National Reading Panel (NRP) - Congressional Testimony

Dr. Donald N. Langenberg, NRP Chairperson
Testimony before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am Don Langenberg. I have been privileged to serve as Chairman of the National Reading Panel established by the Congress. I am joined today by many of the members of the Panel and by some members of the Panel staff. These expert and accomplished individuals have worked tirelessly since April 1998 to respond to your charge to the Panel. They come from a wide variety of academic disciplines and occupations in education. The Panel was composed of parents and grandparents, teachers, professors of education and psychology, school and university administrators, a pediatrician, and a school principal. I myself am a professor of physics and the Chancellor of the thirteen-institution University System of Maryland. We all share a common dedication to the improvement of the teaching and learning of reading all across our nation.

You asked the Panel to

The task you set for the Panel is a monumental task! The research literature on reading includes over 100,000 studies published since 1966, and an additional 15,000 or so published before that. I wish I could tell you that the Panel members have read and analyzed every single one of those studies, but I can't, because they couldn't possibly have done so. Choices had to be made about what the Panel did, and how it did it. It is in the wisdom of those choices that the success of the Panel's work lies. Let me now describe them to you.

The Panel began by identifying a set of topics that are of central importance in teaching children to read. It was aided in this selection by a report of the National Research Council, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, published at about the time the Panel began its work. It refined its selection using information from regional public hearings held by the Panel in five major cities across the country.

The final topics the Panel studied intensively were:

Then, in what may be the Panel's most important action, it developed and adopted a set of rigorous methodological standards. These standards are essentially the standards normally used in medical and behavioral research to assess the efficacy of behavioral interventions, medications or medical procedures. They guided the Panel's screening of the research literature relevant to each topic. This process identified a set of experimental or quasi-experimental research studies that were then subjected to detailed analysis by subgroups of the Panel members. I also want to point out that the Panel carried out its deliberations and discussions in public to ensure that all citizens could observe the proceedings and provide input to the Panel at each of their meetings.

The findings of the Panel's subgroups are presented in detail in their reports and are summarized in the Report of the National Reading Panel. Let me touch on just a few highlights.

The Panel found that certain instructional methods are better than others, and that many of the more effective methods are ready for implementation in the classroom. To become good readers, children must develop phonemic awareness, phonics skills, the ability to read words in text in an accurate and fluent manner, and the ability to apply comprehension strategies consciously and deliberately as they read.

Phonemic awareness is knowledge that spoken words are made up of tiny segments of sound, referred to as phonemes. For example, the words "go" and "she" each consists of two phonemes. Phonemic awareness is often confused with phonics, which refers to the process of linking these sounds to the symbols that stand for them, the letters of the alphabet. Phonemic awareness is critically important in learning how to read because children cannot pronounce unfamiliar words if they do not know the sounds that link to the letters on the page. In fact, the Panel found that many difficulties learning to read were caused by inadequate awareness and that systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness directly caused improvements in children's reading and spelling skills. The evidence for these casual claims is so clear cut that the Panel concluded that systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness should be an important component of classroom reading instruction for children in preschool and beyond who have not been taught phoneme concepts or who have difficulties understanding that the words in oral language are composed of smaller speech sounds - sounds that will be linked to the letters of the alphabet. Importantly, the Panel found that even preschool children responded well to instruction in phonemic awareness when the instruction was presented in an age-appropriate and entertaining manner.

The Panel also concluded that the research literature provides solid evidence that phonics instruction produces significant benefits for children from kindergarten through 6th grade and for children having difficulty learning to read. The greatest improvements were seen from systematic phonics instruction. This type of phonics instruction consists of teaching a planned sequence of phonics elements, rather than highlighting elements as they happen to appear in a text. Here again, the evidence was so strong that the Panel concluded that systematic phonics instruction is appropriate for routine classroom instruction. The Panel noted that, because children vary in reading ability and vary in the skills they bring to the classroom, no single approach to teaching phonics could be used in all cases. For this reason, it is important to train teachers in the different kinds of approaches to teaching phonics and in how to tailor these approaches to particular groups of students.

Children at risk of reading failure especially require direct and systematic instruction in these skills, and that instruction should be provided as early as possible. Children in kindergarten and in the first grade respond well to instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics, provided the instruction is delivered in a vibrant, imaginative, and entertaining fashion. Children who experience early difficulty in reading respond well to phonics instruction through the late elementary school years.

The Panel also concluded that guided oral reading has been clearly documented by research to be important for developing reading fluency - the ability to read with efficiency and ease. In guided oral reading, students read out loud, to a parent, teacher or other student, who corrects their mistakes and provides them with other feedback. Specifically, guided oral reading helped students across a wide range of grade levels to learn to recognize new words, helped them to read accurately and easily, and helped them to comprehend what they read.

By contrast, the Panel was unable to determine from the research whether reading silently to oneself helped to improve reading fluency. Although it makes sense that silent reading would lead to improvements in fluency, and the Panel members did not discourage the practice, sufficient research to conclusively prove this assumption has not been conducted. Literally hundreds of studies have shown that the best readers read silently to themselves more frequently than do poor readers. However, these studies cannot distinguish whether independent silent reading improves reading skills or that good readers simply prefer to read silently to themselves more than do poor readers. The Panel concluded that if silent reading is used in the classroom as a method intended to develop reading skills and fluency, it should be combined with other types of reading instruction, such as guided oral reading. The Panel also recommends that substantial additional research be conducted on the effectiveness of silent independent reading and other instructional procedures to enhance fluency and the ability to read with proper expression.

