research and the reading wars - scholar.harvard.edu · chapter 4 research and the reading wars...

CHAPTER 4

Research andthe Reading WarsJamesS. Kim

Controversyover the role of phonicsin readinginstruction haspersistedfor over 100 years, makingthe readingwars seemlike an inevitable fact ofAmericanhistory. In themid-nineteenthcentury, HoraceMann, thesecre-tary of theMassachusettsBoardof Education,railedagainstthe teachingofthe alphabeticcode—theideathat lettersrepresentedsounds—asan imped-iment to readingfor meaning.Mann excoriatedthelettersof thealphabetas “bloodless, ghostly apparitions,” and arguedthat children should firstlearnto readwholewords)The 1886publicationof JamesCattell’s pioneer-ing eyemovementstudy showedthat adultsperceivedwordsmore rapidlythan letters, providing an ostensiblyscientific basis for Mann’s assertions.2

In the twentiethcentury, stateeducationofficials like Mann havecontin-ued to voice strongopinions aboutreadingpolicy andpractice,aidingtherapid implementationof whole language—inspiredcurriculum frameworksandtextsduringthelate1980s.And scientistslike Cattell haveshedlight ontheprocessesunderlyingskillful reading,contributingto agrowingscientificconsensusthatculminatedin the2000 NationalReadingPanelreport.3

This chaptertracesthehistory of the readingwars in both thepoliticalarenaandthe scientific community. The narrativeis organizedinto threesections.Thefirst offers thehistory of readingresearchin the 1950s,whenthe “conventionalwisdom” in readingwasestablishedby acclaimedlead-ersin the field like William Gray,who encouragedteachersto instruct chil-

drenhow to readwholewordswhile avoidingisolatedphonicsdrills. In the1960s and1970s,JeanneChall’s researchon first-grade readinginstruction

89

90 WHEN RESEARCH MATTERS JAMES S. KIM 91

indicatedthatphonicsinstructionwaseffectivein helpingchildrenbecomeskilled readers.Whole-languagetheorists, however, conductedresearchtochallengeChall’s findings, arguingthat contextclueshelpedchildrenreadmoreeffectively thanteacher-directedphonicsinstruction.

The nextsectionshowshow both the federalgovernmentandstateedu-cationagenciesmediatedthereadingwars. In the 1980sand1990s, thefed-eralgovernmentturnedto expertsto undertakesynthesesof researchandtohighlight areasof scientific consensus,whichcouldform a solid foundationfor improving instruction. At the sametime, advocatesof whole-languagepedagogypersuadednumerousstatesto adoptnew curriculum frameworksandinstructionalmaterialsthat pushedphonicsinstruction to the periph-ery of the classroom.Eventually, thedeclinein fourth-gradereadingsscoreson theNationalAssessmentof EducationalProgress(NAEP) promptedmanystatelegislaturesto passmandatoryphonicsbills.

Thethird sectiondiscusseshow findings fromtheNationalReadingPanel(NRP) synthesizedthreedecadesof scientificresearchin readingandformedthe basis for theReadingFirst legislation. Since 2000, the NRP’s findingshavecontinuedto fuel theongoingdebateaboutevidence-basedpracticein

readingamongstateand federalpolicymakers,professionalorganizations,andteachers.In sum, this chapterseeksto describehow researchhashelpedresolvecontroversiesin thereadingwars; andto explain why goodresearchalonecannotensuresoundinstructionalpolicy andpractice.

1967-1979:THE GREAT DEBATE IN EARLY READING INSTRUCTION

Phonks versus Look-Say: And the Winner Is?

In the mid-twentiethcentury, the conventional wisdom about effectivereadinginstructionin the early gradeswasheavily influencedby WilliamS. Gray, a leadingreadingscholar.In his 1948book, OnTheir O~mReading,Gray objectedto thedominantmethodof teachingchildren the lettersofthealphabet,thesoundsrepresentedby letters,andthe blendingof groupsof lettersto soundout words. Echoing Mann’s earliercriticism of phonicsinstruction,Grayobjectedto “the oldmechanicalphonicdrills ... that inev-itably resultin dull, word-by-wordreading.”4Instead,he endorseda mean-ing-first andword-analysis-laterapproachthat becameahallmarkcharacter-istic oftheclassroomtextsusedto instruct childrenin reading.Grayandhissupporterstheorizedthatreadingskill would developmore rapidly if chil-drenlearnedto look at andquickly recognizewholewordsmuchlike adults.This methodof instructionwascalled “look-say” becauseit taughtchildren

to recognizeandsaywholewordsby sight ratherthan using knowledgeofletter—soundrelationshipsto readwords.

In WhyJohnnyCan’tRead, RudolphFleschattackedthebasicpremiseof ameaning-focusedinstructionalapproachproposedby Gray. Fleschexhortedteachersandparentsto instructchildrenhow lettersrepresentedsoundsandhow to blendthosesoundsto identify unknownwords. Accordingto Flesch,phonicswasthebestwayto teachreading,andtheonly hopefor curingournation’sreadingwoes.Furthermore,Fleschdirectedhis messageto parents,teachers,andthegeneralpublic,seekingto win thedebateabouthow bestto teachchildren to read.5In thecontextof the cold war, Flesch’sback-to-basics,phonics-first,messagewasembracedby manypoliticiansandcitizenswho fearedthat theAmericaneducationalsystemwaslosing groundto theRussians)’

With thesupportof a CarnegieCorporationgrant,JeanneChall, a pro-fessor at Harvard University’s GraduateSchool of Education,undertookaresearchsynthesisto assessthecompetingideasaboutearlyreadinginstruc-tion. Thetitle of Chall’s 1967book, Learning to Read: TheGreatDebate,cap-turedthe essenceof thereadingwarsthateruptedin themiddle of thetwen-

tieth century. Chall noted that the many issuesand controversiesaboutreadinginstruction in first gradeboiled down to one question: “Do chil-drenlearnbetterwith abeginningmethodthatstressesmeaningor with onethat stresseslearningthecode?”7To addressthis question,Chall interviewedteachers,inspectedbasal texts, andreviewedearlier researchon elementaryschool reading. However, theheartof Chall’s analysiswas an assessment

of the efficacy of threeinstructional approaches,basedon a methodolog-ical strategyfor aggregatingfindings from experimentalstudies. The look-saymethodemphasizesthevisual recognitionof whole words, thereadingof whole sentences,andtheacquisitionof meaning;it involveslittle or nophonicsinstruction.The systematicphonicsprogram teachesphonicsearlyand instructschildren how to separateletter—soundrelationshipsand toblendthesesounds.Theintri nsicphonicsprogramstressessight-wordreading,teacheschildrenhow to learnthesoundsof lettersby analyzingsightwords,andencourageschildrento usecontextcluesandpicturesto identify words.Chall’s classificationsystemplacedprogramson a continuumfrom instruc-tion emphasizingthe code(systematicphonics)to programsemphasizingmeaning(look-say)andtheprogramsin-between(intrinsic phonics).Finally,Chall tallied the numberof experimentalstudiesfavoring eachof the threeapproachesto beginningreading.

