Trends in the Selection of Primary Grade (K-3) Reading Programs and Assessments in the United States

IF 1.2 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
K. Nelson, Natalie A. Williams, Daniel Huber
{"title":"Trends in the Selection of Primary Grade (K-3) Reading Programs and Assessments in the United States","authors":"K. Nelson, Natalie A. Williams, Daniel Huber","doi":"10.1080/02702711.2022.2094041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT It has been more than twenty years since the National Reading Panel Report (2000) provided recommendations for the teaching of reading based on a meta-analysis of suitable research. The report was commissioned at the end of the 1990s, just as the “whole language” reading movement that advocated for analytic phonics instruction and having students spend much of their time silently reading at their “independent” levels was common. The report recommended the explicit teaching of the “Big Five” components of reading instruction, phonemic awareness, phonics, comprehension, fluency and vocabulary, along with scaffolded reading instruction with challenging text. In the same year, another study concluded that elementary teachers had students reading silently 71% of the time and providing phonics instruction strategies associated with “whole language” such as contextual analysis. In this study, a survey was distributed to school superintendents across the country; 293 completed the survey resulting in a 72% response rate. Respondents indicated a clear and increasing preference for basal programs; a result that we believe reveals the impact of the NRP. Even so, about a quarter of the respondents indicated a preference for programs, and more than half were using assessments, more aligned with “whole language” approaches.","PeriodicalId":46567,"journal":{"name":"Reading Psychology","volume":"43 1","pages":"277 - 292"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2022.2094041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT It has been more than twenty years since the National Reading Panel Report (2000) provided recommendations for the teaching of reading based on a meta-analysis of suitable research. The report was commissioned at the end of the 1990s, just as the “whole language” reading movement that advocated for analytic phonics instruction and having students spend much of their time silently reading at their “independent” levels was common. The report recommended the explicit teaching of the “Big Five” components of reading instruction, phonemic awareness, phonics, comprehension, fluency and vocabulary, along with scaffolded reading instruction with challenging text. In the same year, another study concluded that elementary teachers had students reading silently 71% of the time and providing phonics instruction strategies associated with “whole language” such as contextual analysis. In this study, a survey was distributed to school superintendents across the country; 293 completed the survey resulting in a 72% response rate. Respondents indicated a clear and increasing preference for basal programs; a result that we believe reveals the impact of the NRP. Even so, about a quarter of the respondents indicated a preference for programs, and more than half were using assessments, more aligned with “whole language” approaches.
美国小学(K-3)阅读计划和评估的选择趋势
自2000年《国家阅读小组报告》(National Reading Panel Report)通过对相关研究的荟萃分析提出阅读教学建议以来,已有20多年的历史。这份报告是在20世纪90年代末被委托撰写的,当时“全语言”阅读运动提倡分析语音教学,并让学生花大量时间在“独立”水平上默读,这很普遍。该报告建议对阅读教学的“五大”组成部分进行明确的教学,包括音素意识、自然拼读、理解、流利度和词汇,以及带有挑战性文本的脚手架式阅读教学。同年,另一项研究得出结论,小学教师让学生在71%的时间里默读,并提供与上下文分析等“整体语言”相关的自然拼读教学策略。在这项研究中,向全国各地的学校负责人分发了一份调查问卷;293人完成调查,回复率为72%。受访者对基础节目的偏好明显增加;我们相信这个结果揭示了NRP的影响。即便如此,大约四分之一的受访者表示更喜欢课程,一半以上的人使用评估,更符合“全语言”方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Reading Psychology
Reading Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Prepared exclusively by professionals, this refereed journal publishes original manuscripts in the fields of literacy, reading, and related psychology disciplines. Articles appear in the form of completed research; practitioner-based "experiential" methods or philosophical statements; teacher and counselor preparation services for guiding all levels of reading skill development, attitudes, and interests; programs or materials; and literary or humorous contributions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信