No Flaws.  No Misinterpretations?

Idalia Nuñez      

           The NELP report summarizes research-based evidence on developing early literacy skills in response to the performance of fourth graders in reading below basic levels. The NELP reports that shared reading has only a moderate impact on later literacy outcomes; results for pre-school and kindergarten programs were not reliable; code-focused interventions have moderate to strong effects on later literacy outcomes; home and parent program have strong impact on two aspects of literacy; However, it also reports that phonemic awareness, rapid naming of letters and objects, alphabetic knowledge, write or write names, decoding, and spelling has a strong impact as predictors of later literacy outcomes.  Without any recommendations or suggestions provided by this report, these results are open to indefinite interpretations that will affect the education field.

         In fact, in the NELP report, it states that it will “contribute to decision in educational policy and practice that affect early literacy development and to determine how teachers and families could support young children’s language and literacy development” (p.iii). This means that this report is created with the purpose of having an impact on decisions regarding policy and practice in the education field. Yet, NELP members, such as Lonigan and Schatschnieder (2010), state that the results of the report could be misinterpreted, but that is not a flaw of the report (p. 341).  Does that mean that as long as it is not a flaw in the report, it is enough to allow results to be misinterpreted by policy makers and practitioners?

       Yes, the report was flawless, as far as methodology, procedure, analysis, and results based on those studies, but it is not enough to make conclusions. In fact, a major limitation was the fact that there were not enough studies to find what is best for children at an early literacy stage and this should be clear to everyone involved in any aspect of education. Professionals in the education field and policy makers should not allow room for misinterpretations in reports that have a robust amount of impact in the education field.  Research is important and it is to provide information for the benefit of our field especially in terms of education. Therefore, the NELP should consider explaining results and providing suggestions that will clarify information for those who want to understand more about what works for early literacy.

References

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early

       Literacy Panel. Washington, D.C. National Institute for Literacy.

Lonigan, C. J. & Shanahan, T. (2010).  Developing Early Literacy Skills: Things We Know We

        Know and Things We Know We Don’t Know. Educational Researcher. 39(4), 340-341.

If it’s Broken, Fix it

by Audrey Ochoa

          Despite all the research in the National Early Literacy Panel’s report (NELP, 2008), too many chapters ended with a vague or nonexistent conclusion due to the lack of studies available. In chapter three of the report, the researchers were unable to inform which interventions worked best for children living in poverty, children in underrepresented ethnic groups, and English-language learners. This is a rather large and diverse population that could have benefited from more information. Chapter four details that there is not yet evidence that shared reading promotes the development of other emergent literacy skills besides oral language and print knowledge. Chapter six mentions that several large, well known and commonly used home programs were not included in the study because they were not peer reviewed. Unfortunately, the researchers’ hard work did not completely pay off because there are too many holes. The report can be seen as “broken.”

          The main cause for the lack of studies is that the panel chose to use quantitative studies exclusively that could be summarized with a meta-analysis. Many topics were not fully explored because of these limitations. Shanahan and Lonigan (2010) point out that many conclusions could be drawn differently if a broader set of studies were included such as doctoral dissertations and other reports. Instead of repeatedly informing the reader of a lack of evidence, the panel should have “fixed” the report by allowing other studies including qualitative research. A complete and powerful impact could have been made on education if only more research was considered.

References

Lonigan, C. J. & Shanahan, T. (2010).  The National Early Literacy Panel: A Summary of the Process and

       the Report. Educational Researcher. 39(4), 279-285.

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early

       Literacy Panel. Washington, D.C. National Institute for Literacy.