Consultingresearchfrom 1900 to 1965, Chall reviewed30 experimentalstudiesthat comparedat least two different approachesto beginningread-


ing instruction.As shownin Table4.1,27 studiesshowedsuperioroutcomesin phonicsprograms(18 favoredsystematicphonicsand9 favored intrinsicphonics)and3 favoredlook-saymethods.Contraryto theconventionalwis-dom, Chall foundthatan earlycodeemphasisproducedbetterword recogni-tion outcomesin theearly gradesandhelpedchildrenreadwith bettercom-prehensionup to tourth grade,relativeto thedominantlook-saymethodofreadinginstruction, in which little phonicswas taughtandemphasiswasplacedon readingwholewordsandwhole sentences.A code-emphasisalsoproducedlargerbenefitsfor less-skilledreadersandchildrenfrom low-income

families. However,Chall emphasizedthatthedichotomybetweencode-andmeaning-emphasiswas a simplistic dualism anda matterof emphasis—allprogramshadsomedoseof instructionaboutletter—soundrelationshipsandwhole-wordreading.Becausethe findingswerebasedon few quality experi-ments,Chall viewedherfindingsas“hypothesesto betestedfurther.”8

A Psycholinguistic Theory of Reading: Theoretical Roots of

Whole-language Pedagogy

Chall’s findings were immediatelychallengedby two scholars—KennethS.GoodmanandFrankSmith. In a 1967 journalarticle, Goodmanchallengedtheideathatreadinginvolvedthe “exact,detailed,sequentialperceptionandidentificationof letters,words, spellingpatternsandlargelanguageunits.”9

To Goodman,readingwasa“psycholinguisticguessinggame,”in whichgoodreadersusedcontextandbackgroundinformationratherthanpreciseidentifi-cationof letter—soundrelationshipsto predict, confirm,andguessat theiden-tification of anunfamiliarword. ~ In a 1969article in ReadingResearchQuar-terly, Goodmanwenton to criticize“recentattemptsby Chall andotherstojustify theseparationof code-breakingfrom readingfor meaning.”1’Accord-ing to Goodman,syntax(grammaticalstructureof language)andsemantics(relevantbackgroundknowledge)wereasimportantasgrapho-phoneticcues(letter—soundcorrespondences)in aiding word recognitionprocesses.In theconclusion,Goodmanhopedthat his researchwould “generatehypothesesabout the readingprocesswhich can be empiricallytestedandleadto newinsightsinto methodsandmaterialsfor readinginstruction.”2

As he hoped, Goodman’stheoryfueled researchon theprocessesunder-

lying word recognitionability amonglinguists,cognitivepsychologists,andeducationalresearchers.In the 1970s,Goodman’sideas were echoedmostprominentlyin thewritings of FrankSmith, who beganto publish researchoriginatingfrom theHarvardUniversityCenterfor CognitiveStudiesunderthe directionof theeminentpsychologistGeorgeMiller. In Understanding

TABLE 4.1 A Comparison of Three Approaches to Reading Instruction, 1900—1965

Period Prevailing method

Foundsystematic

Total phonicsstudies superior

Foundtnns,c

phonicssuperior

Foundlook-saysuperior

1900—1920 Systematic phonics 3 1 0 2

1920—1935 Look-say 6 4 2 0

1935—1955 Intrinsic phonics 8 4 3 1

1955—1965 The debate: intrinsicphonics still the prevailingmethod with a pushtoward earlier and heavieremphasis on phonics

13 9 4 0

TOTAL 30 18 9 3

Source: Jear,ne Chall, Learning to keading: The Great Debate (New York: McGraw-F-till, 1967), t 32.

Reading, Smith hypothesizedthat readingwas natural, like speaking,andthatchildrenknewagooddealaboutlanguage.53Consequently,skilled read-ers usedtheir knowledgeof a meaningfulcontext,like astory or paragraph,to recognizeindividual wordsin asentence.Furthermore,Smitharguedthatphonicsrules weretoo complex, hadtoo manyexceptions,andwereunnec-essaryfor helping thebeginningreaderbecomea proficient reader.“Learn-ingto read,”Smithargued,“is akin to anyotherskill; thereareperhapssomespecializedexercisesthat onecanundertaketo iron out particulardifficul-ties,but thereis no substitutefor theactivity itself.”14 In otherwords, oneofthebestwaysto becomeaskilled readerwassimply to read.

In trying to bridgethedivide betweentheoryandpractice,Smithdirectedhis messageto practitioners.The final sectionof UnderstandingReadingwastitled TheTeacher’sRole, andSmithacknowledgedthathis modelof readingwasunconventional.He explained,

[Readers]arenot usually regardedas “predicting” their waythrougha pas-sageof text, eliminatingsomealternativesin advanceon the basis of theirknowledgeof theredundancyof language,andacquiringjust enoughvisualinformation to eliminatethe alternativesremaining - . - But nothing thatIhavesaid should start a classroomrevolution. Thereis no suggestionthatteachersof readingshould throwawaytheir instructional procedures,ortheir yearsor experience,andstartall over again15


Thedirect appealto teachersandthe deferenceto practitionerjudgmentbecameathemein Smith’s writing throughoutthe 1970s,andboth Good-man and Smith startedto make explicit instructional recommendationsbasedon their theoriesaboutreading.

Smithpublished two books in the 1970sthat were squarelyfocusedonpersuadingteachersto changeinstruction in their classrooms.In Psycholin-guisticsand Reading,Smith reiteratedhis basichypothesisthat theprimarygoal of readingwasto acquiremeaningfrom print anddismissedtheimpor-tanceof teachingthesystematicrelationshipbetweenlettersand sounds.Pre-packagedphonicsprograms,Smithclaimed,underminedteacherauton-omy. Indeed,Smitharguedthat teachers“do not act asbrainlesspurveyorsof predigestedinstruction (that is why thereis the frighteningtrend thesedays to produce‘teacher-proof’ materials).”6In ReadingWithoutNonsense,Smith arguedthatphonicsinstructionwasunnecessaryfor efficient decod-ing of words andactually interferedwith theprocessof learningto read.Whenconfrontedwith a strugglingreader,Smithadvisedteachers:“The firstalternativeandpreferenceis—to skip over thepuzzlingword. The secondalternativeis to guesswhattheunknownword might be. And the final andleastpreferredalternativeis to soundtheword out.Phonics,in otherwords,comeslast.”7

By theendof the 1970s,Smith’s writings reflectedthe actionsof a policyentrepreneurseekingto persuadeteachersto rejectphonicsinstructionandto encouragechildrento usecontextcluesto identify words. Moreover,hisrecommendationsevokedearlierargumentsput forth by William Gray, whosuggestedthat teachingchildren to readwholewordswassuperiorto pho-nics instruction.

