Abstract
In this chapter we first discuss core instructional programs, focusing on the early elementary school grades where reading is largely taught. We contrast two main types of programs and describe what is known about instructional program effectiveness. We then turn to instructional components. We revisit the work of the National Reading Panel and its study of the evidence underlying certain instructional components, providing an update of its findings and recommendations based on two subsequent reviews that considered more recent research. We also provide maps of the instructional recommendations from each of the three reviews onto the Cognitive Foundations Framework, summarizing the recommendations made and how they address the cognitive components of reading. We then describe some of the specific ways the review panels gave for implementing their recommendations. We follow this with an example of a curriculum map, which takes a one-week instructional sequence from a kindergarten supplemental curriculum and maps it onto the Cognitive Foundations Framework. We close with a discussion of some select issues in curriculum and instruction, a chapter summary, and some questions for further thought.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We use the convention of italicizing key concepts and distinctions for emphasis, but we also italicize words, phrases, or sentences when denoting them as linguistic objects. In both cases, the context we provide should suffice to determine the particular use being served.
- 2.
We follow the standard convention of using arrow brackets (< >) to denote written characters and character combinations, slash brackets (/ /) to denote phonemes and phoneme combinations, and square brackets ([]) to denote distinct speech sounds (phones) and phonetic combinations. To reduce the burden on the reader, we use letters to indicate phonemes and phones rather than the symbols used in the International Phonetic Alphabet, clarifying in text as needed.
- 3.
Strong: weighted mean effect sizes across studies of at least +.20 standard deviations, with combined sample sizes covering at least 500 students or 20 classrooms; Moderate: effect sizes of at least +.20 with combined sample sizes covering 250–499 students or 10–19 classrooms; Limited: effect sizes of +.10 to +.19; and Insufficient: effect sizes less than +.10.
Abbreviations
- CAI:
-
computer-assisted instruction
- NRP:
-
National Reading Panel
- PGFS:
-
Practice Guide for Foundational Skills
- PGRC:
-
Practice Guide for Reading Comprehension
- SVR:
-
Simple View of Reading
References
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 789–814). New York, NY: Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203447772.ch28
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brady, S. A. (2011). Efficacy of phonics teaching for reading outcomes: Indications from post-NRP research. In S. A. Brady, D. Braze, & C. A. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 69–96). New York, NY: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203817964
Bryant, P. (2002). Children’s thoughts about reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0602_04
Chapman, J. W., Tunmer, W. E., & Prochnow, J. E. (2001). Does success in the Reading Recovery program depend on developing proficiency in phonological processing skills? A longitudinal study in a whole language instructional context. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 141–176. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799xssr0502_2
Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading recovery. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135–154). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch8
∗Foorman, B. R., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., … Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website. http://whatworks.ed.gov
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388076709556976
Gough, P. B. (1983). Context, form and interaction. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language processes (pp. 203–211). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-583680-7.50017-5
Gough, P. B. (1996, February). A pox on both your houses. Paper presented at the symposium on integrated direct instruction in reading, sponsored by the Language Arts Foundation of America and Oklahoma City Schools, Oklahoma City, OK.
Gough, P. B., & Hillinger, M. L. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02653717
Hatcher, P. J., Goetz, K., Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., Gibbs, S., & Smith, G. (2006). Evidence for the effectiveness of the early literacy support programme. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905x39170
Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.
Hirsch, Jr., E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge—Of words and the world: Scientific insights into the fourth-grade slump and the nation’s stagnant comprehension scores. American Educator, 27, 10–13, 16–22, 28–29, 48.
Joshi, R. M., Treiman, R., Carreker, S., & Moats, L. (2008). How words cast their spell: Spelling instruction focused on language, not memory, improves reading and writing. American Educator, 32, 6–16, 42–43.
Juel, C. (1991). Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 759–788). New York, NY: Longman.
Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.40.2.2
Morris, D., Tyner, B., & Perney, J. (2000). Early steps: Replicating the effects of a first-grade reading intervention program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 681–693. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.681
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2020, January 25). The nation’s report card: Reading. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=4
∗National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
∗Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading: Final Report. Nottingham, UK: Department for Education and Skills.
Seidenberg, M. S. (2013). The science of reading and its educational implications. Language Learning and Development, 9, 331–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2013.812017
∗Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A Practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2009). Effective beginning reading programs: A best-evidence synthesis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education.
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2009). Beyond the basics: Effective reading programs for the upper elementary grades. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education.
Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Snow, C. E., & Juel, C. (2005). Teaching children to read: What do we know about how to do it? In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 501–520). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch26
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/747348
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 402–433. https://doi.org/10.2307/747605
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., Cunningham, A. E., Cipielewski, J., & Siddiqui, S. (1996). The role of inadequate print exposure as a determinant of reading comprehension problems. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 15–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tunmer, W. E., & Arrow, A. W. (2013). Reading: Phonics instruction. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement (pp. 316–319). London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203850398
Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2002). The relation of beginning readers’ reported word identification strategies to reading achievement, reading-related skills, and academic self-perceptions. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015219229515
Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2006). Metalinguistic abilities, phonological recoding skills, and the use of sentence context in beginning reading development: A longitudinal study. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 617–635). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). Does set for variability mediate the influence of vocabulary knowledge on the development of word recognition skills? Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.542527
∗Tunmer, W. E., & Nicholson, T. (2011). The development and teaching of word recognition skill. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 405–431). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203840412.ch18
Venezky, R. L. (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English orthography. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hoover, W.A., Tunmer, W.E. (2020). Curriculum and Instruction and the Cognitive Foundations Framework. In: The Cognitive Foundations of Reading and Its Acquisition. Literacy Studies, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44195-1_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44195-1_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44194-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-44195-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)