National Reading Panel - Teaching Children To Read: An .
AcknowledgmentsThe National Reading Panel wishes to express its gratitude to the following individuals for their contributionsto its effort.Marilyn AdamsMichelle EidlitzBlair JohnsonKhalil NouraniMichael PressleyRobin SidhuReports of the SubgroupsEd BouchardBarbara FoormanAlisa KennySimone NunesDavid ReinkingSteven StahlHarris CooperDavid FrancisHelen S. KimElizabeth S. PangScott J. RossMaggie ToplakiiGerald DuffyEster HalberstamMarjolaine LimbosJoan PagnuccoBarbara SchusterZoreh Yaghoubzadeh
Members of the National Reading PanelDonald N. Langenberg, Ph.D., ChairGloria Correro, Ed.D.Gwenette Ferguson, M.Ed.Michael L. Kamil, Ph.D.S.J. Samuels, Ed.D.Sally E. Shaywitz, M.D.Joanna Williams, Ph.D.Joanne Yatvin, Ph.D.Linnea Ehri, Ph.D.Norma Garza, C.P.A.Cora Bagley Marrett, Ph.D.Timothy Shanahan, Ph.D.Thomas Trabasso, Ph.D.Dale Willows, Ph.D.MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL READING PANEL SUBGROUPSAlphabeticsLinnea Ehri, ChairGloria CorreroTimothy ShanahanDale WillowsJoanne YatvinComprehensionMichael L. Kamil, ChairGwenette FergusonNorma GarzaThomas TrabassoJoanna WilliamsFluencyS.J. Samuels, Co-ChairTimothy Shanahan, Co-ChairSally E. ShaywitzMethodologyTimothy Shanahan, Co-ChairSally E. Shaywitz, Co-ChairTeacher EducationGloria Corerro, Co-ChairMichael L. Kamil, Co-ChairGwenette FergusonNorma GarzaCora Bagley MarrettTechnology/Next StepsMichael L. Kamil, ChairDonald N. LangenbergSTAFF OF THE NATIONAL READING PANELF. William Dommel, Jr., J.D., Executive DirectorVinita Chhabra, M.Ed., Research ScientistJudith Rothenberg, SecretaryJaimee Nusbacher, Meeting ManagerMary E. McCarthy, Ph.D., Senior Staff PsychologistStephanne Player, Support StaffPatrick Riccards, Senior AdvisoriiiNational Reading Panel
Table of ContentsAcknowledgments .iiMembers of the National Reading Panel .iiiChapter 1: Introduction and MethodologyIntroduction .Methodology: Processes Applied to the Selection, Review, andAnalysis of Research Relevant to Reading Instruction .Chapter 2: AlphabeticsPart I: Phonemic Awareness InstructionExecutive Summary .Report .Appendices .Part II: Phonics InstructionExecutive Summary .Report .Appendices .Chapter 3: FluencyExecutive Summary .Report .Appendices .Chapter 4: ComprehensionExecutive Summary .Introduction .Part I. Vocabulary InstructionReport .Appendices .Part II: Text Comprehension InstructionReport .Appendices .Part III. Teacher Preparation and Comprehension Strategies InstructionReport .Appendices 154-334-394-694-1194-133National Reading Panel
Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading InstructionExecutive Summary .5-1Report .Appendices .5-35-19Chapter 6: Computer Technology and Reading InstructionExecutive Summary.Report .Appendices .6-16-36-13Minority ViewReports of the Subgroupsvi
IntroductionREPORTS OF THE SUBGROUPSIntroductionCongressional ChargeIn 1997, Congress asked the “Director of the NationalInstitute of Child Health and Human Development(NICHD), in consultation with the Secretary ofEducation, to convene a national panel to assess thestatus of research-based knowledge, including theeffectiveness of various approaches to teaching childrento read.” The panel was charged with providing a reportthat “should present the panel’s conclusions, anindication of the readiness for application in theclassroom of the results of this research, and, ifappropriate, a strategy for rapidly disseminating thisinformation to facilitate effective reading instruction inthe schools. If found warranted, the panel should alsorecommend a plan for additional research regarding earlyreading development and instruction.”Establishment ofthe National Reading PanelIn response to this Congressional request, the Director ofNICHD, in consultation with the Secretary of Education,constituted and charged a National Reading Panel (theNRP or the Panel). The NRP was composed of 14individuals, including (as specified by Congress) “leadingscientists in reading research, representatives of collegesof education, reading teachers, educationaladministrators, and parents.” The original charge to theNRP asked that a final report be submitted byNovember 1998.When the Panel began its work, it quickly becameapparent that the Panel could not respond properly to itscharge within that time constraint. Permission wassought and received to postpone the report’s submissiondeadline. A progress report was submitted to theCongress in February 1999. The information provided inthe NRP Progress Report, the Report of the NationalReading Panel, and this Report of the National ReadingPanel: Reports of the Subgroups reflects the findings anddeterminations of the National Reading Panel.1-1NRP Approach to Achieving theObjectives of Its Charge and InitialTopic SelectionThe charge to the NRP took into account thefoundational work of the National Research Council(NRC) Committee on Preventing Reading Difficulties