No Buts About it! But…

Niki Castaneda Kotrola

     The National Early Literacy Panel should be applauded for their dedication and accuracy of their meta-analysis.  The NELP convened in 2002 to conduct a synthesis of the research on early literacy skills in children. The panel’s stated goal was to, “synthesize research to contribute to decisions in educational policy and practice that affect early literacy development and to determine how teachers and families could support young children’s language and literacy development. In addition, this evidence would be a key factor in the creation of literacy-specific materials for parents and teachers and staff development for early childhood educators and family-literacy practitioners” (NELP, 2008, p. iii). Their goal is user-friendly and states a direct purpose for the use of the information found within the report. However, the report is anything but user friendly and gives very little evidence of practices or programs that would support the literacy practices of children ages birth through the age of five. For the majority of the report, the same sentence is re-written in numerous ways stating that there were not enough studies to analyze and therefore the results are inconclusive. Isn’t the researcher or synthesizer of information responsible for making the implications clear and appropriate for their audience? Teale, Hoffman, and Paciga (2010) support this sentiment in their article located in the Educational Researcher, in regards to the report’s lack of information and guidance regarding policy and practice on early literacy skills. They also discuss the implications of the report for educators and their concerns that policy and practice will be informed by the narrow implications and broad statements of the report. By giving educators only the strategies and practices that were found effective and were easily measureable like rapid automatic naming of letters and pictures, the focus for policy and practice could mimic these results. Would spending an hour simply naming letters and shapes with toddlers and preschool students be an effective use of time to develop their early literacy skills? Should all literacy skills be decontextualized and taught independently with no regards to meaning?

     In response to criticisms of their statements within the report, Lonigan and Shanahan (2010) make several claims that seem to oppose the original reason for the panel to be convened. “The report was intended as a first step in a process to develop recommendations; it was never intended to be a practice document” (Lonigan & Shanahan, 2010, p. 340). Their goal was to contribute to the decisions made in educational policy but was not intended to be used by teachers? If their work was to be used to inform policy, then it has to contain practices/strategies/programs that proved effective so that policy enforces those practices/strategies/programs with the end goal being placed upon teachers to utilize those practices/strategies/programs so that our children become successful learners of literacy.

“These critics are correct that the NELP report does not provide simple answers or espouse a mandate for early childhood educations” (Lonigan & Shanahan, 2010, p. 345). I do not think that any educator or educational policy maker believes that there are easy answers in educating the youth of today. However, I do believe that research should state implications and limitations within their studies to allow for the reader to not misinterpret the data. Nowhere in the report do the authors give policy makers the slightest guidelines that will aide in shaping policy and contributing to student success. Contributions to policy are only expected from the National Early Literacy Panel report because that is what they said they were going to do. So where are they? Please don’t give us any more buts, but rather, give us implications!

References

Lonigan, C. J. & Shanahan, T. (2010).  Developing early literacy skills: Things we know we know and things we know we don’t know. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 340-341.

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, D.C. National Institute for Literacy.

Teale, W. H., Hoffman, J.L., & Paciga, K.A. (2010). Where is NELP leading preschool literacy instruction? Potential positives and pitfalls. Educational Researcher, 39 (4), 311-315.

With Consideration…

Elizabeth Esparza

As I read the Report of the National Early Literacy Panel, I noticed one recurring theme that seemed to be prevalent in many chapters—the need for additional research in order to make more definite conclusions.  This was due to the fact that there were not enough studies that met the criteria they were looking for.  I understand the enormity of the task that the NELP had and don’t want to take anything away from that.  However, one of the issues I had was that this allows the findings to be misinterpreted.  The way the report was written could be confusing even for professionals in this field.  Because such a report can have serious implications for policy recommendations and policy in general, this is definitely something that should not to be taken lightly.  

In response to others’ critiques of the Report of the National Early Literacy Panel, Lonigan and Shanahan (2010) wrote, “Although we agree that the NELP report could be misinterpreted, that is not a flaw of the report” (p. 341).  I took particular issue with this statement.  I believe those on the NELP should have taken what they found, and with consideration of their readers, made an effort to make it as clear as possible.  It seemed to me as if their primary objective was to report their findings, or the lack thereof, and paid no attention to the way it could be interpreted.  Although, they cannot change their findings, the one thing they did have control over is how it was presented it in the report.  Whether or not they felt their report should influence policy, I think the possibility that it might, should have had a bigger influence on the way the NELP report was written.

