Reading well and wanting to read are the most important characteristics of children and adults who succeed at what they choose to work at in their lives. The building blocks of learning to read at any age are timeless.

Educational Leadership
March 2004 | Volume 61 | Number 6
What Research Says About Reading
Perspectives / What Works in Reading?
by Marge Scherer

She was a middle-aged woman who wanted to learn to read the newspaper. I was a college student who was trying to learn how to teach. We both should have gotten an A for effort. But that semester of Sunday afternoons spent going over scripted phonics lessons in an inner-city school cafeteria netted little success for either of us. She asked me how I connected the sounds with the letters, and I admitted I really didn't know. I hoped that she got an experienced teacher the next semester.

Although my understanding of the reading process has evolved, when it comes to reading instruction, I retain my faith in the necessity of "the good teacher." I define "good teacher" as one who has expertise in the reading process and skill in assessing the needs of individual students, not just a warm body with a script in hand and a desire to help. After years of teaching and after even more years as an editor reading articles about the teaching of reading, I conclude the following about reading instruction.

We do know how to teach most children how to read, and we have known it for some time. In 1985, the Commission on Reading released Becoming a Nation of Readers. Among the research-based practices it delineated was phonicsbut phonics with a caveat. The report recommended early phonics instruction (complete for most students before 3rd grade); artful texts written in natural language; less emphasis on worksheets; more time spent reading; more time modeling the reading process; and such strategies as reciprocal teaching.

Today's official recommendations overlap the Commission's, but are narrower and more technical. The National Reading Panel concludes that all students must be taught alphabetics (phonemic awareness and phonics), reading fluency, vocabulary, and strategies for reading comprehension. The Panel endorses systematic phonics instruction for all students and one-to-one tutoring for struggling readers. The Panel withholds its approval of sustained silent reading and other practices that the reading research studies it selected do not show to be significantly effective and generalizable for all students. This, however, does not mean that the other practices don't work in many classroomsonly that the research cited by the National Reading Panel does not prove they do.

In the 1990s and into this decade, brain research using fMRI technology has yielded fascinating information about how the brain works (p. 6), especially how brain images of struggling readers and proficient readers differ. Studies show that intensive, expert tutoring changes the signature of dyslexia and helps struggling readers. All educators should have an understanding of how brains activate when doing phonological tasks. Even so, the implications for instruction for all students are not quite as clear as the fMRIs are.

In addition to brain research, research into practice is valuable, and immediately applicable. For example, researchers note the importance of explicit vocabulary instruction that emphasizes both phonics and meaning (p. 30) as well as extensive practice and assisted reading (p. 46). Finally, the importance of access to books in the home, school, and library (p. 82) is indisputable, and meaningful reading is key.
The reading wars of the 1990s have turned into the Reading Research War of the 2000s. Even though we know much about effective reading instruction, some researchers seem convinced that educators have never before based their practice on research. They suggest that researchers who have reservations about the National Reading Panel's findings are less than rigorous in their thinking and that educators who dislike a scripted approach are wrapped in their own well-meaning but misguided notions. On the other hand, other researchers find fault with the methodology of the research done by the Panel, suggesting that the Panel ruled out too many reliable studies and, thus, too many effective practices. Each side accuses the other of using research selectively to substantiate preconceived, ideological, or proprietary approaches.

Schools are in the middle. Meanwhile, to gain their share of the Reading First money, many schools are abandoning older reading programs and choosing one on the nonofficial "approved" list. The 2,000 schools that have received funding have adopted remarkably similar programs (Manzo, 2003). This standardization may result in benefits to the studentsespecially if results in the past have been poor. On the other hand, what if schools are throwing out richer and more varied programs for narrower and more scripted ones?

This issue of EL brings you into the middle of the Reading Research War, a war that threatens to take no prisoners. Despite our human wish for a single truth, research can be both right and wrongeven scientific research. Although medical science has found effective treatments for diseases ranging from polio to tuberculosis, medical scienceon the basis of evidencealso routinely discards formerly heralded treatments as harmful. (Witness the labeling of hormone replacement therapy as carcinogenic.) The good thing about science is that it admits it doesn't know the answers for all time. Scientists remain open to examining new evidence without necessarily discarding the old. Educators need to do the same and seek understanding of all positions. A forum of debate, such as this magazine, is another essential way to expand our understanding of the trutheven if it is not peer-reviewed.

References
Commission on Reading. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education & The Center for the Study of Reading.

Manzo, K. K. (2003). Reading programs bear similarities across the states. Education Week, 33(21), 113.

