:42 p.m.

Report from the Fluency Subgroup

Dr. Shanahan then summarized the report from the Fluency Subgroup. He focused his presentation on the methods used by the Subgroup to identify and analyze the literature base. In identifying the conclusions of the Fluency Subgroup's work in terms of reading fluency and guided oral reading procedures, Dr. Shanahan noted:

• Repeated reading and other procedures that require students to read passages multiple times and receive feedback are effective in improving a variety of reading skills;
• Repeated reading procedures are not particularly difficult to use, nor do they require special equipment or materials; and
• Repeated reading procedures help improve normal students' reading abilities.

The Subgroup also looked at the effect of encouraging students to read more. After presenting the methods used to identify and analyze the literature base, Dr. Shanahan identified several conclusions, including:

• The research does not prove that voluntary reading improves reading achievement;
• There is a need for rigorous evaluations of the effectiveness of many of the popular reading achievement programs;
• Recreational reading does as well as certain instructional activities;
• Successes of voluntary reading should be measured against non-reading activities or activities in which the amount of reading can be closely measured.

Recess

The Panel recessed from 3:14 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.

Report from the Teacher Education and Development Subgroup

Dr. Kamil and Ms. Ferguson presented the report for the Teacher Education and Professional Development Subgroup. They identified several key questions that the Subgroup was looking to answer, including:

• How are teachers taught to teach reading?
  What is the knowledge base for the preparation of pre-service and in-service reading teachers?
• What is the empirical evidence for the knowledge base?
• How can knowledge be applied to improve teacher training?

Report from the Technology Subgroup

Dr. Kamil presented a brief report on behalf of the Technology Subgroup. He reiterated the findings presented to Panel members earlier in the year on technology and literacy issues. He further detailed how the Technology Subgroup was positioned to also be the subgroup that would identify what still needs to be done in terms of reading research and analysis. To date, Panel members have not used the Subgroup for that purpose.

Recess

The Panel recessed at 5:17 p.m. for the evening.

October 14, 1999

The National Reading Panel's October 14 session was called to order by Mr. Gaines at 8:18 a.m. Panel members in attendance included Dr. Langenberg, Dr. Ehri, Ms. Ferguson, Ms. Garza, Dr. Kamil, Dr. Marrett, Dr. Samuels, Dr. Shanahan, Dr. Shaywitz, Dr. Trabasso, Dr. Williams, Dr. Willows, and Dr. Yatvin. Also in attendance were Mr. Dommel and Dr. Cooper.

Discussionn of the Subgroup Reports

After reconvening, Panel members offered their initial opinions on the Subgroup reports presented the previous day. Dr. Ehri said that she had identified a possible person to conduct a meta-analysis of phonics research, and would work with him to move forward.

Dr. Shanahan noted that there was a lot the Panel had not done, and that there is a need for both future panels and future research. Dr. Langenberg followed, noting that the largest challenge facing the Panel was determining how to get complex materials and difficult ideas to key lay audiences. He also suggested that the Panel identify a series of "great questions" that the Panel should pose to reading researchers to tackle in the coming years.

Dr. Trabasso said that the analyses conducted by the Panel were quite substantial, and echoed Dr. Williams' opinion that additional meta-analyses were not necessarily needed. Dr. Trabasso also suggested that the Panel strongly justify why it chose to study the areas it did, and why it chose not to do others.

Dr. Marrett said the final report will represent the entire Panel and should include overarching, agreed-upon themes. Dr. Willows noted that the Panel's work was unfinished, and they should consider developing a template for target audiences.

Dr. Samuels stressed the need to gather hard data on phonics. Dr. Yatvin agreed on the need for phonics research, and noted that the Panel ignored many areas of study and still has not concluded how to teach, or even define, reading.

Ms. Garza said the Subgroup reports are geared toward general audiences and do not focus on the needs of learning-disabled or other at-risk students. She suspected that the Panel took on too much in its research efforts. Dr. Shaywitz said that the final report will serve as a solid educational tool, and that the Panel needs to focus on making the report one cohesive document.

Recess

The Panel recessed from 10:35 a.m. to 10:57 a.m.

Discussion of the Subgroup Reports (Continued)

Panel members wrapped up their discussion of the Subgroup reports by focusing on methodology. Dr. Cooper noted that there was some inconsistency in methodologies. Panel members agreed that the differences did not reduce the substance of the Subgroup findings.

Dr. Kamil suggested that the Panel go back and look at the list of 30 reading research issues that were identified at a previous Panel meeting, and incorporate that list into the final report.

Recess

The Panel recessed from 11:51 a.m. to 1:45 p.m.

Discussion of Next Steps

Following the recess, Panel members set a number of deadlines for upcoming work. Panel members agreed that:

• All subgroup reports and summaries of subgroup reports would be provided to the full Panel and Panel staff no later than November 15;
• The full Panel would meet on December 8 and December 9 in Washington, DC to discuss and agree to general Panel findings;
• The Panel would provide a final report to NICHD no later than January 31, 2000.

Panel members also agreed that they should target their findings to editorial boards, both for publications in the members' home areas and for professional journals. Panel members expressed an interest in developing a "Frequently Asked Questions" document that they could use with different audiences to explain the key issues the Panel faced.

Presentation of Focus Group Findings

Mr. Patrick Riccards, a consultant with The Widmeyer-Baker Group (TWBG), presented the general findings of the focus groups conducted in April and May. On behalf of the Panel, TWBG met with parents, teachers, administrators, teacher educators, business leaders, and policymakers to discuss the current role of reading research in decision making. Mr. Riccards detailed the formats of findings generally accepted by participants and noted their preferences as to overall content and design.

Specifically, Mr. Riccards posed that:

• Reading research is not readily used in curriculum development and decision making;
• All parties are interested in what the research says and recommends;
• Improving reading education is a team job, requiring the involvement of parents, teachers, and the community;
• Most current research is considered irrelevant by today's teacher;
• Research needs to be classroom-based, allowing teachers to see it working in classes just like theirs;
• Teachers are looking for turnkey solutions;
• Demographic information is important to all parties. They want to know that it works for communities and school systems like theirs;
• Video is a useful medium for all parties; and
• Education efforts on the research should be ongoing, and should not end after the final report is released.

Discussion of Final Report Format, Associated Activities

Ms. Phyllis Blaunstein, a TWBG consultant, then talked with the Panel about the use of video to communicate the Panel's findings. After detailing an extensive dissemination plan for the Panel's findings, Ms. Blaunstein focused on the value of producing a video final report to accompany the subgroup reports and a written executive summary.

Panel members agreed that a general video presentation, including Panel members presenting their findings and those findings being applied in real classrooms, was a good medium for presenting the Panel's findings. Panel members agreed to move forward on the video report, which is to be scripted from the subgroup reports and summaries to be completed no later than November 15.

Public Comment

No individuals offered public comment to the Panel.

The National Reading Panel concluded its meeting at 4:03 p.m.

Return to Top of Page

Charge to the NRP

Panel Member Biographies

NRP Meetings Archive

Working Partners Group