More Smoke and Mirrors: A Critique of the National Reading Panel (NRP) Report on "Fluency"

At worst, the impact of free reading appears to be the same as traditional instruction, and it is often better, especially when studies are continued for more than an academic year, a finding that the National Reading Panel has obscured by omitting important studies and describing others incorrectly. Garan asks that we look beneath the smoke and behind the mirrors of the NRP phonics report. The same needs to be done with the report on "encouraging fluency."

Notes

1.	Elaine Garan, "Beyond the Smoke and Mirrors: A Critique of the National Reading Panel Report on Phonics," Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 82, 2001, pp. 500-506. Quote from p. 505.
2.	The "fluency" report is one of the Reports of the Subgroups that make up the Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read. The document is available at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.pdf., 2000.
3.	Ibid. p. 3-23.
4.	The NRP report devoted only six pages to recreational reading. In contrast, sixty-six pages are devoted to phonemic awareness and nearly as many to phonics.
5.	Studies included in Table 1 follow: Duration less than seven months, positive: Joanne Burley, "Short-term, High Intensity Reading Practice Methods for Upward Bound Students: An Appraisal." Negro Educational Review, vol. 31, 1980, pp 156-161; Judith Langford and Elizabeth Allen, "The Effects of U.S.S.R. on Students' Attitudes and Achievements." Reading Horizons, vol. 23, 1983, pp. 194-200; Duration less than seven months, no difference: Howard Evans and John Towner, "Sustained Silent Reading: Does it Increase Skills?" Reading Teacher vol.29, 1975, pp. 155-156; Cathy Collins, "Sustained Silent Reading Periods: Effects of Teachers' Behaviors and Students' Achievements." Elementary School Journal, vol. 81, 1980, pp. 109-114; Edward Summers and J. V. McClelland, "A Field-Based Evaluation of Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) in Intermediate Grades. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, vol. 28, 1982. pp. 110-112 (three groups); D. Ray Reutzel and Paul M. Hollingsworth, "Reading Comprehension Skills: Testing the Distinctiveness Hypothesis." Reading Research and Instruction, vol. 30, 1991, pp. 32-46; Sandra Holt and Frances O'Tuel. 1989. "The Effect of Sustained Silent Reading and Writing on Achievement and Attitudes of Seventh and Eighth Grade Students Reading Two Years Below Grade Level." Reading Improvement, vol. 26. 1989, pp. 290-297; Ronald Carver and Robert Liebert, "The Effect of Reading Library Books at Different Levels of Difficulty upon Gains in Reading," Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 30, 1995, pp. 26-48. Duration seven months to one year, positive: Zephaniah Davis, "A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Sustained Silent Reading and Directed Reading Activity on Students' Reading Achievement. "The High School Journal, vol. 72, 1988, pp. 46-48; Gary Manning and Maryann Manning. 1984. "What Models of Recreational Reading Make a Difference?" Reading World, vol. 23, 1984, pp.375-380 (peer-interaction condition). Duration seven months to one year, no difference: Manning and Manning, op. cit. (pure SSR and student-teacher conference conditions).