Yet many school districts throughout the United States have thrown these timeless guidelines away in favor of something else, a "whole language" approach. The political question "why?" has been asked over and over again, and we certainly ask this question on this website, but below we give an overview of what 'expert' researchers in reading believe teachers of reading should be mindful of; what works.

One of the findings of experts in reading methods for k-3 teachers ["Put Reading First:
The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read"] is that phonemic awareness is not phonics. Phonemic awareness is the understanding that the sounds of spoken language work together to make words. Phonics is the understanding that there is a predictable relationship between phonemes and graphemes, the letters that represent those sounds in written language. If children are to benefit from phonics instruction, they need phonemic awareness.

Evaluating Facts, Fictions, and Factions in the Reading Wars
by Barbara W. Wise, Ph.D.

Current government policy requires that schools conform to the evidence-based recommendations of the Report of the National Reading Panel if they want federal funding for their reading programs (NRP: National Institute of Child Health and development NICHD, 2000; http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/). These developments certainly improve the chances that scientific research may translate into powerful educational practice, especially if the government appropriates enough funds to allow schools to implement the policies well. We can thank Reid Lyon, the IDA, and other professionals and organizations for helping to move these policies along.

So, how are we doing? Do all our kids read their grade-level texts competently? Many reports suggest that average levels of reading have stayed relatively constant over the last 30 years (see Allington, 2002, p. 6-7). Sadly, the reading achievement of our poorest readers has not improved or has even declined in recent years (see Allington, 2002, p. 11-12; Simmons & Kameenui, 1998, p.3, and). However, particular studies and particular school districts are pointing the way toward every child becoming a reader (e.g., Grimes, 2002; Simmons & Kameenui, 1998; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997).

Our San Diego symposium on Wednesday, November 12 is about myths and misconceptions. Under that topic, I could smugly consider old myths about reading
instruction, such as the misconception that "reading is (so) natural" that all kids should
get it as naturally as they learned to talk Goodman, 1976). Or I could debunk the myth
that any skills work is inherently and inevitably bad (Edelsky, 1990). But people in The
International Dyslexia Association (IDA) tend to know a fair amount about reading. I'd
rather not preach to the choir. So instead, I'll look at fictions, questions, and controversies
relating to the NRP recommendations that are often tossed angrily about in battles about
Reading.

The NRP Report
The National Institute of Child Health and Development convened a large panel of researchers and educators to review scientific evidence in their Report of the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000). Those reviews led to policy recommendations that reading programs be "evidence-based" and cover five domains. The domains include a strong foundation in:

1) Phonological awareness and in
2) Phonics in reading and writing, and work on
3) Fluency,
4) Vocabulary, and
5) Comprehension.

These recommendations about domains appear strong and solid and align with the
practices endorsed by IDA and by many researchers and educators who recommend an informed and balanced approach to reading (Brady & Moats, 1997; Pressley, 1998). Of course, what that balance favors, when, and for which children is still under discussion. Hopefully, reading practitioners and program administrators will look at the evidence domains, consider how well their current practices cover them and adapt their practices or programs to cover them all well.

The report also suggests that all this instruction be intensive, systematic, and structured. Studies summarized in the report suggest that programs which use direct,
explicit, and systematic instruction in phonics and phonological awareness impact reading more powerfully than do programs that expect children to learn these things implicitly, embedded in stories, or taught in a non-systematic "as-needed" manner. But how explicit, for which students, for which aspects of reading, and for which teachers are questions still being debated (2002). The concept of explicitness is not yet clearly defined, research support is mixed, and more research is necessary to answer the questions precisely.

Consensus and Questions related to the Scientific Evidence
When I say consensus exists about evidence, I mean at least among the NRP report (2000), the report of the Research Council (NRC: Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), and a recent excellent review by Rayner, Foorman, Pesetsky and Seidenburg (2002). When I say "strong consensus," I also include a widely published author who raises questions and controversies about the NRP conclusions (Allington, 2002). Allington disagrees with the definition of evidence-base still thinks there is value in summaries of experimental evidence (p. 62).

A strong consensus exists that the strongest predictors of success in reading are phonological awareness and knowledge (see also Catts et al, 2001; Scarborough, 1998a &
b; Wagner, Torgesen & Rashotte, 1994). Phonological ability is at least partly due to
inherited factors (Gayán & Olson, 2000; Olson et al., 1989, 1999). The genetic pathways relate to brain-based differences that are described clearly and interestingly by Shaywitz
(2003). While a certain level of phonological awareness appears necessary to grasp the
alphabetic principle and learn to read (Liberman & Shankweiler, 1985), its relationship with reading is reciprocal (Perfetti, Beck, & Hughes, 1987).

