About
the National Reading Panel (NRP)
NRP
Meetings Archive
| Panel Meetings
November 9-10, 1998
Washington, DC
Meeting Minutes
November 9, 1998
Introduction
The National Reading Panel met in Washington,
DC on Monday, November 9 in the Chevy Chase Room of
the Embassy Suites Hotel-Chevy Chase Pavilion.
The meeting was called to order by
NRP Chair Donald Langenberg at 2:06 p.m.
Panelists attending on November 9 were
Langenberg, Gloria Correro, Linnea Ehri, Gwenette Ferguson,
Norma Garza, Michael Kamil, S.J. Samuels, Timothy Shanahan,
Thomas Trabasso, Joanna Williams, and Joanne Yatvin.
Sally Shaywitz was connected into the meeting via telephone.
The Panel approved the minutes from
the July 24-25 NRP full meeting, the September 10 NRP
full meeting, and the October 19th Subgroup Chairs meeting
in Washington, DC. The Panel then agreed to meet the
following morning at 9 a.m., instead of the planned
8 a.m., to provide the subgroups with more time.
Discussion of Claims
Instead of presenting subgroup reports,
Dr. Ehri suggested that the Panel should move forward
and begin discussing what claims – or the primary
areas and assertions about reading instruction –
the Panel should investigate. The Panel agreed to move
forward on the discussion of claims.
On behalf of the Alphabetics Subgroup,
Dr. Ehri offered six claims: phonemic awareness, the
effects of spelling instruction on reading, phonic instruction,
sight-word reading, influence of the text on reading
achievement, and the contribution of work sheets to
reading acquisition.
On behalf of the Fluency Subgroup,
Dr. Shanahan offered three claims: oral reading activities,
recreational reading, and easy level texts.
On behalf of the Comprehension Subgroup,
Dr. Kamil offered the following claims: vocabulary,
declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, purposes
and goals, oral language skills, and the relationship
between learning and reading.
On behalf of the Professional Development
Subgroup, Dr. Correro offered the following claims:
conceptual foundations, the reading process, the nature
of language, reading strategies, and supervised practica.
She also presented a set of standards
prepared by the National Association for the Council
of Teacher Education and a set of standards prepared
by the International Reading Association.
Prioritization of Claims
The Panel then discussed the claims
presented by the subgroups, and added some other areas
of inquiry. The completed list of claims included: tutoring,
social organization, assessment instruments, amount
of reading and instruction, student beliefs/attitudes/
purposes, oral language, print awareness, world knowledge,
technology, home preschool/school age influences, writing
instruction, literacy instruction, teacher proficiency,
nature of text for reading instruction, materials/texts/basals/etc.
in teacher preparation, parent involvement, what is
really happening in classrooms, phonemic awareness/letters,
spelling instruction, phonics instruction, sight-word
learning, use of worksheets, oral reading/repeated reading,
recreational reading, difficulty level of text, reading
practice effects on fluency, knowledge base for reading
standards in teacher education, vocabulary, declarative
knowledge, strategies/procedures, reading goals and
purposes, and learning and reading.
Recess
The Panel recessed from 4:01 p.m. to
4:36 p.m.
Prioritization of Claims (Continued)
The Panel then agreed to take the complete
list of priorities and select the ten items that each
believes to be most important or that he/she believes
the Panel should concentrate on.
It was noted that a substantial amount
of work has already been conducted in the areas of phonemic
awareness, oral/repeated reading, and strategies/procedures.
After a quick tabulation, Panel members
determined that the top 12 areas were: assessment instruments,
oral language, home/ preschool/school age influences,
writing instruction, nature of test for reading acquisition,
phonemic awareness/letters, phonics instruction, oral
reading/repeated reading, reading practice effects in
fluency, etc., knowledge base for reading standards
in teacher education, and strategies/procedures.
Panel members then discussed how other
important topics could fit under the identified 12 priorities.
Recess
The Panel recessed at 5:29 p.m., to
resume the following morning at 9 a.m.
November 10, 1998
Introduction
The National Reading Panel reconvened
at 9:10 a.m. on Tuesday, November 10. Panel members
approved the minutes from the September 10 meeting of
the full Panel.
Panelists attending on November 10
were Langenberg, Correro, Ehri, Ferguson, Garza, Kamil,
Samuels, Shanahan, Trabasso, Williams, and Yatvin.
Prioritization of Claims (Continued)
Dr. Langenberg then re-started the
Panel’s discussion of the prioritization of the
claims identified at the November 9 meeting. He presented
a chart of the claims organized under the existing subgroup
headings, to ensure that there were individuals responsible
for each claim.
