Meta-analysis and reading policy: Perspectives on teaching children to read

Elementary School Journal

Volumn 107, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 27-36

  Camilli, Gregory ^a   Wolfe, Paula M ^b,d   Smith, Mary Lee ^c  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33749539660     PISSN: 00135984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/509525     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Archibald, G. (2003, June 10). Researchers verify reading ability gets a boost from phonics. Washington Times [On-line]. Available: http://www.washtimes. com/national/20030610-125708-5569r.htm.
2. Baumann, J. F., Hoffman, J. V., Moon, J., & Duffy-Hester, A. M. (1998). Where are teachers' voices in the phonics/whole language debate? Results from a survey of U.S. elementary classroom teachers. Reading Teacher, 51(8), 636-650.
3. Campbell Collaborative. (2001). Campbell systematic reviews: Guidelines for the preparation of review protocols (Version 1.0, January 1, 2001) [On-line]. Available: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/Fraguidelines.html
4. Camilli, G., Vargas, S., & Yurecko, M. (2003, May 8). Teaching Children to Read: The fragile link between science and federal education policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives [On-line], 11(15). Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n15/
5. Camilli, G., & Wolfe, P. (2004). Meta-analysis and instructional policies in reading. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 26-29.
6. Cooper, H. (2005). Reading between the lines: Observations on the report of the National Reading Panel and its critics. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(6), 456-461.
7. Finn, C. E., Jr. (2003, June 19). Teaching children to read: The fragile links between science and federal education policy. Education Gadfly [On-line], 3(22). Available: http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/gadfly.
8. Garan, E. M. (2001). Beyond the smoke and mirrors. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 500-506.
9. Letters. (2003, June 18). Rebutting criticism of reading report. Education Week, 22(41), 46.
10. Manzo, K. K. (2003, May 21). Analysis calls phonics findings into question. Education Week, 22(37), 3.
11. Morrow, L. M., & Tracey, D. H. (1997). Strategies used for phonics instruction in early childhood classrooms. Reading Teacher, 50(8), 644-651.
12. National Reading Panel. (2000). Alphabetics part II: Phonics instruction (chap. 2). In 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. Rockville, MD: NICHD Clearinghouse.
13. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1925 (2002).
14. Pearson, P. D. (2003a, April). Mapping the NRP categories into the discourses of reading research and instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
15. Pearson, P. D. (2003b). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 216-252.
16. Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of instructional practices of primary teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 363-384.
17. Robinson, D. H. (2004). An interview with Gene V. Glass. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 26-30.
18. Shanahan, T. (2004). Critiques of the National Reading Panel report. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 235-265). Baltimore, MD: Brooks.
19. Yatvin, J. (2002). Babes in the woods: The wanderings of the National Reading Panel. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 364-369.