To determine how children best learn to comprehend what they read, the Panel reviewed studies of three areas regarded as essential to developing reading comprehension: vocabulary development, text comprehension instruction, and teacher preparation and comprehension strategies instruction.

Although the best method or combination of methods for teaching vocabulary has not yet been identified, the Panel review uncovered several important implications for teaching reading. First, vocabulary should be taught both directly - apart from a larger narrative or text - and indirectly - as words are encountered in a larger text. Repetition and multiple exposure to vocabulary words will also assist vocabulary development, as will the use of computer technology. The Panel emphasized that instructors should not rely on single methods for teaching vocabulary, but on a combination of methods.

Likewise, the Panel also found that reading comprehension of text is best facilitated by teaching students a variety of techniques and systematic strategies to assist in recall of information, question generation, and summarizing of information. The Panel also found that teachers must be provided with appropriate and intensive training to ensure that they know when and how to teach specific strategies.

With respect to the overall preparation of teachers, the Panel noted that existing studies showed that training both new and established teachers generally produced higher student achievement, but the research in this area is woefully inadequate to draw clear conclusions about what makes training most effective. More quality research on teacher training is one of the major research needs identified by the Panel.

Finally, the Panel examined the use of computer technology to teach reading. The Panel noted that there are too few definitive studies to draw firm conclusions, but that the available information suggests that it is possible to use computer technology to improve reading instruction. For example, the use of computers as word processors may help students learn to read, as reading instruction is most effective when combined with writing instruction.

Teachers are key! They must know how children learn to read, why some children have difficulty learning to read, and how to identify and implement instructional approaches of proven efficacy for different children. They must know how to judge the quality of the reading research literature and to use it to develop curricula and teaching methods based on the soundest and most scientifically rigorous studies. Literacy instruction can and should be provided to all children beginning in kindergarten. In doing so, teachers must understand that such instruction should be integrated with the entire kindergarten experience in order to optimize their students' social and emotional development.

The Panel's staff has developed a comprehensive strategy to disseminate its findings. The Panel's report and an accompanying interpretive and illustrative video tape will be provided to every member of Congress, to all governors and state departments of education, to all libraries, to all of the nation's major education and teacher organizations, and to the news media. Communication materials summarizing the major elements of our report will be developed to suit the specific needs of different audiences, including parents, teachers, school administrators, and policy makers. A speakers' bureau is being formed that will send teams -- which may include Panel members -- to present the Panel's findings and determinations to states and to local school districts. These teams will be prepared to provide teachers with specific examples and activities to help them apply these findings and determinations in their classrooms. A Reading Education Summit to provide a national forum on the findings and determinations of the Panel for leaders of colleges and universities that prepare future teachers and enhance the skills of current teachers is also being discussed.

The Report of the National Reading Panel is certainly valuable for the information it contains about what is reliably known about early reading development and instruction. The Report is also valuable for what it says about what we do not know, and thus for what we need to discover through future research. Let me mention just two examples among many.

The reading research literature is huge. Much of it, however, consists of qualitative, descriptive, and correlational studies. Such studies do have value. They can help us to understand the general nature of a problem and to form scientifically testable hypotheses about learning mechanisms and pedagogical techniques. But correlation is not causation! We cannot separate truth from conjecture, or distinguish what really does work from what might work, without scientifically rigorous experimental or quasi-experimental research of the kind on which the Panel focussed its work. Too little such research has been done, and we need more of it. No physician would normally subject a patient to a treatment or a drug whose efficacy had not been proven in rigorous scientific testing. We should expect no less of a teacher subjecting a student to curricular content or a teaching methodology. Until we develop the necessary knowledge base, we can expect our schools to continue to be besieged by education fads and nostrums.

Today, information technology is transforming education of all kinds and at all levels. If we have a machine that can recognize speech and convert it to text -- and vice versa, or analyze and critique grammar, punctuation, and syntax, or interact with students in other ways, it is plausible to imagine that it might be a useful tool in the teaching and learning of reading. Understandably, given the newness of the technology, there is very little solid research that tests that hypothesis. There ought to be more -- much more -- in this virgin and little-explored field.

Let me conclude with a couple of personal observations.

I have learned a great deal from my fellow Panel members in the course of our work. They have given me a new perspective on our subject. There is a recent report entitled Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science. I think that is a gross underestimate. I spent my career as an experimental physicist doing things akin to rocket science. I now believe that the teaching and learning of reading is much more complex and difficult. Our fundamental understanding of the human brain and the mind it embodies is quite rudimentary. So is our understanding of how to translate what we do know into effective teaching and learning. But I am optimistic about the future. I am reminded of the long, slow development of our understanding of the quantum nature of the universe in the early twentieth century, led by Einstein, Bohr, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, and others. By the end of the twentieth century, application of that understanding had led to the information technology revolution that is now explosively transforming our world and our lives. I hope and expect that the twenty-first century will bring us a comparable understanding of our own minds and of how best to develop them. Let us all do what we can to make that happen.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues, in essence, asked our Panel to help save our nation from illiteracy. I am proud of the way in which this Panel has responded to your daunting charge. This diverse group of individuals, working together, developed a set of scientific criteria and, for the first time, used them to assess the quality and rigor of research on reading instruction. They identified instructional approaches that are demonstrably effective in teaching reading skills to a wide range of children. They did this in a public forum in a politically charged environment. They did not come up with any simple "silver bullet" - because none exists. But they did create, I believe, a landmark contribution to our knowledge about teaching children to read.

Now, I would be pleased to respond to your questions - your easy questions. I hope you will permit me to refer your hard questions to the real experts of the Panel who are with me today.