Testing the Psycholinguistic Theory of Reading InLaboratory ExperimentsStartingin theearly1970s,cognitivepsychologistKeithStanovichnotesthatSmith’s top-down model of readingpiquedthecuriosity of scholars,whobeganto undertakeexperimentsto examinewhethergood readers,in fact,relied more on context to recognizewordsthan poor readers)8The moreimmediategoalof thesestudieswasto understandthe basicprocessesunder-lying readingratherthan theapplicationof thesefindings to schoolsand

classrooms.Much to the surpriseof Stanovichandhis colleagues,experi-mentaldataindicatedthat it waspoorreaders,not goodreaders,who reliedmore heavilyon context to facilitate word recognition.’9Workingindepen-clentlyon relatedquestions,otherscholarsreplicatedthefinding thatcontexteffectswerelargestfor poor readers.2°Studiesbasedon eye-movementtech-

nology alsoindicatedthatgood readersdid not engagein whole-scaleskip-ping of lettersandwordsbut processedall thevisualinformation in text.2’Mounting evidencealso indicatedthat children neededto developphone-mic awareness—theknowledgethat wordsarecomposedof unitsof sounds(phonemes)representedby letters(graphemes)—andmasterthealphabeticprinciple in orderto becomeindependentreaders.22Contraryto GoodmanandSmith’s top-downmodel of reading,researchfindingsalso showedthatgood readershadfastandaccurateword recognitionability that freedatten-tion to focuson meaning,whereaspoorreadershadto rely moreheavilyoncontext to decodewords.23

Although basic researchproducedknowledgeabout theacquisition ofreadingskills amongyoungchildren,thesefindings weredisseminatedpri-marily in peer-reviewedjournalsandacademicconferencesanddid nothavean immediateanddirectimpacton educationpolicy andpractice.In assess-ing thestateof readingresearchin 1977, RichardVenezskyargued,that “[if]readingresearchis to influenceinstruction,thenmoreexperimentalpsychol-ogistswill haveto be persuadedto interactprofessionallywith educationalplannersanddevelopersandto concernthemselveswith thepracticalsideof reading.”2 Venezsky’srecommendationsfor usingresearchto shapeprac-

tice took two forms in the1980s.The federalgovernmentconvenedexpertpanelsto synthesizebasicresearchandits implications for teachers,whilewhole-languageadvocatesworkedwith stateeducationagenciesto dissemi-natetheir ideasaboutreadinginstructionto teachers.

1983-1997: HOWCONSENSUS PANELS OF EXPERTS AND STATEEDUCATION AGENCIES MEDIATED THE READING WARS

Consensus Panels and the Call for Balanced Literacy Instruction

In 1983, theNational Institute of Education(NIE) authorizedtheNationalAcademy of Education’s Commissionon Education and Public Policy togathera panelof experts“to survey, interpretandsynthesizeresearchfind-ings” on beginning readingandthe comprehensionof language.25Underthedirectionof professorRichardC. Anderson,theCommissionon Read-ingconvenedeight leadingprofessors,onefirst-gradeteacher,andonemem-berfrom theDepartmentof Educationto conductthe review. Housedat theCenterfor theStudy of Readingat theUniversityof Illinois, thepanelsyn-thesizedrecentfindings from linguistics, cognitive psychology,andchilddevelopmentin a 1985 publication,Becominga NationofReaders.The reportaffirmed thevalue of (1) early languageexperiencesin kindergartenandathome, (2) phonicsinstruction (in helping children masterthealphabetic


principle), and(3) opportunitiesto readconnectedtext orally andsilently.The recommendationsemphasizedthedevelopmentalneedsof children astheymovedfrom abasicunderstandingof theform andfunctionof print toan understandingof letter—soundcorrespondencesandon to independent,fluentreadingof books.

In addition to offering recommendationsfor practitioners,the 1985 NIEreporthelpedreframethedebatesaboutreadinginstruction in two ways.First, it rejectedthe dualismbetweenactivitiesdesignedto fosterknowledgeof the alphabeticcodeandopportunitiesfor childrento readgoodliterature.Newfindingsfrom relatedacademicdisciplinesweresheddinglight on “theintricaciesof thereadingprocess”and“lay at restonceandfor all someofthe old debatesabouttherole of phonicsandcomprehension.”26Second,itraisednewquestionsandencouragedresearchersto broadentheir study ofthereadingprocessandtheinstructionalstrategiesthatfacilitatedthedevel-opment of readingcomprehension.Accordingto onefederal policymaker,the readingresearchbegunby NIE andthepublicationof the 1985 report“shifted theentire agendafor researchanddevelopmentin that area.”27Itdid so by moving the field awayfrom a dominantconcernwith decodingandearlyreadinginstruction to abroaderfocuson comprehensionandlan-guagedevelopment.

In a secondresearchsynthesis,authorizedby thefederalgovernmentandsponsoredby theCenterfor theStudy of Reading,Marilyn J. Adams com-pleteda synthesisof the theoryandpracticeof beginningreading. In the1990publicationBeginningto Read:ThinkingandLearningAboutPrint,

28 Adamsechoedmanyof Chall’s findingsandthe 1985 NIE reportby explainingwhyphonicsinstructionfacilitatedword recognitionskills. She alsoreviewedthegrowing researchliteraturethat undercutthevalidity of thepsycholinguis-tic theoryof readingadvancedby GoodmanandSmith. Skilled readersusedknowledgeof letter—soundrelationshipsto processall the graphicinforma-tion containedin identifying aword.Oncelower-levelwordrecognitionpro-cesseswere automated,children could read connectedtext with speedandfocuson comprehendingwhat theyread.Thus,thestrategyof usingcontextto aidword recognitionandthe rejectionof phonicsinstruction,as advo-catedby whole-languagetheorists,hadlittle supportin empiricalresearchbythe late 1980s.29

Additionalevidencechallengingtheeffectivenessof whole-languageprac-ticesemergedin a 1989 studypublishedin thepeer-reviewedjournal ReviewofEducationalResearch.In thismeta-analysis,StevenStahlandPatriciaMillerreviewedthe efficacy of whole-languageapproachesto readinginstruction.In addition to informing thescientificliterature, theauthorshopedto shed

light on the heateddebatebetweenproponentsof whole-languagetheoriesand phonics instruction.30Stahl and Miller defined whole-language/lan-guage—experiencemethodsashavingfour characteristics:(1) anemphasisonusingchildren’slanguageasamediumfor instruction, (2) child-centeredles-

sons,(3) tradebooksratherthanbasaltexts, and(4) lessonsin decodingandphonicsonly astheyarosein thecontextof readingstoriesandtext.

Theirquantitativesynthesisrevealedthatwhole-languageapproacheshadsomebenefitsas an instructionalapproachin kindergarten,but producedinferior resultsrelativeto systematiccode-emphasisapproachesin first grade.To explainthis finding, StahlandMiller suggestedthatwholelanguagemighthelp children in kindergartenwhen readinginstruction is more romanticandfocusedon learningtheform andfunction of print. They notedthatwholelanguagemight be less usefulin first gradewhenchildren mustmas-terthealphabeticcodeto decodenewwords. Perhapsmostimportantly, thefindings indicatedthat whole-language/language...experjencemethodshadthegreatestbenefit for middle- andupper-classstudents.Why? Accordingto StahlandMiller, studentsfrom advantagedbackgroundsweremorelikelythan low-incomestudentsto havelearnedaboutthecodethroughexposureto storybooksandlanguageexperienceat home.Echoingthe findingsfromChall’s earlierresearch,Stahl andMiller hypothesizedthat low-incomechil-drenandpoor readersneededexplicit instruction in sound—symbolrelation-ships in first gradeto becomeskilled readers.