inYoung Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). TheNRC report is a consensus document based on the bestjudgments of a diverse group of experts in readingresearch and reading instruction. The NRC Committeeidentified and summarized research literature relevant tothe critical skills, environments, and early developmentalinteractions that are instrumental in the acquisition ofbeginning reading skills. The NRC Committee did notspecifically address “how” critical reading skills are mosteffectively taught and what instructional methods,materials, and approaches are most beneficial forstudents of varying abilities.In order to build upon and expand the work of the NRCCommittee, the NRP first developed an objectiveresearch review methodology. The Panel then appliedthis methodology to undertake comprehensive, formal,evidence-based analyses of the experimental and quasiexperimental research literature relevant to a set ofselected topics judged to be of central importance inteaching children to read. An examination of a variety ofpublic databases by Panel staff revealed thatapproximately 100,000 research studies on reading havebeen published since 1966, with perhaps another 15,000appearing before that time. Obviously, it was notpossible for a panel of volunteers to examine criticallythis entire body of research literature. Selection ofprioritized topics was necessitated by the large amountof published reading research literature relevant to thePanel’s charge to determine the effectiveness of readinginstructional methods and approaches. A screeningprocess was, therefore, essential.The Panel’s initial screening task involved selection ofthe set of topics to be addressed. Recognizing that thisselection would require the use of informed judgment,the Panel chose to begin its work by broadening itsNational Reading Panel
Chapter 1: Introduction and Methodologyunderstanding of reading issues through a thoroughanalysis of the findings of the NRC report, PreventingReading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, &Griffin, 1998). Early in its deliberations the Panel madea tentative decision to establish subgroups of itsmembers and to assign to each subgroup one of themajor topic areas designated by the NRC Committee ascentral to learning to read—Alphabetics, Fluency, andComprehension. The importance of phonemic awareness, phonics,and good literature in reading instruction, and theneed to develop a clear understanding of how bestto integrate different reading approaches toenhance the effectiveness of instruction for allstudents; The need for clear, objective, and scientificallybased information on the effectiveness of differenttypes of reading instruction and the need to havesuch research inform policy and practice; The importance of applying the highest standards ofscientific evidence to the research review process sothat conclusions and determinations are based onfindings obtained from experimental studiescharacterized by methodological rigor withdemonstrated reliability, validity, replicability, andapplicability; The importance of the role of teachers, theirprofessional development, and their interactions andcollaborations with researchers, which should berecognized and encouraged; and The importance of widely disseminating theinformation that is developed by the Panel.Regional Public HearingsAs part of its information gathering, the Panel publiclyannounced, planned, and held regional hearings inChicago, IL (May 29,1998), Portland, OR (June 5,1998), Houston, TX (June 8, 1998), New York, NY(June 23, 1998), and Jackson, MS (July 9, 1998). ThePanel believed that it would not have been possible toaccomplish the mandate of Congress without firsthearing directly from consumers of this information—teachers, parents, students, and policymakers—abouttheir needs and their understanding of the research.Although the regional hearings were not intended as asubstitute for scientific research, the hearings gave thePanel an opportunity to listen to the voices of those whowill need to consider implementation of the Panel’sfindings and determinations. The regional hearings gavemembers a clearer understanding of the issues importantto the public.Adoption of Topics To Be StudiedAs a result of these hearings, the Panel received oral andwritten testimony from approximately 125 individuals ororganizations representing citizens—teachers, parents,students, university faculty, educational policy experts,and scientists—who would be the ultimate users andbeneficiaries of the research-derived findings anddeterminations of the Panel.At the regional hearings, several key themes wereexpressed repeatedly: Following the regional hearings, the Panel considered,discussed, and debated several dozen possible topicareas and then settled on the following topics forintensive study: Reports of the Subgroups-Phonemic Awareness Instruction-Phonics Instruction Fluency ComprehensionThe importance of the role of parents and otherconcerned individuals, especially in providingchildren with early language and literacy experiencesthat foster reading development;The importance of early identification andintervention for all children at risk for readingfailure;Alphabetics-Vocabulary Instruction-Text Comprehension Instruction- Teacher Preparation and ComprehensionStrategies Instruction Teacher Education and Reading Instruction Computer Technology and Reading Instruction1-2
IntroductionIn addition, because of the concern voiced by the publicat the regional hearings that the highest standards ofscientific evidence be applied in the research reviewprocess, the methodology subgroup was tasked todevelop a research review process including specificreview criteria.Each topic and subtopic became the subject of the workof a subgroup composed of one or more Panelmembers. Some Panel members served on more thanone subgroup. (The full report of each subgroup isincluded in this volume.) The subgroups formulatedseven broad questions to guide their efforts in meetingthe Congressional charge of identifying effectiveinstructional reading approaches and determining theirreadiness for application in the classroom:1. Does instruction in phonemic awareness improvereading? If so, how is this instruction best provided?7. Does teacher education influence how effectiveteachers are at teaching children to read? If so, howis this instruction best provided?Each subgroup also generated several subordinatequestions to address within each of the major questions.It should be made clear that the Panel did not considerthese questions and the instructional issues that theyrepresent to be the only topics of importance in learningto read. The Panel’s silence on other topics should notbe interpreted as indicating that other topics have noimportance or that improvement in those areas wouldnot lead to greater reading achievement. It was simplythe sheer number of studies identified by Panel staffrelevant to reading (more than 100,000 published since1966 and more than 15,000 prior to 1966) thatprecluded an exhaustive analysis of the research in allareas of potential interest.The Panel also did not address issues relevant to secondlanguage learning, as this topic was being addressed indetail in a new, comprehensive NICHD/OERI (Office ofEducational Research and Improvement) researchinitiative. The questions presented above bear oninstructional topics of widespread interest in the field ofreading education that have been articulated in a widerange of theories, research studies, instructionalprograms, curricula, assessments, and educationalpolicies. The Panel elected to examine these andsubordinate questions because they currently reflect thecentral issues in reading instruction and readingachievement.2. Does phonics instruction improve readingachievement? If so, how is this instruction bestprovided?3. Does guided repeated oral reading instructionimprove fluency and reading comprehension? If so,how is this instruction best provided?4. Does vocabulary instruction improve readingachievement? If so, how is this instruction bestprovided?5. Does comprehension strategy instruction improvereading? If so, how is this instruction best provided?6. Do programs that increase the amount of children’sindependent reading improve reading achievementand motivation? If so, how is this instruction bestprovided?1-3National Reading Panel
MethodologyREPORTS OF THE SUBGROUPSMethodology: Processes Applied to the Selection, Review, andAnalysis of Research Relevant to Reading InstructionIn an important action critical to its Congressionalcharge, the NRP elected to develop and adopt a set ofrigorous research methodological standards. Thesestandards, which are defined in this section, guided thescreening of the research literature relevant to each topicarea addressed by the Panel. This screening processidentified a final set of experimental or quasiexperimental research studies that were then subjected todetailed analysis. The evidence-based methodologicalstandards adopted by the Panel are essentially thosenormally used in research studies of the efficacy ofinterventions in psychological and medical research.These include behaviorally based interventions,medications or medical procedures proposed for use inthe fostering of robust health and psychologicaldevelopment and the prevention or treatment ofdisease.It is the view of the Panel that the efficacy of materialsand methodologies used in the teaching of reading and inthe prevention or treatment of reading disabilities shouldbe tested no less rigorously. However, such standardshave not been universally accepted or used in readingeducation research. Unfortunately, only a small fractionof the total reading research literature met the Panel’sstandards for use in the topic analyses.With this as background, the Panel understood thatcriteria had to be developed as it considered whichresearch studies would be eligible for assessment. Therewere two reasons for determining such guidelines orrules a priori. First, the use of common search,selection, analysis, and reporting procedures wouldensure that the Panel’s efforts could proceed, not as adiverse collection of independent—and possiblyuneven—synthesis papers, but as parts of a greaterwhole. The use of common procedures permitted amore unified presentation of the combined methods andfindings. Second, the amount of research synthesis thathad to be accomplished was substantial. Consequently,the Panel had to work in diverse subgroups to identify,screen, and evaluate the relevant research to completetheir respective reports. Moreover, the Panel also had toarrive at findings that all or nearly all of the members ofthe NRP could endorse. Common procedures, groundedin scientific principles, helped the Panel to reach finalagreements.Search ProceduresEach subgroup conducted a search of the literature usingcommon procedures, describing in detail the basis andrationale for its topical term selections, the strategiesemployed for combining terms or delimiting searches,and the search procedures used for each topical area.Each subgroup limited the period of time covered by itssearches on the basis of relative recentness and howmuch literature the search generated. For example, insome cases it was decided to limit the years searched tothe number of most recent years that would identifybetween 300 to 400 potential sources. This scope couldbe expanded in later iterations if it appeared that thenature of the research had changed qualitatively overtime, if the proportion of useable research identified wassmall (e.g., less than 25%), or if the search simplyrepresented too limited a proportion of the total set ofidentifiable studies. Although the number of yearssearched varied among subgroup topics, decisionsregarding the number of years to be searched were madein accord with shared criteria.The initial criteria were established to focus the effortsof the Panel. First, any study selected had to focusdirectly on children’s reading development from
NRP or the Panel). The NRP was composed of 14 individuals, including (as specified by Congress) “leading scientists in reading research, representatives of colleges of education, reading teachers, educational administrators, and parents.” The original charge to the NRP asked that a final report be submitted by November 1998.
Hush Panel 28 Hush Panel 32 Hush Panel 33 Hush Panel 37 Hush Panel 48 Hush Panel 52 Hush Ply 28 Hush Ply 32 When installing Hush Cem Panel 28 or Hush Cem Panel 32 the tongue and groove joints are to be glued using Hush Cem Panel Adhesive. All joints to be glued, on all sides of the panel to give the best bond. Adhesive not to be spared .
Explicitly teaching strategies for reading comprehension: children make better progress in their reading when teachers provide direct instruction and design and implement activities that support understanding. (From National Reading Panel Report, 2000) References National Reading Panel, (2000) Report Of The National Reading Panel, Washington, DC:
All About the Alphabet Reading Alphabet Fun: A Reading Alphabet Fun: B Reading Alphabet Fun: C Reading Alphabet Fun: D Reading Alphabet Fun: E Reading Alphabet Fun: F Reading Alphabet Fun: G Reading Alphabet Fun: H Reading Alphabet Fun: I Reading Alphabet Fun: J Reading Alphabet Fun: K Reading Alphabet Fu
the transverse panel-to-panel connections are referred to simply as panel-to-panel connections. Panel-to-panel connections can be nonprestressed or post- . (25 100 mm) flat plastic duct (Fig. 5). One of the connections with a stress of 340 psi (2.34 MPa) had an epoxy bonding agent applied to the
Attach and remove the control panel You can attach the control panel directly to the drive, or use a separate mounting kit. To attach the control panel to a drive: 1. Place the bottom end of the control panel into the slot in the drive. 2. Press the control panel lock clip down. 3. Push the control panel into place. To remove the control panel:
PANEL HEMMING TOOL TremLock SL Field Hem 1 1/2" TremLock SLPanel TremLock SL Panel TremLock SL Panel Field Notch Panel Hemming Tool Panel Hemming Tool Panel Hemming Tool NOTES: 1. Cut through male and female legs/ribs 1 1/2" up from panel end as shown. 2. Then cut diagonally with metal shears as shown. 3. Place hemming tool over panel tab. 4.
What is a Teaching Portfolio? A Teaching Portfolio Outline What makes it Reflective? Moving forward What are the parts of a Teaching Portfolio Teaching Responsibilities Teaching Philosophy Teaching Methodologies Course Materials & Student Learning Teaching Effectiveness Teaching Improvement Activities
definition of reading, purposes of reading, techniques of and approaches to teaching reading in the class. It discusses in detail the sub-skills of reading and the problems students face while reading. It has also points out how to select an appropriate text for reading classes or for an appropriate purpose.
