Teaching Children to Read : The Fragile Link Between Science & Federal Education Policy

By Gregory Camilli, Sadako Vargas, Michele Yurecko. 2003

97 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Teaching Children to Read (TCR) has stirred much controversy among reading experts regarding the efficacy of phonics instruction. This report, which was conducted by the National Reading Panel (NRP), has also played an important role in subsequent federal policy regarding reading instruction. Using meta-analysis, the NRP found that systematic phonics instruction was more effective than alternatives in teaching children to read. In the present study, the findings and procedures leading to TCR were examined. We concluded that the methodology and procedures in TCR were not adequate for synthesizing the research literature on phonics instruction. Moreover, we estimated a smaller though still substantial effect (d = .24) for systematic phonics, but we also found an effect for systematic language activities (d = .29) and tutoring (d = .40). Systematic phonics instruction when combined with language activities and individual tutoring may triple the effect of phonics alone. As federal policies are formulated around early literacy curricula and instruction, these findings indicate that phonics, as one aspect of the complex reading process, should not be over-emphasized.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7f3c1692e2f027fa6b09a7dde254beafcdfb34ba

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. J. Cummins
2. Jeffrey S. Bowers

In Education

1. J. Cummins
2. Jeffrey S. Bowers

In Statistics and Probability

1. J. Cummins
2. Jeffrey S. Bowers

Citations in the corpus

• Reconsidering the Evidence That Systematic Phonics Is More Effective Than Alternative Methods of Reading Instruction (2018, methodology): “The Camilli et al. (2003) analysis showed that effect size of systematic phonics compared to non-systematic phonics was significant, but roughly half the size of the effect of systematic phonics reported in the NRP report (d = .24 vs. d = .41). Interesting, the analysis also found significant and nu”
• Pedagogies for the Poor? Realigning Reading Instruction for Low-Income Students With Scientifically Based Reading Research (2007, methodology): “1A reanalysis of National Reading Panel (NRP) data, using more sophisticated meta-analysis techniques, conducted by Camilli, Vargas, and Yurecko (2003), showed an effect size for systematic phonics instruction only one half as large as that reported by the NRP. 2Confidence in the reality of the…”