Reading between the lines: Observations on the report of the national reading panel and its critics

Phi Delta Kappan

Volumn 86, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 456-461

  Cooper, Harris ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 14644408665     PISSN: 00317217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/003172170508600610     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Elaine M. Garan, "Murder Your Darlings: A Scientific Response to The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research" Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 438-43; Stephen Krashen, "Is In-School Free Reading Good for Children? Why the National Reading Panel Is (Still) Wrong," Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 444-47; Peggy McCardle and Vinita Chhabra, "Motivation and Commitment in the Interest of Science and Our Children," Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 448-51; and Timothy Shanahan, "But Does it Really Matter?," Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 452-55, 461.
2. Elaine M. Garan, "Murder Your Darlings: A Scientific Response to The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research" Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 438-43; Stephen Krashen, "Is In-School Free Reading Good for Children? Why the National Reading Panel Is (Still) Wrong," Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 444-47; Peggy McCardle and Vinita Chhabra, "Motivation and Commitment in the Interest of Science and Our Children," Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 448-51; and Timothy Shanahan, "But Does it Really Matter?," Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 452-55, 461.
3. Elaine M. Garan, "Murder Your Darlings: A Scientific Response to The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research" Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 438-43; Stephen Krashen, "Is In-School Free Reading Good for Children? Why the National Reading Panel Is (Still) Wrong," Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 444-47; Peggy McCardle and Vinita Chhabra, "Motivation and Commitment in the Interest of Science and Our Children," Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 448-51; and Timothy Shanahan, "But Does it Really Matter?," Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 452-55, 461.
4. Elaine M. Garan, "Murder Your Darlings: A Scientific Response to The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research" Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 438-43; Stephen Krashen, "Is In-School Free Reading Good for Children? Why the National Reading Panel Is (Still) Wrong," Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 444-47; Peggy McCardle and Vinita Chhabra, "Motivation and Commitment in the Interest of Science and Our Children," Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 448-51; and Timothy Shanahan, "But Does it Really Matter?," Phi Delta Kappan, February 2005, pp. 452-55, 461.
5. 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 (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH Publication 00-4754, 2000), available at www.national-readingpanel.org. The articles central to this debate that I am referring to are: Stephen Krashen, "More Smoke and Mirrors: A Critique of the National Reading Panel Report on Fluency," Phi Delta Kappan, October 2001, pp. 119-23; Gregory Camilli, Sakako Vargas, and Michele Yurecko, "Teaching Children to Read: The Fragile Link Between Science and Federal Reading Policy," Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 May 2003, available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n15 (subsequent page references are to this online version); Gregory Camilli and Paula Wolfe, "Research on Reading: A Cautionary Tale," Educational Leadership, March 2004, pp. 26-29, available at www.ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/200403 (subsequent page references are to this online version); and Timothy Shanahan, "Critiques of the National Reading Panel Report: Their Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice," in Peggy McCardle and Vinita Chhabra, eds., The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research (Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 2004), pp. 235-65.
6. 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 (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH Publication 00-4754, 2000), available at www.national-readingpanel.org. The articles central to this debate that I am referring to are: Stephen Krashen, "More Smoke and Mirrors: A Critique of the National Reading Panel Report on Fluency," Phi Delta Kappan, October 2001, pp. 119-23; Gregory Camilli, Sakako Vargas, and Michele Yurecko, "Teaching Children to Read: The Fragile Link Between Science and Federal Reading Policy," Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 May 2003, available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n15 (subsequent page references are to this online version); Gregory Camilli and Paula Wolfe, "Research on Reading: A Cautionary Tale," Educational Leadership, March 2004, pp. 26-29, available at www.ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/200403 (subsequent page references are to this online version); and Timothy Shanahan, "Critiques of the National Reading Panel Report: Their Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice," in Peggy McCardle and Vinita Chhabra, eds., The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research (Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 2004), pp. 235-65.