National early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National

      Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

Lonigan, C. J. & Shanahan, T. (2010).  Developing Early Literacy Skills: Things We

      Know We Know and Things We Know We Don’t Know. Educational Researcher.

      39(4), 340-346.

The Power of Talk!

Created by: Brenda Roman

            The National Early Literacy Panel Report of 2002 sought to synthesize, analyze and summarize a quantity of scientific research focusing on the development of early literacy skills in children from birth to age five (NELP, 2008, pp.v).  Thus, and among these, one of the primary objectives being the identification of academic practices, home and parent activities, and interventions best deemed necessary for the adequate promotion of children’s early literacy skills (NELP, 2008, pp. vi).  Therefore, after the careful analysis of a vast amount of research, the panel convened that six variables were more predictive of later literacy success:  alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid automatic naming of letters and digits, writing name, and phonological memory (NELP, 2008, pp. vii).  Although, the above stated variables are considered powerful predictors and deemed necessary, a skill that ought to be highlighted was given a lesser stance and failed to be adequately depicted:  language (Dickinson, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2010).  The role of language was not fully acknowledged and the case for such fell short, and thus it is necessary that the positive effects of language on reading development be discussed.

            First of all, language has the ability to positively impact phonemic awareness by focusing on the smallest units of sounds and the differences in meaning that these carry; in turn, fostering reading development (Dickinson et al, 2010).  Secondly, language positively impacts early decoding skills, by translating the letters into sounds they represent (Dickinson et al).  In turn, this supports later decoding and comprehension.  Third of all, early language greatly contributes to the development of phonological awareness by providing a foundation for the reorganization of words in the brain (In Dickinson et al).   Fourth of all, language also has a strong effect in reading through its association with a child’s ability to regulate their behavior and attention (In Dickinson et al).  Therefore, language plays an important role in self-regulation which in turn increases the likelihood of academic success (In Dickinson et al). 

            Furthermore, the role of language in this report was underrepresented and undermined and it was necessary to explore the great potential that this has on the development of reading in children.  Moreover, the implications for this in the classroom are vast, but among these is the need to provide children with an adequate amount of time to talk during the day (Tolentino, 2007).  It is also of great importance to provide children not only with the time but also with a variety of literacy artifacts, such as reading materials and a print rich environment that fosters discourse.  Furthermore, it would also be wise to include a plethora of activities that foster collaboration among children, such as projects so that students have the opportunity to talk and exchange ideas and interests (Tolentino, 2007).  In conclusion, it is imperative and of great benefit to create contexts which provide students with plenty of opportunities to immerse in the power of talk and thus nurture the use of language in their quest for making meaning.

References

Dickinson, D., Golinkoff, R., & Hirsh-Pasek, K.  (2010).  Speaking Out for Language:  Why Language Is Central to Reading Development.  Educational Researcher, 39(4), 305-310.  doi:  10.3102/0013189X10370204

Tolentino, E. P.  (2007).  “Why do you like this page so much?” Exploring the Potential of Talk during Preschool Reading Activities.  Language Arts, 84(6), 519-528.

National Early Literacy Panel Report.  (2008).  Developing Early Literacy:  Report of the National Early Literacy Panel.  Washington, D.C. National Institute for Literacy.

Another Look At Families

By: Jessica Becerra

         The National Early Literacy Panel’s (NELP; 2008) inclusion of the impact of Home and Parent Programs on young children’s early literacy skills indicates the importance of family involvement.  Though this significance is shown by the inclusion of Chapter 5, the NELP failed to adequately address the impact of diverse populations.  The findings were shown to necessitate further clarification and additional research.  One area of family involvement that would be beneficial for more consideration would be to look at the types of multifaceted families and their individual contributions to literacy acquisition.  “Such programs are familial and culturally competent, recognizing existing family routines and values and incorporating 'schooled' literacy practices within those structures" (Dail & Payne, 2010, p.330).