That is, good phonological awareness improves reading, and it also improves with learning to read. The consensus about instruction is weaker. Systematic instruction in phonological awareness and phonics clearly benefits the reading accuracy of most children, and it can be taught in various ways (e.g., Torgesen, et al., 1997; Wise, Ring, & Olson, 1999, 2000). It helps level the playing field by improving the reading of at-risk children and poor readers, and the earlier it happens the better, in terms of increasing the number of children who will eventually reach grade level (Lyon, 1999; Torgesen, 2002). Early identification, screening, dynamic assessment in programs that include this instruction are cost effective and highly successful in some large-scale implementations (Grimes, 2002; Simmons & Kameenui, 1998). However, many researchers are not ready to say that evidence supports whether explicit phonics instruction is necessary for all children, nor do they agree on how much of it is needed (Allington, 2002; Olson, 2002).

If you inform yourself, you too can evaluate the evidence and the varying views of experts. I recommend you read the Rayner et al (2001) review mentioned earlier. If that looks daunting, the Scientific American published a much-simplified summary by the same authors in 2002. A raft of good recent review books can educate you further if you want (e.g., Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002; Pressley, 1998; Simmons & Kameenui, 1998: Stanovich, 2000.) In evaluating talks, papers, and books, look for balance, clarity, and acknowledgement of weaknesses and remaining open questions. Listen to and read opposing views and keep their questions and challenges in mind as you evaluate research. The "Simple View" of reading can help you as you think about evidence (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). The model describes reading as an interaction among 1) all the processes that affect Word Reading, and 2) all the processes that affect Listening Comprehension. In evaluating the merits of methods in studies you read or hear about, consider how the method studied proposes to strengthen deficits and/or build on strengths as in this model.

As an educated consumer of research, watch that you don't accept an evaluation or recommendation just because someone says, "Research says..." What research? How
was it done? The NRP and NRC reports and the Rayner review listed above discuss their
criteria for accepting studies for review and also describe the results behind their
recommendations. Remain skeptical until you can understand whether the study clearly
describes methods, student characteristics, interventions, and selection and training of
trained and control groups. If student success is the outcome of interest, then at the least,
teacher, student, and school variables should be measured and controlled. Trained groups
should be compared to untrained control groups or at least to standardized scores. If
children do change their standardized score ranks, it is as if they have improved relative
to a national control. But the most powerful studies for evaluating effectiveness of methods or programs compare two randomly assigned treatments, to control for the "Hawthorne" effects of an experimental group doing better merely due to the extra attention of being in a study.

Obviously, no study can do all things. Correlational and factor analysis studies
can allow us to see how variables interact in broad populations, but can't tell us about
causation. Laboratory studies can control variables well, but have problems in generalization to the classroom situation. Classroom studies may generalize well, but
have less control. Our best shot at knowledge emerges from the converging evidence of
many varied studies.

In our Symposium about myths and misconceptions, I discuss and evaluate many
facts, fictions, and controversies that fuel the reading wars, in the hopes of improving our
understandings and improving the quality of the debate. But I'll challenge you here with
one important fiction to consider right now, and you can look for the others in the symposium and the book that will follow in early 2004.

An important Fiction to Examine: We in IDA are on the "Right Side" in the Reading Wars
Even if you believe it, the danger is in the long-term outcome, of continuing the Wars at all. I vote for disarmament. We all may have heard some whole language advocate rudely "bash" one of our respected researchers or policy advocates. But what part do we play in continuing the wars: do we encourage any of this animosity with our own attitude of arrogance? Do we respect, listen to, and write about the knowledge that most teachers bring to the teaching situation, even as we hope that more of them will want to keep learning more and more about language and reading? Stanovich (2000), a scholar in our field, begs professionals and researchers on all sides to look for common ground and to debate civilly, in the interests of furthering knowledge. Lets consider the controversies and questions central to the battles and strive for ever -improving research and practice. If we hope to effect change, and help every child become a reader, then improving the quality of the debate is essential.

Right now, government policy encourages reading instruction and teacher education that is compatible with the mission of IDA. We in IDA have a chance now to help improve teacher education and implement strong programs. I hope we help it happen well, with an attitude of respect and inquiry. We can encourage schools and states to implement evidence-based programs and to document carefully what works and what doesn't as these programs go forward. We can examine what doesn't work, improve programs, and continue to encourage careful and creative research about reading and teaching. If we fail in this attempt and instead alienate more policy makers than we convince, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves if the pendulum swings back.

