COMPONENTS ON READING

Components on Reading

Components on Reading

Comprehension Development

Imagine being asked by a large school district to improve reading scores in their chronically low-achieving elementary schools. Many students in high-poverty urban areas are at risk for reading failure. Typically, teacher turnover is high and the pool of certified, capable teachers is not sufficient to meet the demand. Aversive working environments where resources are scarce and demands overwhelming often challenge the patience, skill, and persistence of staff and students. The research consensus on how best to teach reading, even in high-poverty environments, is compelling, but much less is known about how to implement and sustain evidenced- based instruction in such contexts over the long term.

First, we review the evidence for best reading instruction practices that are espoused by several recent consensus documents: the National Research Council's (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, the New Standards' (1999) Primary Literacy Standards, and the report of the National Reading Panel (NRP; 2000)

Research - Based Practices in Early Reading

Research over the last 20 years provides converging evidence about the content, format, and timing of early reading intervention for all children. This converging evidence has stimulated a focus on prevention and early intervention in local, state, and national reading initiatives.

Critical Content in Reading Instruction

Instruction that builds on oral language to develop vocabulary, comprehension, phonemic awareness and alphabetic coding, fluency in word recognition and text processing, spelling, and writing is more effective than instruction that does not include or integrate these critical elements (Snow et al., 1998) In fact, as Snow et al. (1998) concluded in the National Research Council report, the best way to prevent reading difficulties is to ensure that children are taught these components of reading and writing in regular classroom instruction. This report declared an end to the "Reading Wars" and emphasized the importance of integrating explicit instruction in the alphabetic principle with reading for meaning and reading widely. The National Reading Panel report (NRP, 2000) is important because it attempted meta-analyses of topics relevant to reading instruction: alphabetic, fluency, comprehension, teacher education, and computer technology. To meet this charge, the panel adopted the meta-analytic technique of comparing effect sizes from studies that used an experimental or quasi-experimental design with a control group or a multiple-baseline method. Excluded were purely descriptive studies and case studies. Alphabetic included two subtopics, phonemic awareness and phonics. For phonemic awareness, 1,962 studies were reviewed, 52 met the criteria for meta-analysis, and 96 comparisons were made. For phonics, 1,373 studies were reviewed, 38 met the criteria, and 66 comparisons were made. With respect to phonemic awareness, meta-analyses revealed the following:

* Phonemic awareness instruction causes improvement in students' phonemic awareness, reading, and spelling.

* Systematic phonics instruction produces significant benefits for students in kindergarten through Grade 6 and for students with reading disabilities, regardless of socioeconomic status.

* The impact is strongest in kindergarten and Grade 1.

* Phonics must be integrated with instruction in phonemic awareness, fluency, and ...