The Rise and Fall of Whole Language in CaliforniaDuring thelate 1980s, researchindicating that phonicsfacilitated efficientdecodingskills and that whole languagepracticeslackedevidenceof effi-cacyhadlittle directinfluenceonstatepolicy andclassroompractice.Onthecontrary,whole-languagepedagogyformedthe latestconventionalwisdomin reading.In a 1990 specialissueof ElementarySchoolJournalon wholelan-guage,P. DavidPearsonobservedthat wholelanguagehadbecomea grass-roots movementof educatorssupportedby state educationofficials andprofessionalorganizations.Pearsonnotedthat in his 25—year careeras aneducator,

NeverhaveI witnessedanythinglike therapidspreadof thewhole-languagemovement,Pick your metaphor—anepidemic,wildfire, mannafrom heav-en—wholelanguagehasspreadso rapidly throughoutNorth Americathatit is a fact of life in literacycurriculumandresearch.3’

In thesamespecialissue of ElementarySchoolJournal,JeromeHarsteandKennethGoodmanarguedthat onegoalof whole-languagephilosophyand


practicewasto empowerpractitioners.Theschoolcurriculum,Harsteargued,should not be “left in thehandsof thosewho only rarely comein contactwith students.”32EchoingHarste’sideasaboutteacherempowerment,Ken-nethGoodmanassertedthat “teachersarenot relying on gurusandexpertsto tell them what to do.”33 The whole-languagemovement,accordingtoGoodman,wasgeneratingaknowledgebase“passedfrom teacherto teacherin personcontacts,in teachersupportgroups,andin local conferences.”3

Ratherthan following the findings of experimentalresearchpublishedinacademicjournals,Goodmanurgedscholarsto do researchthat wasusefulfor teachers,andpredictedthat“practitionerswill moveahead,with or with-outthis support.”35

By thelate1980s,whole-languagetheoristshadcommunicatedtheir ideasto decisionmakersin stategovernmentin orderto changecurriculum andinstruction.Onedirectpath to changingclassroominstructionwasto workthroughstatelegislaturesthat hadcentralizedcontrol over textbookadop-tion policiesandtheauthorityto shapethe contentof the basaltextsusedin all public schoolclassrooms.Accordingto readingscholarTimothy Sha-nahan,whole-languageadvocateswereableto persuadethecommissionerofeducationin California, Bill Honig, to adoptnew textbooksthatde-empha-sized skill instructionandphonicsskills. Accordingto Shanahan,“[wjholelanguage-influencedpoliciestranslatedinto a banon theuseof statemoneyto purchasespellingbooks(wholelanguageproponentsopposedspellers).”36

This changein readingcurriculum andtext representeda radical shift awayfrom traditionalbasaltextsandamovetowardchild-centeredpedagogy.Forexample,the 1987 California languageartsframeworksupportedan inte-gratedlanguageartscurriculumcritical of phonicsinstruction,andadvancedthe ideathat children should constructknowledgeon their own, basedontheir interests.37It specificallynotedthat learningEnglish“cannotbelimitedto adaily list of ten or 15 skill objectivesor to thecompletionof meaning-less worksheets.”38Given theserecommendations,therewaslittle empha-sis on teachingall childrento masterthe26 lettersof thealphabetor the 44speechsoundsthat makeup theEnglishlanguage.Although someeducatorsembracedthe literature-basedcurriculumandnewtextbooks,manyparentsandteacherswere alarmedto find that the new materialsweretoo difficultfor manychildren.

The major challengeto whole-languagepedagogyeventuallycamefromfourth—gradereadingscoreson theNationalAssessmentof EducationalPrug-ress (NAEP). With the first wave of 1992 data from thenewly authorizedNAEP administrationsat the statelevel, the federalgovernmentsuppliedthepublic andpolicymakerswith comparativeinformation on stateperfor-

mance.Thus, Californianswere alarmedto find that 52 percentof fourthgradersreadbelowthebasiclevel on the 1992administrationof NAEP. Morebad newsfollowed when the 1994 NAEP scoreswere releasedin springof1995. Policymakers,parents,andeducatorslearnedthattheaverageperfor-manceof California’sfourth-gradersput thestatenearthebottomrelativetoother states,andthat the declinein scoresfrom 1992 to 1994 wasevidentamongall ethnicandsocioeconomicgroups.On the1994 NAEP, 56 percentof fourth gradersreadbelow basic, including 46 percentof children fromfamilieswith college-educatedparents.39

The perceivedreading crisis was eventually linked to whole-languagepractice.Surveydataindicatedthat a largerpercentageof California teach-ers employedwhole-languagepracticesthan their peersin other states.Forexample, surveysof classroominstruction from the 1992 NAEP indicatedthat69 percentof Californiateachersput a “heavy” emphasis(versus“mod-erate” or “little or no”) on whole languagecomparedto a meanresponseof40 percentacrossother states.Moreover, 87 percentof California teachersindicatedheavyrelianceon literature-basedreadingand52 percentreportedlittle or no relianceon phonics,comparedto a meanof 50 percentand33percentin otherstates.°Despitethedifficulty of drawing firm causallinksbetweeninstructionand achievement,manypolicymakersimplicated theCalifornia languageartsframeworkandpoorteachingas theprimarycausebehindthe declinein statereadingscores.41

Sincewholelanguagehadbecometheconventionalwisdom in readinginstruction,anydecline(perceivedor real) in readingachievementwaseas-ily linked to thedominantmethodof readinginstruction.Legislatorsin Cali-fornia andelsewherereactedto theeducationalcrisis of low literacyattain-ment by enactinga flood of phonicsbills duringthemid-1990s.From 1994to 1997, 18 stateshadone or more phonicsbills introducedin legislativesessionsandCalifornia hadthe largestnumber,of bills introducedduringthis time period. By 1997, a total of 33 statelegislatorshadpassedbills thatstressedinstruction to improvephonemicawarenessor explicit phonics.42

Moreover,thegrowingnumberof phonicsbills appearedto reflect thepub-lic’s dissatisfactionwith aneducationalestablishmentthatseemedunwillingto adoptevidence-basedpracticesin theclassroom.43Thereadingwarswerenow beingfought in thepolitical arena,as legislatorssoughtto stemthereadingcrisisby passinglawsto governclassroominstruction.

In explaining the political reactionof statelegislaturesto the readingcrisis, Keith Stanovicharguedthat whole-languagetheoristshadfailed torespondto evidenceandenactnormsof practicerootedin scientificresearch.In short,whole-languagetheoristsandadvocatesleft theteachingprofession

JAMES S. KIM 101100 WHEN RESEARCH MATTERS

vulnerableto intrusivelegislativemandatesby failing to policeitself. Accord-ing to Stanovich,

In holdingto anirrationallyextremeview on theroleof phonicsin readingeducation—forfailing to acknowledgethat somechildren do not discoverthe alphabeticprinciple on their own andneedsystematicdirect instruc-tion in the alphabeticprinciple,phonologicalanalysis,andalphabeticcod-ing—whole languageproponentsthreatenall of their legitimate accom-plishments.Eventually_perhapsnot for agreatwhile, but eventually—theweightof empiricalevidencewill fall on theirheads.Thatdirectinstructionin alphabeticcodingfacilitatesearly readingacquisitionis oneof themostwell establishedconclusionsin all of behavioralscience)~

In manyways,Stanovich’scriticismof wholelanguagewasechoedby Cal-ifornia’s former commissionerof education.In retrospect,Bill Honig admit-ted that the 1987 languageartsframework andwhole-languagepracticeswerenot basedon provenstrategies.“It is thecurseof all progressives,”saidHonig, “that we are anti-researchandanti-science,and we never seemtograsphow irrational thatattitudeis. This is probablyourdeepestfailure.”5

1993-2000:THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TURNS TO EXPERTSTO END THE READING WARS

