DOCUMENT RESUME CS 511 909 - files.eric.ed.gov

1 ED 474 628 AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROMPUB TYPEJOURNAL CITEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSIDENTIFIERSABSTRACTDOCUM ENT RESUMECS 511 909 Rohland, Mark, reading Instruction: Reports and Recommendationsfrom a National Invitational Lab. for Student Success, Philadelphia, of Educational research and Improvement (ED),Washington, and Dissemination Unit, Temple University, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19122-6091. For full text: WorksSerials (022)ReportsDescriptive(141)LSS Review; vl n1 Mar 2002 EDRS Price MF01/PC01 Plus Effectiveness; *Literacy; Preschool Education;Primary Education; * reading Achievement; *ReadingComprehension; * reading Difficulties; reading Improvement;* reading Instruction; Technology Integration* reading FirstWithin the context of President Bush's reading First andEarly reading First initiatives to improve early literacy skills forpreschool children and reading literacy skills for primary children, anational invitational conference on successful reading instruction was heldin Washington, DC, on November 12-13, 2001.

2 It focused on determining howbest to implement what is known about reading instruction and how to make themost informed judgments in cases where research offers less guidance. Toframe discussion, the conference organizers commissioned papers from scholarsof reading on a variety of topics important for linking research to bothpolicy and practice. Educators, researchers, policymakers, and parents wereinvited to discuss the implications of the papers and to discuss theirexperiences, concerns, and lessons learned. This issue of "The LSS Review"provides a synopsis of those recommendations and summaries of thecommissioned papers. It contains the following papers: "Linking ReadingResearch and Practice: Next-Step Recommendations" (Michael L. Kamil; HerbertJ. Walberg; JoAnn B. Manning); "Successful Uses of Computer Technology forReading Instruction" (Helen S. Kim and Michael L. Kamil); "How Can ChildrenBe Taught to Comprehend Text Better?" (Michael Pressley and KatherineHilden); "Interventions for Children Experiencing Early ReadingDifficulties" (Rebecca Barr); "From Policy to Practice: Using LiteracyStandards in Early reading Instruction" (Deanna Birdyshaw; Ellen Pesko; KarenWixson; Nina Yochum); "Improving reading Achievement through ProfessionalDevelopment" (Dorothy S.)

3 Strickland); " reading in Discipline/ContentMaterials" (Donna Alvermann); "Engagement and Motivation in ReadingInstruction" (John T. Guthrie); and "Good First Teaching: Making the CriticalDifference for All Students" (Gay Su Pinnell).(NKA)Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONO ffice of Educational research and ImprovementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)This DOCUMENT has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating changes have been made toimprove reproduction of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or )Successful reading Instruction: Reports andRecommendations from a National InvitationalConference. LSS Review, Volume 1, Number 1, COPY AVAILABLEThe Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational LaboratoryThe'^ReviewLaboratory for Student Successa catalyst for merging research , policy, and practiceVolume 1 Number 1 March 2002 Successful reading InstructionReports and Recommendations from a National Invitational ConferenceMichael L Kong Stanford University; Herbert J.

4 Walberg, University of Illinois at Chicago, Emeritus, and the Hoover Institution; and JoAnnB. Manning, Executive Director; Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University Center for research in Human Development and EducationEarly in 2001, President Bush an-nounced his Early reading First andReading First initiatives, which aim toimprove early literacy skills for preschoolchildren and reading literacy skills forchildren in kindergarten through thirdgrade. A new reading First State Grantsprogram would help states and localeducational agencies implement com-prehensive K-3 reading instructiongrounded in scientifically based readingresearch. The president's initiatives weretimely, given national concern aboutchildren's scores on reading assessmentsand increasing interest in effectivereading instruction among reviews of research in read-ing instruction, including the report ofthe National reading Panel, the NationalResearch Council's Preventing Read-ing Difficulties, and the third volumeof the Handbook of reading , high-light progress made in recent panel's report presents evidenceon effective methods for instructingall students, while the council's bookshows what interventions work for chil-dren at risk.

5 The Handbook volumecombines historical analyses of research ,syntheses of current research , andconclusions about future findings converge to illuminatethe real progress made in understand-ing how reading ability is , gaps in our knowledgeremain. Crucially, the connections be-tween research findings and practitionerimplementation need more attention. Thepanel's report indicates that much re-search is not sufficiently specific to offerdirect guidance to practitioners. Theability to translate basic research find-ings into practice has clearly lagged be-hind the ability to conduct the this context, a national in-vitational conference on successfulreading instruction was held in Wash-ington, DC, on November 12-13, by the Laboratory for StudentSuccess (LSS) at Temple UniversityCenter for research in Human Develop-ment and Education, the conferencefocused on determining how best toimplement what we know about read-ing instruction and how to make themost informed judgments in caseswhere research offers less frame discussion, the conferenceorganizers commissioned papers fromscholars of reading on a variety of top-ics important for linking research toboth policy and practice.