            In order to provide culturally competent literacy education, parental involvement programs need to understand the types of families they are servicing and the wealth of knowledge these families have to offer.  These targeted families should be provided with the skills and materials needed to support literacy education while still respecting their background. Part of this means not approaching parents who are part of these programs with a deficit belief.  “Instead of dictating to parents how and when to use materials, we wanted parents to develop practices that fit into their family routines.  Our work with parents was both familial and culturally competent because families were treated as partners, and they made decisions about how best to relate the materials to their children and integrate them into heir family schedules" (Dail & Payne, 2010, p.332).  Building these bridges with families will benefit educators, parents, and most importantly students.  By having understanding and appreciation for differences in culture, more types of families can be successfully affected by parent and home programs. 

References:

National early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National

      Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

Dail, Alanna Rochelle. Payne, Rebecca L. (2010). Recasting the Role of Family

     Involvement in Early Literacy Development:  A Response to the NELP Report.

     Educational Researcher, 39(4), 330-333.   

B is not just for the Ball;

Inspiring a love for the Game

Mara Fox Moretti 

     Reading is a complex, layered, cognitive activity and because of this some students simply don't get it. Some students can physically read words with admirable fluency but they can't make sense of the story unfolding. Even though the NELP report admits, "most literacy researchers acknowledge the complexity of literacy practices and agree that the whole is much more than the sum of its parts(,)" the researchers don’t internalize this definition as they summarize and categorize, like those students who can read the words, and are definitely fluent, but can’t put together the entire literacy story (Anstey & Bull 2004: Purcell-Gates et al., 2010:Orellana (2010) pp. 296-297 ). The NELP panel is so busy breaking early literacy down into components that it's forgotten to make true meaning out of the information they've so painstakingly gathered. Though this work was done with the best of intentions, the panel is now endangering every young child in America by pointing out only the separatist, educational practices they we able to test, and expecting the result to be more than the sum of the parts. What should be a whole literacy emphasis will become more disconnected, route learning, and then the testing of those overemphasized, disconnected practices, within the educational process.    

     Policy makers, educators, trained child care workers, and concerned parents, might get the idea that coaching early literacy is like taking the bat and ball out of the baseball field and teaching the child just to hit the ball until proficient. The child learns to plant their feet, angle their arms, swing the bat, and follow through until the child can hit the ball out of the . . . oh, there's no baseball diamond, no bases, no pitcher and no other players so it's not actually baseball! Hitting a baseball doesn’t automatically create a baseball player any more than memorizing the alphabet automatically translates to reading comprehension. It's the connection of all of the components that effectively scaffolds children to whole literacy. The most important component that should be layered into early literacy coaching is modeling a love for reading. If parents and educators express to their children and students how reading enriches their everyday lives they’ll find they’re coaching an all-star, a child inspired to put all of the pieces together and achieve the kind of literacy that will keep them in the reading game for a lifetime.

National early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National

      Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

Orellana, Marjorie, Faulstich & Jacqueline D'warte. (2010) Recognizing differen kinds          

     "Head Starts." Educational Researcher. 39:4. pps. 296-297.

 When will we count?

The 2 million students that weren’t included in the NELP meta-analysis

Sandra Villagomez

It was early in my examination of Chapter 3 of the National Early Literacy Panel Report (NELP) that I noticed the absence of data related to the growing bilingual student population in the U.S. It stood out to me as I read about the difference between variables and outcomes when students were assessed in kindergarten versus preschool. If there is a difference in effect at varying ages, wouldn’t there be a difference in effect among different student populations? Well, as of yet, we can’t tell. The report indicated that there were too few studies to determine, statistically, what the effect of code-focused intervention would have on “specific subpopulations of children” such as bilingual students. (NELP, 2008, p. 119). But, they suggested, if it works for mainstream children it must work for all children.