Political scientistJohn Kingdon points out that public policy issues andagendasare most likely to capturetheattention of legislatorswhen threestreamscoalesce.46In the 1990s,themergingof the problens,political, and

policy streamsmadefederallawmakerseagerto conveneapanelof expertsto preventreadingfailure in the earlyelementarygrades.47First, theprob-1cm streamflowed from state-levelNAEP datain California,which revealedthat a majority of fourth-graderscould not read at a basic level of perfor-mance,Second,thepolitical streamoriginatedfrom statepolicymakers’reac-tion to efforts to win the readingwarsby mandatingphonicsinstructionin classroomswherewhole-languagetextsandinstructionprevailed.Third,thepolicy streamemergedfrom theNational Institute of Child HealthandHumanDevelopment(NICHD), whichbeganto askandanswertimely ques-tions for policymakersandpractitioners.In 1993, NICHD encouragedtheresearchcommunity to submit applicationsfor researchthat addressedthepractical question,“Which single treatment/interventionor combinationof interventions,provided in which settingor combinationof settings,has(have)the most effectiveimpact on well-defineddomainsof children func-

tioning, for how long, and for whatreasons?”48Under theleadershipof G.

Reid Lyon, NICHD advancedits researchagendaby fundingaprogrammaticseriesof experimentalandlongitudinal studiesthat showedhow appropri-ate interventionstargetedfromkindergartento third gradecouldreducefail-

ure levelsin reading.49Converginglines of evidencefrom basicandappliedresearchbeganto showthatearlyinterventionanddirect instructionin pho-nicscould reducereadingfailurebeforethird grade.

Giventhesubstantialbody of researchon thebasicprocessesunderlyingreadingdevelopmentandthe efficacy of different instructional strategies,theNationalResearchCouncil (NRC) convenedleadingscholarsto synthe-sizefindings from thescientificliterature.Publishedin 1998,PreventingRead-ing Difficulties in Young Children soughtto provide lay audiencesanddcci-sionmakerswith anintegratedpictureof how readingskills developandhowto preventreadingfailure. Accordingto CatherineSnow,thechairof theNRC report, theconsensusaboutearlyreading,how it developed,andhowinstructionfacilitatedreadingability was“not difficult to reach.”5°TheNRC’s“core message”to practitionerswasthat instructionshould“integrateatten-tion to thealphabeticprinciple with attentionto theconstructionof mean-ing andopportunitiesto developfluency.”5’ In making its final recommen-dations,theNRC reportexhortedscholarsandfederallawmakers:“Researchtowardincreasingtheefficacy of classroomreadinginstructionin kindergar-tenandtheprimarygradesshouldbe thenumberonefundingpriority.”52 Itconcludedwith 18 additional questionsto guidearesearchagendaon effec-tive primary-gradeinterventions.Similar to earlierexpertpanelreportsfromthe 1970sand 1980s,the 1998 NRC report rejectedthesimplistic dualismbetweenphonicsandwhole languageandraisednew questionsfor fruitfulinquiry andresearch.However, sincethepaneldid not focus its review onquestionsaboutthe efficacy of different instructional methods,Congressauthorizedasecondpanelof expertsto conductanobjectivereviewof stud-iesthatcould provideclearinstructionalguidanceto classroomteachers.

On July 24, 1997, the SenateCommitteeon Appropriationsauthorizedthedirectorof NICHD to assemblea nationalpanel to synthesizethebestresearchon the effectivenessof different approachesto teachingreading.SenatorArlen Specterstatedthatthecommitteewas

impressedwith the important accomplishmentsreportedfrom theNICHDresearchprogramon readingdevelopmentanddisability, and is eagertohavethis infornsationbroughtto the attentionof educators,policymakers,andparents.53

Thegoalof includingpanelistswith diverseprofessionalbackgroundswasreinforcedin theauthorizingstatute,which called for a National Reading

102 WHEN RESEARCH MATTERS— JAMES S. KIM 103

Panelof “leading scientistsin readingresearch,representativesof collegesofeducation,readingteachers,educationaladministrators,andparents.”54

Onbalance,the 15 panelistswereprimarily tenuredprofessorsin psychol-ogy andeducationandmanywere leadersin thefield of literacy research.55

Giventheuniqueexpertiseof eachpanelmember,theNRPeventuallyformedsubgroupsthateachfocusedon oneof sixareasof research:aiphabetics(pho-nemicawarenessandphonicsinstruction),fluency (oral guidedreadingandindependentsilent reading),comprehension(vocabularyandtext compre-hensioninstruction),teachereducation,computertechnology,andmethod-ology. By reviewingmultiple instructionalstrategies,theNRP’sreviewimplic-itly rejectedtheideathateitherphonicsor whole-languageinstructioncould

producesuperiorreadingachievement.In the wordsof oneof the panelistson the NRP, Congresswantedto settlethe “ReadingWars,” andput an “endto the inflated rhetoric,partisanlobbying, anduninformeddecisionmakingthat havebeenso widespreadand so detrimentalto theprogressof readinginstructionin America’s schools.”56

To make credible causal inferencesabout the effects of instructionalapproacheson student outcomes,panelistsreviewedonly publishedstud-

ies using experimentaland quasi-experimentaldesigns.5’Given the inclu-sion criteria, panelmemberTimothy Shanahanassertedthatthereport“willbe,perhaps,themostthoroughandexplicit reviewof thesetopicsevercon-ductedin reading.”58And by describingin detail the stepsthat went intothemeta-analyticreview, the NRPhopedto encouragepublic scrutinyandreviewof its proceduresandfindings.

THE IMPACT OF THE NRP ON RESEARCHERS, POLICYMAKERS,AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

In 2000, two NRP reportswent to press—a464-pagefull report with tech-nical details,filled with tablesof coding schemes,effectsizes,andp values,and a 33-pagesummaryof the full report. The nseta-analysisshowedthatinstrtsctionin phonemicawareness,phonics,andguidedoralreadingfluencyimprovedchildren’sability to readwords,to readconnectedtext with speedandaccuracy,and to comprehendtext. Moreover, the report underscoredthe importanceof embeddingspecific instructionalstrategiesin a compre-hensivereadingprogram. For example,although phonicsimproved wordrecognitionability, the NRP emphasizedthat “systematicphonicsirlstruc-tion shouldbe integratedwith otherreadinginstructionto createabalanced

readingprogram.Phonicsinstructionis nevera total readingprogram.”59inaddition, the NRP found that providing support andguidanceduringoral

readingof text helpedchildren improvetheir ability to readconnectedtextwith greaterspeed,accuracy,and colnprehensionHowever, the NRP cau-tionedthatguidedoralreadingshouldbeusedaspartof “an overallreadingprogram,not asstandalone~interventions”6o

More broadly, theempirical findings affirmed thevital rolethat teachersplayedin improvingchildren’sreadingskill. TheNRPconcludedthatexplicit

instruction involving phonemicawareness,phonics, oral guided reading,andcomprehensionstrategieswas more effective in improving children’sreadingskills thanstudent-centeredapproacheslike sustainedsilentreading,in which children receivedlittle or no guidancefrom teachersin selectingandreadingtext.81Thus, the NRP concludedthat teacher-directedinstruc-tion wasessentialto improving children’sreading,arobustfinding thathasbeendocumentedin over100 yearsof educationresearch.62