7. 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 (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH Publication 00-4754, 2000), available at www.national-readingpanel.org. The articles central to this debate that I am referring to are: Stephen Krashen, "More Smoke and Mirrors: A Critique of the National Reading Panel Report on Fluency," Phi Delta Kappan, October 2001, pp. 119-23; Gregory Camilli, Sakako Vargas, and Michele Yurecko, "Teaching Children to Read: The Fragile Link Between Science and Federal Reading Policy," Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 May 2003, available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n15 (subsequent page references are to this online version); Gregory Camilli and Paula Wolfe, "Research on Reading: A Cautionary Tale," Educational Leadership, March 2004, pp. 26-29, available at www.ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/200403 (subsequent page references are to this online version); and Timothy Shanahan, "Critiques of the National Reading Panel Report: Their Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice," in Peggy McCardle and Vinita Chhabra, eds., The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research (Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 2004), pp. 235-65.
8. 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 (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH Publication 00-4754, 2000), available at www.national-readingpanel.org. The articles central to this debate that I am referring to are: Stephen Krashen, "More Smoke and Mirrors: A Critique of the National Reading Panel Report on Fluency," Phi Delta Kappan, October 2001, pp. 119-23; Gregory Camilli, Sakako Vargas, and Michele Yurecko, "Teaching Children to Read: The Fragile Link Between Science and Federal Reading Policy," Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 May 2003, available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n15 (subsequent page references are to this online version); Gregory Camilli and Paula Wolfe, "Research on Reading: A Cautionary Tale," Educational Leadership, March 2004, pp. 26-29, available at www.ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/200403 (subsequent page references are to this online version); and Timothy Shanahan, "Critiques of the National Reading Panel Report: Their Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice," in Peggy McCardle and Vinita Chhabra, eds., The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research (Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 2004), pp. 235-65.
9. 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 (Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH Publication 00-4754, 2000), available at www.national-readingpanel.org. The articles central to this debate that I am referring to are: Stephen Krashen, "More Smoke and Mirrors: A Critique of the National Reading Panel Report on Fluency," Phi Delta Kappan, October 2001, pp. 119-23; Gregory Camilli, Sakako Vargas, and Michele Yurecko, "Teaching Children to Read: The Fragile Link Between Science and Federal Reading Policy," Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 May 2003, available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n15 (subsequent page references are to this online version); Gregory Camilli and Paula Wolfe, "Research on Reading: A Cautionary Tale," Educational Leadership, March 2004, pp. 26-29, available at www.ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/200403 (subsequent page references are to this online version); and Timothy Shanahan, "Critiques of the National Reading Panel Report: Their Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice," in Peggy McCardle and Vinita Chhabra, eds., The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research (Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 2004), pp. 235-65.
10. Harris Cooper, Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998); and Harris Cooper and Larry Hedges, eds., The Handbook of Research Synthesis (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994).
11. Harris Cooper, Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998); and Harris Cooper and Larry Hedges, eds., The Handbook of Research Synthesis (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994).
12. Harris Cooper, "Speaking Power to Truth: Reflections of an Educational Researcher After Four Years of School Board Service," Educational Researcher, January-February 1996, pp. 29-34.
13. Camilli, Vargas, and Yurecko, pp. 3, 6.
14. Camilli and Wolfe, p. 1.
15. Camilli, Vargas, and Yurecko, p. 29.
16. I b i d.
17. Camilli, Vargas, and Yurecko, p. 20.
18. I do have some concern about the authors' use of stepwise regression for their moderator analyses, and their use of language to describe findings is sometimes fuzzy. Readers who are interested in pursuing these more technical matters may e-mail me at cooperh@duke.edu.
19. Report of the National Reading Panel, p. 3-27.
20. Report of the National Reading Panel, pp. 3-24-3-26.
21. Krashen, "More Smoke and Mirrors," p. 121.
22. I b i d.
23. I b i d.
24. (Udana 68-69). My version is paraphrased from one available at www.cs.princeton.edu/~rywang/berkeley/258/parable.html.