 I was glad to see that this overgeneralization was addressed by Gutierrez, Zepeda, and Castro in the Educational Researcher (2010). In this day of evidence-based intervention for struggling students, I support their recommendation to look elsewhere when making decisions related to bilingual students. This population, which is already viewed as inferior, needs intervention and support which will meet their particular social and linguistic needs. The NELP report, which found oral language intervention at the low to moderate range for mainstream students, should not be the driving force for bilingual curriculum recommendations. And, while we continue to examine early childhood literacy, let us look at the children behind the skills: their socioeconomic status, their culture, and their abilities. Students who come to us with other languages are not deficient, but instead bring skills unrecognizeable to mainstream students.

References

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Available at

          http://www.nifl.gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELPreport.html

Gutierrez, K., Zepeda, M., and Castro, D. (May 2010). Advancing early literacy learning for all children: Implications of the NELP Report for dual-language learners.

          Educational Researcher, 39(5)334-339. 

What about comprehension?

Kelli M. Bippert

The NELP’s meta-analysis looked at quantitative studies that measured student achievement, and a large number of those studies looked at code-based reading interventions.    The findings from the NELP’s meta-analysis of the various studies were meant to show educators which strategies best helped students in their later reading achievement.  Not surprising, the findings showed these code-based reading interventions as having moderate to strong effects on student achievement (Neuman, 2010).

We now run the risk of schools nation-wide focusing on very narrow areas of reading and writing instruction and intervention.  This would not only affect our young students but our older students as well, who in upper elementary through high school may be experiencing difficulties in reading and comprehension. 

Reading programs already abound that promise to help students achieve high levels of reading achievement over short periods of times.  These programs often use research such as this as their proof that the programs are data driven and research based.  Programs are pitched by vendors who promise to help the district close the achievement gap that already exists for some students.  Districts then present the programs to teachers, and often dictate that they use these products as prescribed by the vendors. 

Using only one approach at helping all struggling readers is not the most effective way help students make long-term gains.  First, teachers need to look at the individual children to see what their needs are.  They would need to meet the various needs of each child.  While some students may struggle with decoding, many more may need help on fluency and comprehension (Valencia & Buly, 2004). 

This would require many things from a school, which many would find difficult to face.  Students need to be in small groups, where the teacher can assess their needs daily and give the students immediate and meaningful feedback.  A focus on the individual child’s area of weakness is important, but we shouldn’t stop at working with students on only these areas.  In addition to receiving interventions where they are struggling the most, students also need to experience reading instruction which will help them develop analytical thinking skills that become so much more important as they get into the higher grades.   These are literacy skills that will help them not only in their language arts classes, but in other content areas where the curriculum demands that they not only be able to read the text, but read between those lines of text. 

And how does a teacher accomplish this?  Reading challenging text together as a class, shared and partnered reading, discussing the stories and texts, modeling and guiding children in analyzing characters, plot, and making predictions.  Teachers may need to create mini-lessons to address comprehension issues that become more apparent as she works closely with her students.  To help students bridge the gap that has develop in their comprehension and that of their peers, this would require a lot of flexibility on the part of the classroom teacher and of the school administration. 

We can hope that school administrations across Texas are able to see beyond the numbers crunched by the NELP and their district TAKS scores and see that the policy that may be written will affect the children and their futures as successful readers.

Resources

National Early Literacy Panel Report. (2008). Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, D.C.

          National Institute for Literacy.

Neuman, S. B. (2010). Lessons from my mother: Reflections on the National Early Literacy Panel Report.

          Educational Researcher, 29(4), 301-304.

Valencia, M. R., & Buly, S. W. (2004). Behind test scores: What struggling readers really need.

          The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 520-531.

     Is it better to say nothing and never offend or to risk saying something of value and being harassed for it?  I think if you were to ask the National Early Literacy Panel and the report they published it might be the former.  Afraid to be the cause of every parent, teacher, politician, and administrator’s griping years from now the report feels intentionally plain.  Why have history look back and bemoan the report as having created the next No Child Left Behind legislation when the panel could simply state the obvious?  Why take a risk and be wrong when they could simply play it safe and survive?  And this reason, playing it safe, is what is ruining education. 