Since2000,theNRP’s findingshavegarneredtheattentionof researchers,policymakers,andpractitioners.The findings of the NRPhavebeenwidelycitedby researchersandsubjectedto creativere-analysesthathaveshedlighton new questionsandinfluencedfederalpolicy.63 In particular, theNRP’sfindingson (1) phonemicawarenesstraining, (2) phonicsinstruction,(3) flu-ency, (4) comprehensionstrategies,and(5) vocabularyinstructioneventu-ally shapedthe ReadingFirst legislation.Statesanddistricts mustshowhowfederaldollars will supporteachofthefive pillars ofscientificallybasedread-ing instructionin ReadingFirst schools.64

Professionalorganizationsalso helpedtranslatetheNRP’s findings for its

members.The InternationalReadingAssociation,an organizationfor read-ingresearchersandpractitioners,publisheda2002book titled Evidence-Basea’ReadingInstruction:Putting theNational ReadingPanelReportinto Practice.Thiseditedvolume includedrecentpublicationsfrom ReadingTeacher(an Inter-national ReadingAssociation publication with wide circulation to teach-ers), to guideresearch-basedpracticebasedin eachof the five components -

of instructionreviewedby the NRP, and, accordingto theeditors,“will be ausefultool for educatorsas they implementpracticesconsistentwith scien-tifically basedreadingresearchandtheprovisionsof ReadingFirst.”65 Forthemembersof theof the AmericanFederationof Teachers(AFT), the NRPreit-eratedfindings from LouisaC. Moats’s 1999 publication,TeachingReadingIsRocketScience,a lay-friendly publicationthat summarizedresearchon pho-nemicawareness,phonics,fluency,vocabulary,andcomprehensioninstruc-tion. EchoingChall andAdams’searlierworkson thevalue of literature-richandskill-basedinstruction,Moatsassertedthat“teachersneedto connecttheteachingof skills with thejoy of reading,andwriting, usingread-aloudsandthemotivating activities popularizedby thewhole-languagemovement.”66

104 WHEN RESEARCH MATTERSJAMES S. KIM 105

BecauseMoats’s book hadalreadybeendisseminatedto a largenumberofteachers,manypractitionerswere alsofamiliar with the five pillars of scien-tifically basedreadinginstructionarticulatedby theNRPreport.

Furthermore,the full-length NRP report was condensedinto a simpler33-pagesummaryreport for teachersand lay audiences.Critics charged,however,that the summaryreport misrepresentedthe findings on theeffi-cacy of phonicsinstruction.Although the full NRPreport providedinsuffi-cientdatato drawconclusionsabouttheeffectsof phonicsinstructionabovefirst grade,the summaryindicatedthat systematicphonicsbenefitedchil-dren from kindergartento sixth grade.6’ Agreeing that the translationoffindings waslessthan perfect,panelmemberTimothy Shanahanconcurredthat thesummarywas an incompleteandinaccuratesummaryof the fullreport.More specifically,he notedthat the summary“conveystheideathatgood, older readersshouldbe taughtphonics,somethingneitherstatednorimplied in thereport.”6’ Shanahanaddedthatoneremedyto this problemwas to makesurethatmore teachersreadtheentirefull reportandenactedevidence-basedpracticesin their classrooms.

Somescholars,however, havechallengedthe notion that the NRP haspromotedgood instructionandsupportedprofessionalautonomy.RichardAllington, a readingprofessorat theUniversity of Tennessee,chargesthattheNationalReadingPanel’sfindingshavebeenusedby proponentsof directinstruction andintensive phonicsto imposeexternalmandateson teach-ers. Accordingto Allington, legislativemandatesandexpertpanel reportsstrip teachersof theautonomy to makecurricular andinstructional deci-sions.And if lawmakersandprofessorshavethepower to governcurriculumand instruction,Allington wonderswhetherteacherswill continueto feellike autonomousprofessionalswho hold themselvesaccountablefor helpingchildren becomeindependentandskilled readers.69

DISCUSSION

“The historyof medicinehasbeenwritten asanepicof progress,but it is alsothetale of . . . conflict overthe emergenceof newhierarchiesof power andauthority,” writessociologist Paul Starr in his PulitzerPrize—winningbook,The Social Transformationof AmericanMedicine,The Riseof a SovereignProfes-sionandtile Makingofa VastIndustry.’

0in manyways, thehistory of theread-ing warsmight aptly be characterizedasan “epic of progress”anda “taleof conflict.” The story of progressshows how researchfindings convergedover four decadesto form the basis for nationalpolicy, most notablyin the2001ReadingFirst legislation.Thestoryof conflict suggeststhatresearchwas

alsoaweakcountervailingforcein thependulumswingsbetweenwhole-lan-guageandphonicsinstructionthat tookplacein statelegislaturesduringthe

1980sand1990s.In thefollowing discussion,my goal is describehow contro-versiesaboutinstruction in beginningreadinghavebeenresolvedthroughnormal scientific inquiry andwhy good researchalonecannotshapesoundinstructionalpoliciesandpracticesin reading.

JeanneChall’s 1967 book Learning to Read:TheGreatDebate,theNationalInstitute of Education’s1985 report Becominga Nation of Readers,the 1998NationalReadingCouncil book PreventingReadingDifficulties in YoungChil-dren, andthe 2000 NationalReadingPanelreport shareseveralqualitiesof“normal science.”Accordingto historianof scienceThomasKuhn, “normalscience”builds on “past scientific achievements”and“is sufficiently open-

endedto leaveall sorts of problemsfor theredefinedgroupof practitionersto resolve.”1Major researchsynthesesof readingtraveleddown thepath ofnormal scienceby recognizingtheconvergent,cumulative,andreplicatedfindings in thescientific researchliterature.Thesereports,however, did notimmediatelyor directly impact readingpolicy andpractice.After all, it tooktheaccumulationof threedecadesof researchbefore a substantivemeta-analysisof instructionin phonemicawareness,phonics,fluencyvocabulary,andcomprehensioncouldbeundertakenin thelate 1990s.Nonetheless,thereportsshowedhow substantialagreementin thescientific communitywasneededbeforefirm recommendationscouldbe madefor policymakersandpractitioners.

In the conclusionof Learning to Read: The Great Debate, JeanneChallassertedthat scholarshipin reading“should follow thenormsof science”by building on thepastandraisingnew questionsandhypotheses;a scholar“must try to learnfrom the work of thosewho precededhim ... knowingthatneitherhenoranyonefollowing him will havethefinal word.”2 Chall’sobservationsabouttheconductof normal sciencewere realizedin theensu-ing debatesaboutthemerits of phonicsinstruction.Although Chall foundexperimentalevidencesupportingphonics instruction over whole-wordreadingmethodsin first grade,KennethGoodmanchallengedtheseconclu-sionsby speculatingthat contextcueswereequally, if not more,importantthan knowledgeof spelling—soundrelationshipsin helpingchildrenreadnewwords. Like debatesin any scientific field, thenovel “psycholinguisticthe-ory of reading”proposedby Goodmansparkedtheinterestof otherscholars.Accordingto psychologistKeith Stanovich,“Ken Goodmanconductedthewell-known 1965studythat focusedso manyof us in theearly1970son thestudyof the effectsof contexton reading.”3Eventually,Stanovichandoth-ersfound that relianceon contextsloweddownword recognitionabilities


andwas a strategyusedby poor readers.Skilled readers,on theotherhand,were able to apply knowledgeof the alphabeticprinciple to quickly andautonsaticallyreadnewwords.Thedisputeabouttherole of contextin wordreadingunderscoresa truth aboutscientific progress:No single scholarorindividual studydictatedthescientificconsensusabouttheprocessesunder-lying skillful reading.AsThomasKuhnpointsout, theprogressiveaccumula-tion of researchfindings producesadiscernible“shift in thedistributionofprofessionalallegiances”of membersin thescientificcommunity.’4

Thatshift in professionalallegiancesamongscholarswascapturedin con-sensuspanelreportsfrotn the 1970sand 1990s,whichsoughtto rejectsim-plistic approachesto readinginstruction.In Toward a LiteracySociety,a 1975publicationsponsoredby the National Institute of Education,Chall arguedthat neitherphonicsnor sight-wordapproachesweresufficientto helpchil-drenbecomeskilledreaders.Instead,sheremindededucatorsandthegeneralpublic that inflexible approaches“may fail with a child if in thelong run itplaysdowneitherof theseaspectsof learningto read.What is importantis aproperbalancebetweenthem.”5 A secondNIE publicationin 1985,Becom-mug a Nation of Readers,extendedChall’s work andsynthesizednew findingsfrom cognitive psychologyandrelateddisciplines.It arguedfor theneedtogo beyondword readinganddecodingstrategiesandemphasizedtheimpor-tanceof oral languageandtext comprehension.By broadeningits surveyofthescientific literature,the report encouragedthescientific community to

undertakemulti-disciplinarystudiesof readingandto examinetheefficacyof diverseapproachesto instruction.In 1998, theNationalReadingCouncilpublication,PreventingReadingDifficulties in YoungChildren, recognizedcon-vergentfindingsfromdiversescientificdisciplinesanddeepenedthefounda-tion on whichto baseevidence-basedreadinginstruction.

The culminationof nearly threedecadesof researchresultedin the2000National ReadingPanelreport. By raising questionsaboutthe efficacy ofdifferent instructionalapproachesandby restricting its review to findingsfrom experimentsand quasi-experimentspublishedin peer-reviewedjour-nals, theNRP influencedfederalpolicy andclassroompractice.Scientifically

basedreadinginstructionneededto focuson word-,sentence-,andtext-leveloutcomes,andclaims aboutthe efficacy of differentinstructionalstrategiesneededthebackingof experimentaldata.Pushingthe public anddecision-makersto think beyondthe phonics—whole-languagedichotomy, the NRPhelpedreframedefinitions aboutscientifically basedresearchandpracticein reading. Moreover,the findings from the NationalReadingPaneleven-tually shapedtheReadingFirst legislationin the No Child Left Behind Act,which requiredeligible Title I schoolsto adoptscientificallybasedresearch

practicesin five areasof readinginstruction:phonemicawareness,phonics,fluency,vocabulary,andcomprehensioninstruction.Thefive pillars of goodreadinginstructionarticulatedanewgrammarof schoolingin educationbyencouragingpractitionersto focus on a broadsetof instructionalstrategiesandreadingoutcomes.

Tracing theevolution of scientific consensusin readingmay paint anoverlysimplistic andteleologicalversionof history—akind of inevitableandprogressiveaccumulationof researchtoward theultimate goal of improv-ing instructionandachievement.However, thereadingwarsarealsoa taleof conflict andof pendulumswings betweenexternallymandatedwhole-

languagepracticesand phonicslegislation during the 1980s and 1990s.The story of conflict offers somereasonswhy researchalonecannotprotecteducatorsfrom unproventheoriesandpolicies, whetheroriginatingin themindsof an academicresearcheror theactionsof a stateeducationofficial.In particular,I elaborateon threecharacteristicsof scholarlyresearchandthescientific communitythat helpexplain why researchdoesnot immediatelyinfluenceandshapeeducationpolicies.

First,theresultsof normalscientificinquiry areusuallyreportedin peer-re-viewedjournalarticles,slowingdownthedisseminationof scientificresearchfindings to decisionmakersandlay audiences.From the 1960sto 1980s,sci-entistsbeganto undertakebasicresearchon the processesunderlyingskill-ful readingin laboratories,and applied researchon the efficacy of differ-ent instructionalapproachesin classroomsettings.However, it took severaldecadesfor researchersto highlight convergentfindings andmakerecom-mendationsfor teachers.’6Louisa C. Moats hasobserved,“there is always along delaybetweendevelopmentsin academicresearchdisciplinesandtheirincorporationinto teachingpractice.”Researchoftentakesseveraldecadesto bearfruit, but decisionmakerscannotwait for decadesto help strugglingreaders.Consequently,thedemandsfacing a stateeducationofficial, super-intendent,or teachercreatepressuresfor immediateactionandquick solu-tions. Researchthat is unavailablefor decadescannotinform decisionmak-ing today.

Speedingup theprocessby which scientific controversiesare resolvedmayequippractitionerswith more relevantandtimely information.Adver-sarial collaborationrepresentsa recenteffort amongscientiststo acceleratetheprocessfor resolvingcontroversies.Expoundedin thejournalPsychologi-cal Science,theeditorsexpressedhope that adversarialcollaborationwouldbecomeamorewidelyusedprotocolfor adjudicatingdisputesbetweenschol-arsanddisseminatingfindings quickly to avoidongoingcontroversy.’8Theprocedurerequiresadversariesin ascholarlydebateto agreeon basicdesign


issuesandresearchquestionsbefore theyconductthe study. In addition, itrequiresantagoniststo collaborateon a prospectivestudy andagreeon anarbiter who imposesthe rules of engagementover theentire process.Thearbiterhelpsadversariesdecideon thedesignof theexperiment,controlsthedata,determinesthefinal venuefor publication,andcan evendeclarein thefinal publicationif an uncooperativeparticipantfailed to comply with theagreed-uponprotocol. In other words,adversarialcollaborationrepresentsapotentially valuableandunder-utilizedtool for mediatingconflict in scien-

tific debates.In thefuture,it mighthelpto adjudicatedebatesin readingandthe manyeducationpolicy controversiesoutlined in this volume.’9 Ideally,encouragingadversariesto collaborateon prospectivestudieswould accel-eratethe resolution of conflict in the researchcommunity andprovide thekind of scientificconsensusthat informsgoodpracticein schools.

Second,normal sciencedependson thevalidationof researchfindingsbyacommnunityof expertswho areexpectedto remainobjectiveparticipantsin democraticdebates.Scientistsareaskedto educate,not advocate.“Oneof the strongest,if still unwritten, rules of scientific life is theprohibitionof appealsto headsof stateor to thepopulaceat largein mattersscientific,”observesThomasKuhn.8°Thesestrongprofessionalnormscreatedisincen-tives for scholarsto jump into thepolicyareaandadvocatefor specificpoli-ciesor educationalcurricula. Therefore,themereexistenceof good researchis no guaranteethat suchknowledgewill becommunicatedto policymakers.Nonetheless,thecritical perspectiveof scientistsperformsa valuablefunc-tion in a democracywherepublic policiesarecraftedby politicians in localschoolboards,statelegislatures,andCongress.Scientistsdo not havepoweror authorityto mandatephonicsinstruction,to adoptliterature-basedbasaltexts,or to define scientificallybasedreadinginstructionin federalstatutes.Theycan,however,encouragelegislatorsto evaluateuntestedpoliciesbeforetheyarebroughtto scale.

For example,thecritical perspectiveof a socialscientistplayedavital rolein causingTennesseelegislatorsto requirean evaluationof classsizereduc-tion in the mid-1980s.Although statelawmakerswantedto enactclasssizereductionsto improvestudentachievementin theearlygrades,StevenCobb,a sociologistby training, encourageda randomizedexperimentto evaluatethe efficacy of small class sizes on student learning.” Tennesseelawmak-ers eventuallypassedlegislationto undertakea statewideexperimentcalledProjectSTAR (StudentTeacherAchievementRatio), which hasbeenhailedby scholarsasoneof themostinfluentialstudiesin education.’2“The roleofsocialscienceresearch,”writesDaniel PatrickMoynihan, “lies not in thefor-mulationsocialpolicy, but in themeasurementof its results.”3Whensociol-

ogistslike StevenCobb andDanielMoynihanenterthepolitical arena,theyoften contributeto democraticdebateby encouragingcritical evaluationofunprovenandcostlypolicies. Hadsocialscientistssharedfindingsfrom StahlandMiller’s meta-analysisof whole languagewith statelegislators,perhapsCalifornia’s stateofficials would havecalledfor a smallerpilot study or anevaluationof whole-languagepracticesbeforeit wasimplementedin all dis-tricts andschools.

1~hird,the federalgovernmenthas frequently turned to scientists, notteachers,to determineevidence-basedpractice.Theassumption,of course,isthatscientistshavethetools andknowledgeto understandresearchandcanthereforeestablishnormsof practicethatbuffertheteachingprofessionfromfads, ideology,andpolitical intrusion. To practitioners,however,expertscanbe viewedas noviceswho know little aboutteachingin thepublic schools,andeffect sizesfrom a meta-analysiscan be viewed as irrelevanttools foraddressingtherangeof skills andperformancein aclassroomof 30 first-grad-ers. Indeed,JoanneYatvin, the lone practitioner on theNationalReadingPanel,wonderedhow professionalstandardscould be determinedprimarilyby scholarswho do not teachchildrenhow to read.In filing aMinority Viewin the appendixof theNE!3, Yatvin arguedthat panelistsfailed to subjecttheir resultsto thescrutinyof teachers.“Outsideteacherreviewers,”Yatvinargued,“shouldhavebeenbroughtin to critiquethepanel’sconclusion,justasoutsidescientistswereto critiqueits processes.”4

Without being representedon theseexpert panels,teachersand theirallies havefrequentlyassertedthat externalmandatesby federal andstatelawmakersandconsensusreportsby universityresearchersundercutthepro-fessionalautonomyof K—12 teachers.Professionallyeclecticexpertpanelsinreading—perhapsevenan equalnumberof teachersandprofessors—mightaddressthesecriticismsby giving voiceto teachers.For example,by includ-ing an equalnumberof teachersandnonteacherson theUnited Kingdom’sNationalLiteracyTaskForce,political leadersencouragedrecommendationsfor improving readinginstructionthat integratedthe practical knowledgeof teachersandfindings from researchers.’5Recentefforts to bridgethegapbetweenresearchersandpractitionersprovide hopefulsignsthat collabora-tive efforts maydeepenthelegitimacyof scientific evidenceamongteachersandencourageresearchersto pursueanswersto relevant,practicalquestions.For example,the InternationalReadingAssociation(IRA) andtheNationalInstitute of Child HealthandHumanDevelopment(NICHD) jointly spon-soredaresearchseminaron teachingEnglish-languagelearners.AccordingtoPeggyMcCardle, thechiefof the Child DevelopmentandBehaviorBranchfor NICHD, the long-termgoal of thesecollaborative meetingsis to “get


researcherstalking both to eachother andto practitioners.”6In additionto fosteringdialogue,inviting teachersandresearchersto makepolicy mayenspowerteachersto shapethenormsgoverningtheir profession.

CONCLUSION

By design, normal scienceproceedsslowly and convergentfindings takedecadesto evolve. By tradition, scientistsmustembraceneutralityin publicpolicy debatesandavoidpartisanshipin controversiesaboutreadinginstruc-tion. And by necessity,governmenthasusually turnedto university profes-sorsto translatescientific researchandtechnicalfindings in academicjour-nalsfor classroomteachersandlay audiences.Thedefiningcharacteristicsofnormalsciencearein manyrespectsvirtuesof thescientific enterprise.Wait-ing 30 yearsfor scientiststo conductenoughstudiesto be included in theNationalReadingPanel’smeta-analysesseemsworthwhileif theseresearchfindingsarehelpingto improvethequality of teachingandlearningin class-rooms.Recentefforts to speedup the resolutionof scientificcontroversy,toencouragecommunicationbetweensocialscientistsandpolicymakers,andto forgecollaborationsbetweenresearchandpractitionercommunitiesmayhelpresolveconflict in readingandotherareasof educationpolicy andprac-tice. In thelong-run, it is unclearwhetherany of theseinitiativeswill createan enduringpeacein thereadingwars.

Perhapsthe surestpath to protectingreadingpolicy andpractice fromradical pendulumswings, fads, andideologyis to createa sovereignprofes-sion, Ultimately, teachersmust be involved in establishingandregulatingprofessionalnorms. SociologistPaulStarr assertsthat the legitimacyof pro-fessionalauthority andcompetencerestson “threedistinctive claims: first,that knowledgeandcompetenceof theprofessionalhavebeenvalidatedbya communityof his or her peers;second,that this consensuallyvalidatedknowledgeandcompetencereston rational, scientific grounds;andthird,

that theprofessional’sjudgmentandadviceareorientedtowardasetof sub-stantivevalues,suchashealth.”

Fewwould disputethattheteachingprofessionis orientedtowarda sub-stantive andvaluable goal—theeducationand cognitive developmentofyoungchildren.Today,it would alsobenoncontroversialto suggestthatsub-stantialprogressin readingresearchhasbuilt a strongempiricalfoundationfor improvingreadinginstruction.Yet thefirst claimof professionalauthori-ty—the validationof professionalcompetenceby acommunityof peers—re-mainsanelusivegoal in Americaneducation.Among theprofessions,teach-ers remainin the unenviablepositionof lackingthepower andauthorityto

insulategood practicefrom themisguidedtheoriesof academicresearchersor thefaddishpoliciesof political leaders.

In thefuture, will acommunity of practitionersvalidatetheknowledgeandability of theircolleagues’to instructchildrenhow to read?Will teachersbelongto a sovereignprofessionthatcompelsits membersto meetnormsofexcellenceagreeduponby a communityof peers,appliesscientific researchin shapingprofessionalstandards,andservesits clients well? Or will teach-ing remaina partialprofessionwhereprofessorsandlawmakerspossesstheprimaryauthorityto mandatepolicy andshapepractice?Empoweringteach-ersto establishprofessionalnormsrootedin scientificresearchmayhelpcre-ate a sovereignprofession.Ultimately, teachersmust have accessto truthand power if they are to establishprofessionalnormsthat support theirefforts to helpchildrenbecomeskilled readersandactiveparticipantsin ourdemocracy.

research and the reading wars - scholar.harvard.edu · chapter 4 research and the reading wars...

Documents