Bibliographic Details
| Title: |
A Response to Steubing et al., "Effects of Systematic Phonics Instruction are Practically Significant": The Origin of the National Reading Panel. |
| Alternate Title: |
Una Respuesta a Steubing et al., "Efectos de Instrucción Fonética Sistemática son Prácticamente Importantes": El Origen del Comité Nacional sobre Lectura. |
| Authors: |
Camilli, Gregory1 camilli@rci.rutgers.edu, Sun Hee Kim2, Vargas, Sadako1 |
| Source: |
Education Policy Analysis Archives / Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas / Arquivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas. 2008, Vol. 16 Issue 16, p1-20. 20p. 1 Chart. |
| Subject Terms: |
*Research, *Reading, *Education, *Phonics, *General education, *Literacy, *Individualized reading instruction, *Academic achievement, *Intellect |
| Abstract (English): |
A recent article by Stuebing, Barth, Cirino, Francis and Fletcher critiqued the findings of Camilli, Vargas, and Yurecko (2003) and Camilli, Wolfe, and Smith (2006). With a methodological argument, they attempted to resolve the conflict between these studies and the original report Teaching Children to Read (National Reading Panel, 2000). In response, it is argued that three issues must be considered in a fair assessment of the NRP report-program labels or bins, alternative bins, and the role of literacy activities in reading instruction. In this light, three hypotheses ventured by Stuebing et al. are analyzed. It is concluded that the argument by Stuebing et al. does not reveal flaws in the original NRP report by Camilli et al. (2003), though some points of agreement are acknowledged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Abstract (Spanish): |
Un artículo reciente de Stuebing, Barth, Cirino, Francis y Fletcher critica las conclusiones de Camilli, Vargas, y Yurecko (2003) y Camilli, Wolfe, y Smith (2006). Con un argumento metodológico, estos autores trataron de resolver el conflicto entre estos estudios y el informe original, Enseñar a leer a los niños (Comité Nacional sobre Lectura, 2000). En respuesta, se argumenta que tres cuestiones deben ser considerados en una evaluación justa del CNL: informe-programa de etiquetas o cajas, cajas alternativas, y el papel de la actividades de alfabetización en la instrucción de la lectura. Desde este punto de vista, se analizan tres hipótesis presentadas por Stuebing et al.. Se concluye que el argumento de Stuebing et al. no revela fallas en el informe original CNL de Camilli et al. (2003), aunque se reconocen algunos puntos de acuerdo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Education Policy Analysis Archives / Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas / Arquivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas is the property of Educational Policy Analysis Archives & Education Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| Database: |
Education Research Complete |