Dr. Kamil suggested that instead of
grouping claims under the subgroups, each Panelist sign
up for the three claims that they were most interested
in. The Panel agreed and identified their choices.
While waiting for the tabulation of
those selections, the Panel informally discussed the
timeline and process for the writing of its final report.
A number of members thought that it might be useful
to have some drafts and sections written by spring 1999
so they could be discussed and used as springboards
for work on the final draft.
Ehri, Shanahan, and Williams signed
up for phonemic awareness. Ferguson, Garza, Langenberg,
Trabasso, and Williams signed up for strategies/procedures.
Samuels and Shanahan signed up for oral/repeated reading.
Ferguson, Kamil, Willows, and Yatvin signed up for materials/text/instruction.
Garza, Kamil, Trabasso, and Williams signed up for vocabulary.
Ehri, Trabasso, Willow, and Yatvin signed up for phonics
instruction. Correro, Ehri, Ferguson, Langenberg, and
Samuels signed up for assessment instruments/formal
assessments. Kamil, Willows, and Yatvin signed up for
oral language. Correro, Ferguson, Langenberg, Marrett,
and Williams signed up for knowledge base for teacher
education standards. Garza, Trabasso, and Yatvin signed
up for home influences/preschool and school age. Garza,
Trabasso, and Williams signed up for writing instruction.
Samuels and Shanahan signed up for reading practice
effects on fluency. Yatvin signed up for print awareness.
Recess
The Panel recessed from 10:28 a.m.
until 10:49 a.m.
Research Methodology Discussion
Dr. Kamil began the discussion by briefing
the full Panel on his presentation at the October Subgroup
Chairs meeting.
Dr. Shanahan provided a brief synopsis
of meta-analyses and their role in the planned methodology.
He noted that it was important that the Panel winnow
the research in a subjective way, using criteria agreed
upon by all.
Shanahan then detailed categories and
issues under those categories that should be discussed
in finalizing the Panel’s methodology, noting that
the Panel needs to be sure to address many of these
issues before it gets too deep into its evaluation of
research. Several of the subgroups then reiterated the
rationale and details of their internally designed coding
sheets for evaluating research.
Dr. Trabasso said it was important
to determine whether a study is flawed after the information
in the study has been identified. Dr. Kamil reiterated
his desire to include cost effectiveness in the analysis
of studies.
Recess
The Panel recessed from 12:04 p.m.
to 1:15 p.m.
General Discussion
The Panel discussed having its scientific
members – or those members who are researchers
by trade – meet before the next full Panel meeting
to continue work on methodology issues. It was agreed
that the meeting would be held on December 3 in Austin,
Texas in conjunction with the National Reading Conference.
Panel members then continued their
discussions about whether unpublished studies and dissertations
should be included in the subgroups’ research reviews.
Panelists decided to continue discussing the issue,
recognizing that such works could be useful if a sample
size of published, peer-reviewed studies is too small.
To aid current research, the Panel agreed that any studies
found through the various kinds of systematic search
procedures could be included in the Panel’s work.
Presentation on Progress Report/Final
Report/Design
Panel staff then outlined the draft
plans for the Panel’s final report, scheduled for
release in the beginning of the year 2000, and a progress
report, scheduled for release in January/February 1999.
Staff also presented design mock-ups
for the report’s cover and layout, presenting two
different versions of possible designs to be adopted
by the Panel. The staff announced that the Panel would
launch an informational web site at approximately the
same time as the release of the progress report.
Public Comment Period
The Panel then heard public comment
from Marsha Berger of the American Federation of Teachers’
Educational Issues Department. She said that the AFT
sees reading as a school’s first mission, and looks
forward to the Panel’s work in getting the existing
research base out to teachers. Berger said that the
AFT is committed to disseminating research-proven instruction
practices through its publications and its professional
development program.
Future Planning
NRP Executive Director F. William Dommel,
Jr. noted that the full Panel is next scheduled to meet
on January 21 and 22, 1999. Several Panel members suggested
that that time might be better spent working in subgroups
rather than as a full Panel.
Several dates were also discussed for
a full Panel meeting in April, with members tentatively
settling on April 7.
The Panel also determined that Ehri,
Kamil, Samuels, Shanahan, Shaywitz, Trabasso, Williams,
and Willows would attend the scientists meeting.
The Panel adjourned at 3:28 p.m.
Return to Top of Page
|