     What do you see in classrooms today; unengaged, unmotivated, uninspired children playing it safe!  Why raise your hand if you might get the answer wrong?  Why speak up in class if there is a chance your wrong or that someone might disagree with you?  There is an entire country of educators looking for a cure.  And what does the NELP report give us but another excuse to expect the minimum.  How dare they with their resources and talent waste it on playing it safe!  Of course we know reading to kids is good for them!  Thank you.  You do not make change by playing it safe and only regurgitating, paraphrasing, and doing a meta-analysis of studies which already exist. 

     I am reminded of a parable; with great power comes great responsibility.  Educators have a responsibility to educate.  It does not say they have a responsibility to educate the children in their charge so that they can pass a test, so that they can achieve a passing grade.  If we want the best for our children, and many parents do, why would we want them to only know what we know?  Why would we want them to leave school with the same grades we did, the same knowledge that we had?  If we want our schools to create only average children then set the bar at an average height!  Wait, we already do that.  In the end the NELP report did much to further educations vegetative state and to remind at least me why crazies are crazy; doing the same thing again and again and expecting something different.  If we want to change the world it starts in the classroom.  

Craig Stephens

Where did the data come from?

Paula Benter

     A meta-analysis is a formidable undertaking, and there is no doubt that the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) created a document that attended to the task and requirements established within the framework of the study.  They delivered a report that analyzed individual skills as they relate to later reading, writing, and spelling outcomes. It is one thing to look at early literacy skills and abilities in the context of an early childhood environment, but to extrapolate those variables to determine later reading success is insurmountable. This is evident throughout the report as they refer to item after item as not statistically significant. Confounded variables also seemed to plague the panel in their attempts to both isolate data and connect the results to later literacy success. This is directly related to the concept of a meta-analysis.

     The NELP panel did not create a study and determine the variables that would play a role in their study. They took studies that already existed in the literature. These studies had to be peer reviewed in order to be included and had to meet the age limit and skills requirements set out by the panel. This limited the number of studies that met the criteria for inclusion. It is most astounding to learn that government funded longitudinal studies of national programs that were not included because they were too long to be submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal (Pearson & Hiebert, 2010).

     Compounding the issue of study inclusion is that of the confounded variable. The studies were done by other researchers, and those researchers used their own research questions and methodologies to collect, analyze, and present their results. Therefore, the panel had to use the data that was available in those selected studies whose data had already been compiled by someone else. Much of the information could not be separated out or isolated because of the processes and requirements of the original researchers. In the end the panel did a great job of creating a meta-analysis that left many teachers, researchers, and policy makers asking where do we go from here?

References

Panel, N. E. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel.

     Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Literacy.

Pearson, P. D., & Hiebert, E. H. (2010). National reports in literacy: Building a scientific base

     for practice and policy. Educational Researcher , 39 (4), 286-294.

Sham Wo Instead of Sham Wow

by: Jessica Chaffee

Americans have always and will remain infatuated with fads.  From crazy diets that make us vow to never touch a piece of bread again to injections in our armpits to keep us from sweating.  This fixation affects from what we wear to what we teach our children.  Education, specifically the teaching of literacy, has seen many fads over the years.  

These trends and new directions often come after a committee, panel or task force convenes to look into research related to the field.  In the mid 1960’s emphasis began to be placed on strategies that enforced learning the code and then shifted to a more phonics dominated position.  If we fast forward thru the decades the 1980’s saw recommendations for increasing comprehension, and the 1990’s placed an emphasis on early phonics with classrooms full of discussions about print and stories and an emphasis on early phonemic awareness . The early 2000’s saw the release of a report written by the National Reading Panel.  The findings of this report support a balanced approach to literacy which includes teaching phonics early, comprehension strategies, vocabulary and fluency through oral reading practices (Pearson and Hiebert, 2010).  This report had a big influence on national and state policy.