6 Educators,researchers, policymakers, and parentswere invited to discuss the implicationsof the papers and to discuss their expe-riences, concerns, and lessons discussion centered onthe research -oriented themes of tech-nology, comprehension, assessmentand standards, and intervention, andon the practice-oriented themes ofprofessional development, discipline/content materials, motivation and en-gagement, and early reading instruc-tion. Participants also met in smallwork groups to explore issues raisedin the general discussion and to gen-erate next-step recommendations forimproving the links between researchand practice. Groups were asked toconsider research , policy, and practi-tioner steps and to consider the im-portance of collaboration amonghomes, communities, and issue of The LSS Reviewprovides a synopsis of those recom-mendations and summaries of the com-missioned papers. In doing so, the issuecontributes to a goal that conferenceparticipants identified as crucial to im-proved reading instruction: dis-semination of research and practicalknowledge in an understandable formthat can facilitate the policies and class-room efforts that lead to successfulreading instruction.

7 XThe LSS Review is a product of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory, the Laboratory for Student Success (LSS), oneof ten regional educational laboratories funded by the Office of Educational research and Improvement (OERI) of the of Education. LSS seeks to provide research -based information to significantly improve the educational capacity of theregion, including Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington, DC, and the nation. Inquiries about the work ofLSS should be sent to the Outreach and Dissemination Unit, Temple University, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue, Philadelphia, PA19122-6091, Copyright COPY AVAILABUF,Linking reading research and PracticeNext-Step RecommendationsMichael L Kong Star-On:I University; Herbert J. Walberg, University of Illinois at Chicago, Emeritus, and the Hoover Institution; and JoAnnB. Manning, Executive Director, Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University Center for research in Human Development and EducationAlthough not all conference par-ticipants agreed on all points, and thework groups did not focus on identi-cal questions and issues, each groupachieved considerable groups echoed several recurringthemes and common and InstructionThe research discussed in theconference papers offers many evi-dence-based conclusions and recom-mendations with respect to readinginstruction and research .

8 Even so, theconferees singled out several pointsthat they believed deserve research is needed on whatknowledge students have, so thatteachers can better know what theyneed to learn, particularly at the high-school level, where more and morestudents need remediation. Indeed, research on remediation in general , inaddition to problem prevention,should have high and professionaldevelopers should help teachers learnhow and when to use specific teach-ing strategies to improve readingachievement. Teachers also need helpin adopting effective strategies intotheir regular teaching practice. Someteachers, developers, and research -ers have demonstrated such effectivestrategy utilization, but more researchis needed on how best to bring suchutilization to and developers as wellas educators should think about howto attain the several ends of readinginstruction simultaneously. In particu-lar, instruction should foster bothcomprehension and critical school's reading program shouldfocus on closing the gap betweengood and poor learners, but not at theexpense of high-level thinking.

9 Toaccomplish more than previously,the links between reading and writingshould be fostered. Teachers at alllevels, moreover, must be able tomake time for all components ofgood reading instruction in researchers neglect theviews of clients. Investigators shouldask students about what works andabout how they learn to read. Theyshould also examine students' perfor-mance and their work products foruseful information. Students can betruthful sources of , it was recommended thatresearchers and educators collaboratemore closely. Partnerships amongschool districts, local universities, andlocal education associations shouldbe fostered, since they can enhanceand inform research . Educators them-selves should be encouraged to con-duct more field-based research in theirclassrooms, even if it does not reachthe level of peer-reviewed can share their findings in vari-ous forums, including local newslet-ters and Internet the teaching of reading , thestate of assessment practice lags be-hind the state of the art, and assess-ment deserves close attention andimprovement.

10 For example, what isclearly needed is comprehensive, lon-gitudinal assessment of students aswell as periodic assessment of readingprofessionalsteachers, reading spe-cialists, and administrators. It wouldbe reasonable, of course, to providecomprehensive professional develop-ment prior to assessing nation, states, and schoolsare presently focused on standards,and that may have potentially con-structive consequences for , for example, might benefitgreatly from having additional diag-nostic information on their students' reading strengths and teachers regularly assess theirstudents, moreover, classroom andexternal assessments should be DevelopmentThe design of professional devel-opment for literacy education and inparticular for reading instruction re-quires rethinking. Most likely to buildcapacity within schools is a compre-hensive approach not only for teach-ers but also for reading specialists andadministrators. Researchers and pro-fessional developers need to work to-gether on developing comprehensivestaff development development should besustained, focused, and continual,whether delivered by district-level orby school-level staff.