Dr. Barbara Wise divides her work life among educational therapy, teacher education, and research. She has developed the Linguistic Remedies program for teachers, parents,
and children, with specific reading disabilities. She conducted research for 12 years using talking computers to study questions about reading remediation. Her current research is with the Center for Spoken Language Research at the University of Colorado.
She is helping her colleagues there to develop web-based interactive books and tutorial
activities, using animated, talking agents to improve children's reading and to study
questions about reading remediation and its implementation with computers. Dr. Wise is
currently a member of the IDA Board of Directors and serves on several board
committees.


Reading Recovery: Distinguishing Myths from Reality
By William E. Tummer, Ph.D. and James W. Chapman, Ph.D.

Database of evidence-based research on reading instruction
A searchable database offered by the Partnership for Reading, an initiative of the National Institute for Literacy, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the U.S. Department of Education

What Works Clearinghouse
U.S. Department of Education

Informed Instruction for Reading Success: Foundations for Teacher Preparation
A Position Paper of the International Dyslexia Association - prepared by Susan Brady, Ph.D., and Louisa Moats, Ed.D

Using Research and Reason in Education - How Teachers Can Use Scientifically Based Research to Make Curricular & Instructional Decisions, by Paula J. Stanovich and Keith E. Stanovich, University of Toronto, published by the Partnership for Reading, May 2003

Why Children Succeed or Fail at Reading, Research from National Institute of Child Health and Human Development's Program in Learning Disabilities

Reading Disabilities: Why Do Some Children Have Difficulty Learning to Read? What Can Be Done About It?
by G. Reid Lyon, Ph.D.

Rethinking Learning Disabilities, by G. Reid Lyon, Jack M. Fletcher, Sally E. Shaywitz, Bennet A. Shaywitz, Joseph K. Torgesen, Frank B. Wood, Ann Shulte and Richard Olson

A Synthesis of Research on Reading from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bonita Grossen, University of Oregon

Put Reading First - The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read
This document was published by The Partnership for Reading, a collaborative effort of the National Institute for Literacy, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the U.S. Department of Education to make evidence-based reading research available to educators, parents, policy-makers, and others with an interest in helping all people learn to read well. The findings and conclusions in this publication were drawn from the 2000 report of the National Reading Panel, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction--Reports of the Subgroups.

Putting Reading First Southwest Education Development Laboratory

American Federation of Teachers - Teaching Reading IS Rocket Science, What Expert Teachers Should Know and Be Able to Do,
Louisa Moats (1999)

Whole Language Lives on, The Illusion of "Balanced" Reading Instruction, Louisa Moats, Ed.D. (2000)

Briefs for Families on Evidence-Based Practices - Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice

When Older Students Can't Read, Louisa C. Moats, Ed.D.
Both students and educators become frustrated when students beyond 3rd grade display reading difficulties. Research-based reading strategies can build a foundation for reading success in students of all ages.

A Child Becomes a Reader: Proven Ideas for Parents from Research -- Birth to Preschool
National Institute for Literacy, September 2002.
When does a child learn to read? Many people might say in kindergarten or first grade. But researchers have told us that children can begin to learn reading and writing at home, long before they go to school. This booklet offers advice for parents of children from birth to preschool on how to support reading development at home, and how to recognize preschool and day care activities that start children on the road to becoming readers.

A Child Becomes a Reader: Proven Ideas for Parents from Research -- Kindergarten through Grade Three National Institute for Literacy, September 2002.
The road to becoming a reader begins the day a child is born and continues through the end of third grade. At that point, a child must read with ease and understanding to take advantage of the learning opportunities in fourth grade and beyond. This booklet offers advice for parents of children from grades K-3 on how to support reading development at home, and how to recognize effective instruction in their children's classrooms.

Research-Based Principles for Adult Basic Education Reading Instruction
National Institute for Literacy, September 2002
This publication represents the best information available about how adults learn to read. It is designed to serve two primary audiences: educators and policy makers who make decisions about the content of adult basic education reading instruction and researchers eager to identify new avenues of study to add to our understanding of this field.

Put Reading First: Helping Your Child Learn to Read - The Partnership for Reading: National Institute for Literacy; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; and U.S. Department of Education, September 2001.
This brochure, designed for parents of young children, describes the kinds of early literacy activities that should take place at school and at home to help children learn to read successfully. It is based on the findings of the National Reading Panel.

The Partnership for Reading - Bringing Scientific Evidence to Learning