Advances and Missed Opportunities in the Development of the 2026 NAEP Reading Framework

Elena Forzani, Peter Afflerbach, Sarah H. Aguirre, Nancy Brynelson, Gina N. Cervetti, Byeong-Young Cho, Julie Coiro, Georgia Earnest García, Cynthia Greenleaf, J. Guthrie, Bonnie Hain, K. Hinchman, Mira L. Katz, Carol D. Lee, Mariana Pacheco, P. David Pearson, Alicia Ross, A. Skerrett, P. Uccelli
{"title":"Advances and Missed Opportunities in the Development of the 2026 NAEP Reading Framework","authors":"Elena Forzani, Peter Afflerbach, Sarah H. Aguirre, Nancy Brynelson, Gina N. Cervetti, Byeong-Young Cho, Julie Coiro, Georgia Earnest García, Cynthia Greenleaf, J. Guthrie, Bonnie Hain, K. Hinchman, Mira L. Katz, Carol D. Lee, Mariana Pacheco, P. David Pearson, Alicia Ross, A. Skerrett, P. Uccelli","doi":"10.1177/23813377221112388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in Reading aims to measure reading comprehension for students in the United States and to monitor progress in our education system. NAEP Reading is developed based on an assessment framework document that is periodically revised to reflect the latest understandings about reading comprehension and its assessment. A key goal of the Visioning Panel (VP) and the Development Panel (DP) charged with updating the NAEP Reading Assessment Framework for 2026 was to lay the foundation for an assessment that made progress toward greater fairness, equity, and validity. In this essay, we discuss how the Framework development process unfolded and its results. We document the unusual ways the National Assessment Governing Board (“the Board”) shaped the development process. We provide evidence that a small group of Board members aimed to preserve the status quo in reading assessment by downplaying reliance on expertise and authoritative sources of research on reading, learning, and assessment and by removing attention to equity in NAEP Reading. We also discuss both successful (i.e., approved by the Board) and unsuccessful (i.e., rejected by the Board) recommendations for changes to the 2026 Framework that initially were proposed by the DP. We end by considering how, despite the efforts of the small group of Board members, we as a literacy field can improve the nature and impact of our large-scale reading assessments, and NAEP in particular.","PeriodicalId":91923,"journal":{"name":"Literacy research : theory, method, and practice","volume":"23 1","pages":"153 - 189"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Literacy research : theory, method, and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377221112388","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in Reading aims to measure reading comprehension for students in the United States and to monitor progress in our education system. NAEP Reading is developed based on an assessment framework document that is periodically revised to reflect the latest understandings about reading comprehension and its assessment. A key goal of the Visioning Panel (VP) and the Development Panel (DP) charged with updating the NAEP Reading Assessment Framework for 2026 was to lay the foundation for an assessment that made progress toward greater fairness, equity, and validity. In this essay, we discuss how the Framework development process unfolded and its results. We document the unusual ways the National Assessment Governing Board (“the Board”) shaped the development process. We provide evidence that a small group of Board members aimed to preserve the status quo in reading assessment by downplaying reliance on expertise and authoritative sources of research on reading, learning, and assessment and by removing attention to equity in NAEP Reading. We also discuss both successful (i.e., approved by the Board) and unsuccessful (i.e., rejected by the Board) recommendations for changes to the 2026 Framework that initially were proposed by the DP. We end by considering how, despite the efforts of the small group of Board members, we as a literacy field can improve the nature and impact of our large-scale reading assessments, and NAEP in particular.
2026年国家环境政策阅读框架的进展和错失的机会
国家阅读教育进步评估(NAEP)旨在衡量美国学生的阅读理解能力,并监测我们教育系统的进展。NAEP阅读是基于定期修订的评估框架文件开发的,以反映对阅读理解及其评估的最新理解。愿景小组(VP)和发展小组(DP)负责更新2026年NAEP阅读评估框架的一个关键目标是为评估奠定基础,使其朝着更大的公平性、公平性和有效性迈进。在这篇文章中,我们讨论了框架开发过程是如何展开的以及它的结果。我们记录了国家评估管理委员会(“委员会”)塑造开发过程的不同寻常的方式。我们提供的证据表明,一小群董事会成员旨在通过淡化对阅读、学习和评估方面的专业知识和权威研究来源的依赖,以及通过消除对NAEP阅读公平性的关注,来维持阅读评估的现状。我们还讨论了成功(即董事会批准)和不成功(即董事会拒绝)的建议,这些建议最初是由DP提出的2026框架的变更。最后,我们将考虑,尽管一小部分理事会成员做出了努力,我们作为一个扫盲领域如何能够改善我们大规模阅读评估的性质和影响,特别是NAEP。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书