Why was this report not enough?  It seemed to take the previous decades fads and bond them together in an efficient way.  The government, just like the American people, could not stay satisfied and produced a new report by the National Early literacy Panel in hopes of finding the magic cure to our education system.  The NELP in my opinion did not do this.  They took data that was found by other people, reanalyzed and rereleased it.  It’s like the Dollar General coming up with their own Sham Wow and calling it Sham Wo.  It’s the same thing yet slightly different.  In an attempt to come up with the next findings (or as I like to call it fad) in education the panel took other peoples data and redecorated the box.  Did the findings teach us anything new?  No, all it did was reinforce what was already said in the 2000 report.  In my opinion the higher ups were searching for the next big thing in education and had hopes that the NELP report would give them this.  I wonder if they were as disappointed with the report as I was.

References:

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy 

     Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Available at

     http://www.nifl.gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELPreport.html 

Pearson, P. D., & Hiebert, E. H. (2010). National reports in literacy: Building a scientific base

     for practice and policy. Educational Researcher , 39 (4), 286-294.

Annette Markovich

Extending the Research

The National Early Literacy Panel (NELP 2008) reported on children’s early literacy skills of children ages birth to five years of age.  The Panel reviewed approximately 8,000 articles and selected 500 articles to be used in the meta-analyses, summary report. This extensive effort is to be commended, and it concluded that more research needed to be done. The most significant skills they reviewed were alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid automatic naming, rapid naming of objects or colors, writing, and phonological memory. Then concepts about print, print knowledge, reading readiness, oral language, visual processing was found to have only moderate significant impact on literacy skills. In addition, practices that were viewed as enhancement in the development of early literacy skills were code-focused intervention; shared-reading interventions, parent and home programs, preschool and kindergarten programs, and language-enhancement interventions. All as means to an end to decide which areas need more attention and focus. This in turn would affect policy making, textbook manufacturing, and could extend to teacher training thus impacting instruction in the classroom.

The areas that the Panel reviewed were all valid and have an important place in the reading process. Take for example shared reading; the panel noted that shared reading alone would not be sufficient to meet the need of early literacy. There is a need for code-focused instruction to bridge the gap between being read to and independent reading. The shared reading report showed significant gains on expressive measures, and complex language patterns (Schickendanz & McGee 2010). From a parent or educator’s view point all of the above components of early literacy development are necessary to build a healthy literacy balance. It is much like having a balance meal. The appetizer is shared reading. The phonics and alphabetical awareness is the salad. Guided and independent reading is the entrées. The reenacting, writing, and telling of stories are the desserts. It is the parents and educators that provide the guidance and cohesiveness needed to keep the program focused and continuously developing. Feedback from classroom teachers and parents evolved in early childhood programs, is an important asset in developing more conclusive reports about what policies need to be made when developing and implementing early childhood literacy programs.

References

National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early

                Literacy Panel. Washington DC: National Institute for Literacy. Available at hhtp://www.nifl.

                gov/earlychildhood/NELP/NELP report.html.

Schickedanz, J. & McGee, L. (2010). The NELP report on Shared Story Reading Interventions(Chapter 4):

                Extending the Story. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 323-329.

Picking the "right" literacy approach is like shoe shopping. 

By Shawnyel Nicole Haywood

There is not a “One size fits all” quick fix to change or implement in education. Reading strategies and research findings can be compared to shoe shopping.  Some shoes look nice, but when you try them on they don’t fit. Other shoes may be your size, but when you wear them you discover they do not always feel right. The same can be said about the NELP report. There are strategies and finding available to better facilitate learning. Nevertheless what is proven to work in one instance may have a reverse reaction in another situation. Educators and parents have a variety of resources to use. The needs of their child are the guiding force behind the best program or strategy to use. A current idea does not always constitute an effective one. This report is meant to be used as a tool for current findings and further research. Language development is a crucial step in literacy fluency. The means by which a student gets to this step should include teachers, parents, and the community. Confidence, opportunities, and meaningful experiences will foster the growth of all children.

Source:

National early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National

      Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy