The Reading Excellence Act: A Critical Analysis of Its Contributory Value and Existent Shortcomings

The Reading Excellence Act: A Critical Analysis of Its Contributory Value and Existent Shortcomings

1 Introduction

Approaches to reading instruction constitute an incontrovertibly important issue, as importance directly stems from the fact that reading fluency is a predicator of academic survival, let alone success. Within the context of the stated, and considering that reading is the bedrock of education, multiple studies have been conducted on the optimal reading instruction approach. Needless to say, controversy surrounds the question of optimal approach, giving rise to what has been termed the `reading wars.' In an effort to settle the said wars and affirm the imperatives of reading excellence, in 1997 Congress passed the Reading Excellence Act, subsequent to which a committee for the study and investigation of the components of reading excellence was formed. Following an overview of the report's findings, the research will overview reading instruction paradigms.

2 Reading Excellence Act: Study Findings

In an effort to put an end to the reading wars, Congress passed the Reading Excellence Act of 1997. The act allowed Rod Paige (U.S. Secretary of Education) and the NICHD to establish an NRP. The panel was to be composed of 15 members, including "leading scientists in reading research, representatives of colleges of education, reading teachers, educational administrators, and parents" (NICHD, 2000a, p. 1- 1). The NICHD selected 12 university professors, one principal from an elementary school, a parent, and one language arts teacher from a middle school (Yatvin, 2002). One panel member resigned shortly after being selected and was not replaced. This panel was charged with reviewing reading research and presenting its findings (NICHD, 2000a; Yatvin, 2002).

The methodology adopted by the panel was quantitative and used both experimental and quasiexperimental designs. The experimental design required the use of random assignment of participants to control and experimental groups. Quasiexperimental studies did not include random assignment but did include treatment and control conditions. Two initial criteria were set by panel members: (a) "Any study selected had to focus directly on children's reading development from preschool through grade twelve" (NICHD, 2000a, p. 1-5), and (b) "the study had to be published in English in a referred journal" (NICHD, 2000a, p. 1-5). Additional criteria were set by the subgroups. A metaanalysis summarizing the results of the studies in each subcategory was also required. The subgroups, however, were not able to conduct a meta-analysis in all of the categories due to the lack of experimental research in education. Results from each topic will be discussed along with criticisms of the findings (NICHD, 2000a).

2.1 Phonemic Awareness

The NRP subgroup examining PA selected additional criteria for studies under review. Experimental studies were selected that "(a) administered PA training to students, (b). . . included control groups, and (c) . . . measured the impact of [PA] training on reading outcomes" (NICHD, 2000% p. 2-9). Through this process, 52 studies were chosen. Participants ranged in age from preschool to sixth grade and included "at risk" students and students with reading disabilities. Students with low to high socioeconomic status participated in the study. In some studies, classroom teachers provided the instruction; in others, researchers or computer programs delivered the instruction. Studies were conducted in several languages, including Norwegian, Hebrew, German, Spanish, Finnish, Dutch, Swedish, and English. Children worked individually, in small groups, or in large-group settings. The period for training ranged from 1 hr to 75 hr. Some experiments included a control group with an alternative treatment, whereas others compared PA training with no treatment. Sample sizes ranged from 9 to 383 participants. The fidelity of some trainers was checked, whereas those of other trainers were not checked or were not reported. Group assignments included matched, random, or nonequivalent. A metaanalysis was conducted on the studies to assess the impact of PA instruction (NICHD, 2000a).

Three outcome variables, PA, reading, and spelling, were examined through the meta-analysis. PA training was found successful in teaching PA. The following effect sizes were found immediately after training (d = 0.86) and decreased slightly over the long term (d = 0.73). The reading and spelling effect sizes were moderate, d = 0.53 for reading and d = 0.59 for spelling. Programs that lasted from 5 to 18 hr and that focused on one or two PA skills yielded the best results. The longest training yielded the lowest effect size. One section of the report states that "effect sizes for spelling outcomes were insignificant when computers were used in the training, and when the students trained were disabled readers or children in second grade and above" (NICHD, 2000% p. 2- 19). However, another section reports, "Not only researchers but also classroom teachers and computers deliver PA instruction effectively" (NICHD, 2000a, p. 2-19).

2.2 Phonics

In order to meet the additional criteria set by the phonics subgroup, a study had to test the hypotheses that "systematic phonics instruction improves reading performance more than instruction providing unsystematic phonics or no phonics instruction" (NICHD, 2000a, p. 2-91). The studies also had to report statistics necessary for the calculation of effect sizes. Studies that had been used in the PA subgroup were eliminated from the meta-analysis. There were 38 studies included in the final set. The sample sizes of studies used in the meta-analysis ranged from 20 to 320 (NICHD, 2000a).

The following ratings were used to assess effect sizes: d = .20 was small, d = .50 was moderate, and d = .80 was considered large. An overall effect size of d = .44 was found in favor of phonics instruction. The panel reported, "Findings provide solid support for the conclusion that systematic phonics instruction makes a bigger contribution to children's growth in reading than alternative programs providing unsystematic or no phonics instruction" (NICHD, 2000a, p. 2-92). In kindergarten, the effect size was d =.56; in first grade, the size was slightly lower (d = .54); and in second through sixth grades, effect sizes were the lowest (d = .27). The effect size for students in second through sixth grades for students with disabilities was d = 0.15, or not statistically greater than chance. Spelling growth was found in kindergarteners and first graders (d = .67) but was not statistically significant (d = .09) for those students above first grade. Regularly spelled words and pseudowords had moderate effect sizes, d = .67 and d = .60, respectively. However, results for comprehension were much lower. For students above first grade, the effect size was d = .12 (not statistically greater than chance). Gains were found for all students, regardless of socio-economic status. The aforementioned statistics may be found in the Results section of the phonics report (NICHD, 2000a, pp. 2-92 through 2-97). However, a conclusion is drawn about the statistics in the Discussion section of the report. The following statement about the results is made by the subreport members:

Findings of the meta-analysis allow us to conclude that systematic phonics instruction produces gains in reading and spelling not only in the early grades (kindergarten and first grades) but also in the later grades (second through sixth) and among children having difficulty to read" (NICHD, 2000a, p. 21-22).

2.3 Fluency

The fluency subcommittee reviewed two topics in its report: (a) repeated and guided repeated oral reading and (b) encouraging students to read more. The metaanalysis for the repeated and guided repeated oral reading section of the fluency report included 14 studies. Two additional studies met the initial criteria for the meta-analyses but had insufficient information to allow their inclusion. Data from the two studies not included were used in some calculations in the report. The studies that were included in the meta-analysis focused on 605 students from Grades 2 through 9. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 78 students. Only 5 of the 14 studies focused on normally developing readers; the rest focused on poor readers. A range of effect sizes from d = .05 to d = 1.48 was found in the studies, with a weighted average effect size of d = .41. Largest effects were found on word recognition and fluency measures, with smallest effects found on comprehension (NICHD, 2000a).

On page 3-1 7 of the report, the panel stated, "These studies as a collection have not provided sufficient data to allow for a sound analysis of the relative impact of repeated reading procedures on students at different grade levels" (NICHD, 2000a, p. 3-17). However, in the Implications section of the report, the panel concluded, "These procedures [guided repeated oral reading] help improve students' reading ability, at least through grade 5, and they help improve the reading of students with learning problems much later than this" (NICHD, 2000a, p. 3-20).

Another focus of the research on fluency was the implications of encouraging students to read more. The panel found 14 studies that met its criteria. They determined that there were too few studies to perform a meta-analysis. Instead, a summary of each study was provided in the report. The subcommittee admits at the beginning of the report that "there are literally hundreds of studies that find that the best readers read the most and that poor readers read the least; they include the National Assessment for Educational Progress" (NICHD, 2000% p. 3-21). Because most of these studies were correlational, the panel concluded that there was not enough evidence to support the claim that those students who read more are more fluent readers (NICHD, 2000a).

2.4 Vocabulary

The NRP decided to study vocabulary instruction within the larger context of comprehension. The subcommittee performed a search for studies through ERIC and PsycINFO. The results yielded 197 studies that did not overlap. After removing studies that focused on English language learners, learning-disabled persons, or special populations, the panel "found no research on vocabulary that met the NRP criteria" (NICHD, 2000a, p. 4-17). A meta-analysis could not be performed because of this lack of information. The Results section described types of instructional methods and analyzed some of the studies that did not meet the criteria. The panel offered the following implications based on this analysis:

Vocabulary instruction should be taught both directly and indirectly;

Repetition and multiple exposures to vocabulary items are important;

Learning in rich contexts is valuable for vocabulary learning;

Vocabulary tasks should be restructured when necessary;

Vocabulary learning should entail active engagement in learning tasks;

Computer technology can be used to help teach vocabulary;

Vocabulary can be acquired through incidental learning;

How vocabulary is assessed and evaluated can have differential effects on instruction; and

Dependence on a single vocabulary instruction method will not result in optimal learning. (NICHD, 2000a, p. 4-27)

2.5 Comprehension

Two other areas were examined under the umbrella of comprehension: (a) text comprehension instruction and (b) teacher preparation and comprehension strategies. For text comprehension instruction, a search was performed through ERIC and PsycINFO, revealing 203 studies that met the criteria. The panel, however, chose not to perform a meta-analysis of the studies because of the variety of methodologies and implementations used in the studies. A summary was given of several of the types of studies instead of the formal meta-analysis (NICHD, 2000a).

Teacher preparation and comprehension strategies were the last category studied by the comprehension subcommittee. A search of ERIC and PsycINFO revealed 453 articles on comprehension. Another 182 were added after a search for the terms teacher explanation and direct explanation. Only 4 studies met the final criteria for inclusion in the study. The criteria excluded English language learners and special-education students. A meta-analysis could not be performed because of the small number of studies (NICHD, 2000a). In the results section, the panel concluded that "teaching strategies for comprehension in normal children leads to increased awareness and use of the strategies, improved performance on commonly used comprehension measures, and sometimes higher scores on standardized tests of reading" (NICHD, 2000a, p. 4-126).

3 Criticisms

Critics allege that the NRP report (NICHD, 2000a) did not follow its own methodology, that its claims regarding results of the study were exaggerated, that there were inconsistencies in report findings, that there was an inadequate range of research, that there was various definitions of reading, that there was misrepresentation of the number of studies used in the report, that there was a lack of internal consistency, that potential risks of the study were not reported, and that the report was flawed in terms of validity and reliability (Allington, 2002; Coles, 2002,2003; Garan, 2001a, 2001 by 2001 c, 2002; Krashen, 2001; Smith, 2003; Strauss, 2003; Yatvin, 2002).

A medical research model was selected by panel members to be used in the report. In this model, only experimental and quasiexperimental studies met the criterion of being scientifically research based. This type of model is typically used in the treatment of disease and not in research related to normal, healthy development. Only a small fraction of the studies in the field of reading research were used, in part because of the differences in educational research and medical research. In medical research, the participants are randomly selected and given treatment under a double-blind protocol. In this type of treatment, neither the participants nor the researcher knows who is getting the treatment and who is not. One can see why these conditions would not be possible in an educational setting. Also, in a medical research model, potential risks are examined during the process of the study. The panel did not list any risks associated with heavy phonics intervention.

Potential risks include taking the joy out of reading, therefore reducing intrinsic motivation to read. Heavy phonics instruction could also interfere with comprehension of the texts (NICHD, 2000a; Strauss, 2003; Yatvin, 2002). Although a meta-analysis was to be conducted for each section of the report, it was conducted only for the phonics, PA, and part of the fluency subcommittee reports (NICHD, 2000a). A large number of studies are required to perform a meta-analysis. The phonics report had only 38 studies, yet a meta-analysis was performed. The reliability was flawed because of the number of studies (too few) in the meta-analysis. The fluency subcommittee focused on two areas: repeated and guided repeated oral reading and encouraging students to read more. A meta-analysis was conducted in the area of repeated and guided repeated oral reading with 14 studies. In the area of encouraging students to read more, 14 studies were also found that met the panel's criteria. However, a metaanalysis was not conducted (Garan, 2002). "The Panel's concern was that the metaanalysis would be potentially misleading given the very limited data set that would be used for the analysis" (NICHD, 2000a, p. 3-24). Some panel members admitted to inability to follow the methodology in the full report (Garan, 2002; NICHD, 2000a).

The NRP failed to demonstrate that studies were checked for mutual compatibility and internal consistency in the meta-analysis (Strauss, 2003). Another accepted requirement of a meta-analysis is to have a blind review of the studies in the report. According to Yatvin (2000), a panel member, the sole reviewer of the phonics report was a researcher named Barbara Foorman. Four of Foorman's studies were used in the phonics section of the report (Strauss, 2003; Yatvin, 2000).

In Resisting Reading Mandates: How to Triumph With the Truth, Garan (2002) uses the full NRP report (NICHD, 2000a) to refute claims made by the summary (NICHD, 2000b) documents and the video (NICHD, 2000~). One such claim in the summary document is that systematic phonics instruction improved "the ability of good readers to spell" (NICHD, 2000b, p. 10). The full report, however, states, "The effect size for spelling was not statistically different from zero. . . . [Phonics was] not more effective than other forms of instruction in producing growth in spelling" (NICHD, 2000a, p. 2-116). Garan (2002) claims that the report is "fatally flawed in terms of validity" (p. 57). Inaccuracy in reporting the findings of the phonics subsection has also been cited (Garan, 2001% 2001~)O. ne inaccuracy is in the number of studies (49) listed in the Appendix of the phonics subcommittee report as being included in the phonics metaanalysis.

This number is inconsistent with the 38 studies listed in the full report. The phonics report has also been criticized for using too few studies in the meta-analysis and using conceptually inconsistent dependent variables in the analysis. Most of the studies (76%) focused on isolated skills, whereas a smaller number (24%) focused on the application of those skills (comprehension). The term reading was never defined by the panel in the report. Therefore, discrete skills such as decoding were weighted equally with comprehension (Garan, 2001a,2001c).

In the studies that assessed the impact of phonics on authentic application, there were no statistically significant results. The results of the meta-analysis have been criticized for being misleading because most of the studies were performed on low-achieving and disabled readers in kindergarten and first grade. The results, however, are being generalized to normally developing readers in typical classrooms. Garan (200 1 a) points out that "typical U.S. classrooms include normally achieving students, high achieving students, and students with limited proficiency in English" (p. 503). Each of these categories was left out of the study. In order for the results to be generalized, the studies must have reflected a true subset of the population. The results of the study, therefore, cannot be generalized (Garan, 2001a, 2001c).

The panel has been criticized for using studies that compare one type of instruction versus no instruction instead of comparing two different types of instruction in the PA section of the report (Coles, 2001). "The meta-analysis is disingenuous in its design and statistical calculations when it pits instruction against no instruction and concludes that instruction had a substantial outcome" (Coles, 2001, p. 204). Very little attention is given to the influence of writing on a child's ability to develop PA.

The fluency section of the report has been criticized for missing relevant studies and misinterpreting the studies it did include. Krashen (2001) reveals several sustained silent reading (SSR) studies that met the panel criteria but were unfortunately left out of the report. Students in SSR studies performed just as well as or better than control groups did in 35 out of 36 comparisons. One of the SSR studies included in the NRP report (NICHD, 2000a) lasted only a total of 14 hr over a 6-week period. This study showed a low effect size. In another study that showed no statistically significant difference between SSR and skills practice, the study of SSR lasted only 10 days. None of the SSR studies included in the report lasted for more than one year. Studies of SSR that do last for more than a year show more positive results (Krashen, 2002a). Susan Neuman, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education at the time, shared her clear objection to the use of SSR during a speech given to the Reading Leadership Academy in 2002. Neuman (as cited in I Stevens, 2003) supported the use of direct instruction instead of facilitating reading growth through SSR.

Joanne Yatvin, one of the panel members, wrote a minority report on concerns that the panel members held the same view of reading. A skills-based approach, she purports, was adopted without debate (Yatvin, 2000). In contrast to the mechanistic paradigm of scientifically based research programs is a position paper by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (Bredekamp; 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). The position statement was created in response to early childhood programs that placed "undue emphasis on rote learning and whole-group instruction of narrowly defined academic skills at the expense of child-initiated activities, play, and projects" (Bredekamp & Copple, p. 35). Teachers should instead be concerned with three kinds of information: "(a) what is known about child development and learning, (b) what is known about the strengths, interests, and needs of the individual children in the group, and (c) knowledge of the social and cultural contexts in which children live" (Bredekamp & Copple, p. 36).

Criticisms should be considered carefully in light of the fact that the NRP report (NICHD, 2000a) served as the research base for the Reading First portion of the NCLB (200 1) legislation. According to Reading First mandates, only scientifically research based reading programs are approved for federal funding. In addition to a questionable research base, NCLB mandates have faced scrutiny on a number of issues: adequate yearly progress [AYP], assessment, choiceltransfer, consequences for schools, highly qualified teachers, supplemental services, and English language learners (Center on Educational Policy, 2005; Sunderman, Tracey, Kim, & Orfield, 2004). Students in Grades 3-8 must be tested annually in reading and mathematics according to NCLB (2001) legislation. States must also test students in these subject areas annually in Grades 10-12 in order to comply with previous testing mandates. Science testing requirements will be mandated beginning in the 2007-2008 school year. Students must be tested in science at least once in Grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. Students with disabilities and English language learners are required to take the same tests that their peers take with few exceptions (Education Commission of the States, 2004).

According to the NCLB (2001) law, schools and districts are held accountable for AYP toward the ultimate goal of having 100% of students perform on the proficiency level on standardized tests by the 2013-2014 school year. Students must show progress in the subject areas of readingllanguage arts, science, and mathematics. All subgroups, including English language learners, students with low socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, and students of various racial and ethnic groups, must meet annual AYP goals. Students in chools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years have the option of transferring to another school in their district. Schools that fail to make AYP for 3 consecutive years are required to provide supplemental services for students (Education Commission of the States, 2004; U.S. Department of Education, n.d.).

Researchers from Harvard University (Sunderman et al., 2004) recently conducted a study in order to explore teachers' perceptions of NCLB (2001). Participants responded to a 100-item survey with a 5-point Likert scale. Responses ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Two school districts were chosen to receive the survey in Fresno, CA, and Richmond, VA. The districts were chosen because of their locations in opposite ends of the country and because of the population of students they serve. One school district serves primarily Latino students, and one serves primarily African American students. The sample included 25 schools in Richmond and 30 schools in Fresno. In both school districts, 10 of the schools selected were making AYP, whereas the other schools were not. Participants returned 1,445 surveys, for a response rate of 77.4%.

Key findings of the study are as follows: (a) Teachers' views of reform were consistent among schools that are identified as achieving AYP and those that are not. (b) Teachers believed that they set high standards and worked hard to achieve them prior to NCLB (2001) mandates. They welcomed accountability as long as it was a fair measure of student performance. (c) Teachers held a negative view of NCLB sanctions, believing that they would "unfairly reward and punish teachers" (Sunderman et al., 2004, p. 3).

They also held a negative opinion of labeling schools that did not make AYP. The participants held a more positive view of providing supplemental services but held a negative view of the option to transfer. (d) Participants who are currently teaching in schools that are considered in need of improvement plan to leave the school within the next 5 years. Teachers believed that NCLB sanctions might worsen the problem of getting teachers to stay in schools that need improvement for longer periods. (e) Teachers in the study did not believe that NCLB testing requirements would improve the curriculum. Instead, the requirements changed their teaching practices by causing them to ignore some parts of the curriculum and to focus in excess on areas that would be tested. (f) Prior to NCLB mandates, some reform efforts were already under way. Participants reported that NCLB disrupted the progress that was being made by these reforms. (g) There are several ways to improve student performance and meet standards, according to the participants: They need resources aligned with state standards, time to collaborate with colleagues, small class sizes, experienced administrators, experienced teachers, involved parents, and public recognition for improving student performance (Sunderman et al.).

The Center on Educational Policy (2005) released its report on Year 3 of the NCLB (2001) mandates. The report, entitled From the Capital to the Classroom; Year 3 of the No Child Left Behind Act, released key findings on NCLB implementation. The sample for the study included 3 14 school districts from 49 states. Case studies were performed on 37 schools and 36 school districts. Special analyses of NCLB issues and forums were also included in the report. Some of the positive findings in the report area as follows: (a) State test scores are rising, (b) there is a greater focus on students in lower achieving groups, (c) test score data are being used to drive curriculum decisions and instruction, (d) struggling students are receiving extra instruction, (e) the number of highly qualified teachers is on the rise, and (0 collaboration has increased between special education teachers and classroom teachers (Center on Educational Policy).

The study also reports negative aspects of NCLB mandates. According to those reports, states are frustrated with testing requirements for those students with disabilities and students learning English, and the fairness of the approach to determining AYP is questioned by state and local officials. In particular, the goal of attaining 100% proficiency for all students by 2014 is unrealistic. States report that they do not have the funding or adequate amount of staff needed to help students who do not perform well on tests. The quality of tutoring-service providers is also not monitored adequately (Center on Educational Policy, 2005).

According to the report, over 6,000, or 13%, of Title I schools are designated as "in need of improvement" (Center on Education Policy, 2005, p. vi). These schools are often concentrated in urban areas within large school districts. States reported conflicts between NCLB (2001) mandates for testing and accountability measures in place before the federal legislation. It has also been difficult for states to get test scores back in time to report AYP before the beginning of the school year (Center on Educational Policy).

One of the greatest implementation challenges reported in the survey was accountability measures for English language learners and students with disabilities. Under NCLB (2001) regulations, these subgroups are required to take the same tests that their peers take, a task local and state officials call "unfair, unrealistic, inappropriate, or instructionally meaningless" (Center on Educational Policy, 2005, p. viii). These mandates are often in conflict with goals of individualized education plans (IEPs) under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (1997). Several districts reported, however, that the mandates did have positive effects in encouraging more inclusive approaches for students with disabilities (Center on Educational Policy).

Funding is another serious problem for states and districts. Costs associated with NCLB (2001) mandates are higher than the funding provided through the law is. Examples of funding requirements include providing supplementary services to students below grade level, training teachers to meet requirements to be considered "highly qualified," and collecting and analyzing data. Although costs have increased, districts and states report receiving fewer Title I funds this school year (2004-2005) than last (Center on Educational Policy, 2005).

The National Education Association (NEA) has been active in lobbying for revisions to NCLB (2001). Lack of funding for NCLB mandates is a major complaint. This organization of teachers which has 2.7 million members, recently filed a lawsuit against the federal government for falling short on funding promises (Keller & Sack, 2004). Reg Weaver, President of NEA, remarked, "Today we're standing up for children, whose parents are saying, 'No more' to costly federal regulations that drain money from classrooms and spend it on paperwork, bureaucracy and big testing companies" (NEA, 2005, p. 1). The NEA purports that there is a $27 billion shortfall in funding promised to fulfil NCLB regulations. Congress passed a budget in April 2005 that cuts education funding a net total of $130 million (NEA).

4 Paradigms

Every teacher has a view of reading rooted in a paradigm. Paradigms related to the instruction of reading have long been in the political spotlight. In 1985, the federally commissioned report Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading was released (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985). This report favored the role of heavy phonics instruction in learning to read. Other reports on the role of phonics instruction were also commissioned by the government, such as Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print (Adams, 1990) and Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). The NFU? report (NICHD, 2000a) is only the most recent attempt to settle the issue of "what works" in reading instruction. Instead of decisively ending the war on reading, however, these reports only fueled the debate.

Paradigms are worldviews. They are a general model of mankind; by definition, they are neither true nor false but are a way to interpret the world (Aldridge et al., 1998). The assumptions that we make about the way children learn are determined by these paradigms (Kuhn, 1962). Reese and Overton (1970) explained three philosophical models: mechanistic, organismic, and contextual (Lerner, 2002). Each of these paradigms will be discussed.

Humans are viewed as machines in the mechanistic paradigm. In a machine, all pieces work together in a sequential manner when a force is applied. Children are passive until an environmental or genetic force causes action. The whole is viewed as the sum of its parts (Lerner, 2002). Applied to reading instruction, this paradigm would favor heavy phonics instruction (Reese & Overton, 1970).

The organismic model adopts a gestalt view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Something new is created when the parts come together that cannot simply be reduced to its parts again. Humans are viewed as growing plants in this model. Children are active participants in learning, constructing new knowledge about their world instead of only reacting to it (Lerner, 20021. Whole-language advocates or constructivist teachers would subscribe to this paradigm (Reese & Overton, 1970).

In the contextual model, humans are viewed as complex social beings. The world is dynamic, constantly changing. The metaphor for this model is the historic event in the respect that every behavior or incident in the present is a historic event (Lerner, 2002; Pepper, 1942).

Although there may be some overlap among these paradigms, the assumptions made in each cause polarization in reading debates that have raged over the last century (Chall, 1967, 1989; Dahl& Freppon, 1995). Theoretical orientations to reading instruction associated with these paradigms will be explored. These theories include whole language, skills, and phonics orientations to reading (DeFord, 1985).

4.1 Phonics

Advocates of heavy phonics instruction prefer the "bottom-up" approach to reading instruction (Krashen, 2002b; Vacca et al., 2005). Teachers focus directed instruction with students on first learning the letters of the alphabet, letter sounds, and letter/sound correspondences. Students next learn syllables and learn to blend sounds together to produce words. After learning to decode words, students focus on fluently reading phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and whole texts with speed and accuracy. Comprehension is said to be a product of fluently reading words that are already in a child's vocabulary (Kameenui, 2002; Williams, 2003). The number of words read per minute is said to be an indicator of future growth in comprehension. Kameenui believes that the goal for reading by the end of the third grade should be the ability to decode a minimum of 120 words per minute. Research purporting the efficacy of this model may be found in the phonics and PA sections of the NRP report (NICHD, 2000a).

4.2 Skills

Teachers who hold a skills orientation to reading instruction place a heavy emphasis on sight word memorization. The words are often introduced in context and then practiced. Although less systematically than phonics instruction, teachipg of vowels sounds is also done. Word attack skills such as root words or compound words are taught in a sequential manner (DeFord, 1985). The learning of reading skills is viewed as essential for beginning readers. Each skill must be mastered before the child moves to the next one. A teacher's role in this orientation is to find weaknesses in a child's reading ability and provide direct instruction and time for the child to practice the skill. Reinforcement and drill are important for children to "overlearn" skills, making them a habit (Vacca et al., 2005). The quality of literature used with students depends on the quantity of vocabulary words students know. Some beliefs and practices of teachers having the skills orientation overlap those of teachers with phonics and whole-language orientations (DeFord, 1985).

4.3 Whole Language

Ken Goodman is credited with the creation of the whole-language movement in the late 1960s (Goodman, 1967; Williams, 2003). However, Goodman (as cited in Padak, 2000) recently remarked, "I didn't found whole language, whole language found me" (p. 6). He credits instead the grassroots efforts of many teachers in this nation and around the world for their classroom discoveries and practices that led to the movement (Goodman, as cited in Padak).

This approach to teaching reading is labeled interactive (Flood, 1984; Weaver, 1988). It emphasizes reading quality literature and the role of comprehension in learning to read (Vacca et al., 2005). Students are said to learn to read through the act of reading (Allington, 2001 ; Goodman, 1982; Krashen, 2002b; Smith, 1994). Writing, reading, speaking, and listening experiences are created in meaningful ways by the teacher and students throughout the day in a whole-language classroom. Through the act of reading, students learn phonics, grammar, vocabulary and spelling. Skills do not have to be learned in a systematic progression but are learned when they are needed for a child to make sense out of the literature helshe is reading (Krashen, 2002b; Vacca et al.).

Instead of simply decoding words, students are taught to look at syntactic and semantic cues to determine a word's meaning in the sentence. Good readers constantly make predictions based on their knowledge of syntax, the world, and other literature they have read (Goodman, 1982; Krashen, 1999; Smith, 1994). All learning takes place in authentic, natural settings (Goodman, 1982, 1998; Goodman et al., 199 1 ; Smith, 1994, 2003).

To whole-language advocates, reading is not just a skill to be mastered; it carries much more aesthetic importance. "The term 'whole language' does not refer only to providing interesting comprehensible texts and helping children understand less comprehensible texts. It involves instilling a love of literature, problem solving and critical thinking, collaboration, authenticity, personalized learning, and much more" (Krashen, 2002b, p. 32). A love for literature was evident in the Manning, Manning, and Long (1989) study findings. Nine out of 11 students in whole-language classrooms could name a favourite children's author by the end of second grade, although none of the students taught in skills-based classrooms could do so. Comprehension was also found to be significantly higher with children in whole-language classrooms (Manning et al.).

Manning and Kamii (2000) found that children construct hypotheses about language and use these hypotheses in their reading and writing. This research was consistent with previous work by Ferreiro and Teberosky (1 982) conducted with Spanish-speaking students. The study had 38 participants, all 5 years old. Nineteen of the students were Caucasian, and 19 were African American. Researchers conducted the study on two kindergarten classes at the same school. One teacher identified herself as being a phonics teacher, and the other identified herself as being a whole-language teacher. Worksheets, blending activities, and flash cards were used by the self-identified phonics teacher. The whole-language teacher taught phonics also but in context. She used journal writing, songs, shared reading, and shared writing activities to focus on phonics instruction. Interviews were conducted with students from each classroom during five 2-month intervals.

Writing and reading tasks were conducted and then assessed for placement in levels. The phonics and whole-language groups were then compared. Results of the study indicate that the whole language group advanced further than the phonics group did. The phonics group actually showed regression and confusion on some tasks (Manning & Karnii).

A study by Ketner, Smith, and Parnell(1997) examined the alignment between the conceptual foundation of whole language and developmentally appropriate practices. The study was conducted in a midwestern suburb. Teachers in grades K-3 were randomly selected to participate in the study. Seventy-one out of 156 teachers returned the surveys. Of the surveys returned, 66 were usable. Two instruments were used in the study, the Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TOW; DeFord, 1985) and the Primary Teacher Questionnaire (PTQ).

The researchers' findings were consistent with those of other studies using DeFord's (1985) TOW (Pesce, 1990; Troyer & Yopp, 1990). Teachers with more diverse experience and professional development were more likely to endorse the whole language approach. Teachers with less experience favored phonics-based approaches to reading (DeFord, 1985; Levande, 1990). One exception was recently graduated teachers who favored whole language. Teachers with higher degrees also favored whole language (Ketner et al., 1997; Pesce; Troyer & Yopp). Ketner et al. found a strong correlation between developmentally appropriate practices and whole-language orientation to reading instruction.

5 Conclusion

With the reading wars only increased by federal intervention, more polarization has occurred. Studies should be performed to understand the complex decisions teachers face in planning and guiding reading instruction.

POST COMMENT

The particular Benefit Analysis Understanding Conjoint Analysis at HelpWithAssignment.com Your Brain and Your Male Organ - Analysis Shows Ways One Has Effects On the Other Financial Crisis On Our Analysis Of The Impact Of Beef Cattle Industry Barbie's Pink Makeup Analysis (figure) Find out your compatibility-Birth compatibility analysis Thinking Like A Winner - Trading Analysis Course Analysis of Civilization The Brain and Your Manhood - Analysis Shows Exactly How One Affects the Other TECHNICAL ANALYSIS Forming of the habits of the critical analysis CAT Paper Analysis: Know Verbal Ability pattern; five year trend Why Do We have a tendency to Perform Competitor Analysis