The NICHD Reading Research Program

From the Laboratory to Congress, to the White House to the Classroom.

The NICHD Reading Research Program and the

Birth of Evidence-Based Reading Instruction

Reading4all @ tx.rr.com

G. Reid Lyon, Ph.D. Department of Education Policy and Leadership Southern Methodist University Distinguished Scholar in Neuroscience and Cognition Center for Brain Health University of Texas, Dallas President of Synergistic Education Solutions

www.ReidLyon.com

The Profession Through the Ages “The history of the profession has never been a particularly

attractive subject in professional education, and one reason for

this is that it is so deplorable a story.

For century after century all the way into the remote millennia

of its origins, the profession got along by sheer guesswork and

the crudest sort of empiricism. It is hard to conceive of a less

scientific enterprise among human endeavors.”

Virtually anything that could be thought up for treatment was tried out at one time or another, and once tried, lasted decades or even centuries before giving it up.

It was, in retrospect, the most frivolous and irresponsible kind of human experimentation, based on nothing but trial and error, and usually resulting in precisely that sequence.”

Lewis Thomas (1983)

The Profession through the Age (Cont.)

Alternatives To Research-Based Instruction

ANECDOTES

UNTESTED BELIEFS ABOUT TEACHING AND LEARNING

FADS, QUICK FIXES, AND APPEALS TO AUTHORITY

STUDENT FAILURE

2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress

2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress

20

Grade 4 Overall Reading/English Language Arts Performance Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (English language)

and NAEP (NCES, 2007)

2007 NAEP Proficient and Above

2007 NAEP Basic and Above

DOES IT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY?

NO!

We now know enough about Reading

Development and Reading Difficulties and

Reading Instruction to Significantly Decrease

Reading Failure!

THE NICHD READING RESEARCH PROGRAM: RESEARCH DIRECTORS (1963- )

James Kavanaugh

NO PIX

D. Grey R. Lyon P. McCardle B. Miller

The NICHD Reading Research Program (1992)

The NICHD Reading Research Program initiated in 1963

A Commitment to Focus on Four Research Questions (Reid’s Questions):

•  How Do Children Learn to Read?

•  Why Do Some Children Have Difficulties Learning To Read?

•  How Can Reading Failure Be Prevented?

•  How Can Persistent Reading Difficulties be Remediated?

THE NICHD SCIENTIFIC INVESTMENT Number of Research Sites: 44 Children and Adults Studied: 57,000 Proficient Readers: 22,000 At-Risk/Struggling Readers 35,000 Average Years Studied/Followed: 9 Max Longitudinal Span to Date: 34 years Current Prevention/Intervention Trials 12 Schools Currently Participating: 266 Classrooms Currently Participating: 985 Classroom Teachers Participating: 1,012

Annual Research Budget: $ 60 Million

NIH-NICHD Multidisciplinary Research Program

(North America; Lyon, 1985-2005)

NICHD Sites

U of Arkansas – Med Ctr Dykman

U of Missouri Geary

Colorado LDRC Defries

U of Michigan Morrison

Toronto Lovett

U of Louisville Molfese

Mayo Clinic Kalusic

Boy’s Town Smith

U of Houston Francis

SUNY Albany Vellutino

U of California – San Diego, Salk Institute Bellugi

U of Texas – Med Ctr Foorman/Fletcher

Yale Methodology Fletcher

Emerson College Aram

Tufts Wolf

Syracuse U Blachman

U of Massachusetts

Rayner

Beth Israel Galaburda

Children’s Hospital/ Harvard LDRC Waber

Florida State Torgesen/Wagner

U of Washington Berninger

Stanford Reiss

U of Southern California Manis/Seidenberg

Univ of California – Irvine Filipek

Bowman Gray Wood

Georgetown U Eden

D.C./Houston Forman/Moats

Johns Hopkins Denckla

Haskins Labs Fowler/ Liberman

Yale Shaywitz

Purdue U Hynd

Univ of Florida Alexander/Conway

Georgia State R. Morris

San Francisco Herron

U of Kansas Shumaker

U of Wisconsin Johnson-Glenburg

Northwestern U Booth

Gallaudet U LaSasso

Duke U Goldston

U of Georgia Stahl

Colorado Moats

U of Texas Vaughn

Rutgers U Scarboro-ugh

Carnegie-Mellon

I didn't know it was impossible when I did it." --Anonymous I didn't know it was impossible when I did it." --Anonymous I didn't know it was impossible when I did it." --Anonymous

The Science


NICHD Perspective NICHD Perspective

Americans are overwhelmingly interested in science but

don’t understand it and know even less about how it is

done. … Without a grasp of scientific ways of thinking,

the average person cannot tell the difference between

science based on real data and something that

resembles science -- at least in their eyes -- but is based

on uncontrolled experiments, anecdotal evidence, and

passionate assertions. They like it all. Boyce Rensberger, “The Nature of Evidence”, Science, July 7, 2000, p. 61

How Do Children Learn To Read?

Phonological Awareness and The Alphabetic Principle

•   Print represents speech through the alphabet

•   Words are composed of internal units based on sound called “phonemes”

•   In learning to read, children must make explicit an implicit understanding that words have internal structures linked to sounds

•   Children vary considerably in how easily they master this principle

THE HASKINS GROUP Al Liberman Isabelle Liberman I. Mattingly D.Shankweiler M. Studdert-Kennedy

C. Fowler K. Pugh M. Turvey H. Scarborough S. Brady

P. Rubin R. Frost L. Katz E. Mencl M. Gillis

THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO GROUP

J. DeFries R. Olson S. Smith B. Wise

B. Pennington B. Byrne

Marilyn Adams

The Alphabetic Principle:

Do We Know It?

Can We Teach It?

It is a kind of knowledge Knowing what letters are used to represent which phonemes…….

It is a kind of skill know how to pronounce this nonsense word. . . bilt fratchet

How Do Children Learn to Read? Effects of growth in Phoneme Awareness and Letter

Knowledge

Growth in word reading ability

of children who begin 1st grade in the bottom 20% in Growth in “phonics” ability

1 2 3 4 5

2.3

Grade Level Corresponding to Age

Rea

ding

Gra

de L

evel

Average

2

4

6

1

3

5

K

5.9

Averagee

Low

5.7

3.5

2

4

6

1

3

5

K 1 2 3 4


5

Torgesen & Mathes, 2000

7 7

Low Average

Rea

ding

Gra

de L

evel

Average

Low

2

4

6

1

3

5

6.9

3.4

K 1 2 3 4


5

Torgesen & Mathes, 2000

Effects of Phonemic Awareness and Phonics on Growth in Reading Comprehension 7

THE FLORIDA STATE GROUP

J. Torgesen B. Foorman R. Wagner C. Schatschneider

C. Lonnigan P. Mathes

Reading Fluency

Reading fluency encompasses the speed or rate of reading, as well as the ability to read materials with expression.

The ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly, effortlessly, and automatically with little conscious attention to the mechanics of reading, such as decoding

The concept of automaticity refers to a student's ability to recognize words rapidly with little attention required to the word's appearance. The ability to read words by sight automatically is the key to skilled reading

Reading Fluency

Its very difficult to correctly guess the identity of these “new words” from the context of the passage.

Torgesen



The challenge of continuing growth in fluency becomes even greater after 3rd grade.

4th, 5th, and 6th graders encounter about 10,000 words they have never seen before in print during a year’s worth of reading.

Furthermore, each of these “new” words occurs only about 10 times in a year’s worth of reading.

R. Morris M. Lovett M. Wolf

THE GEORGIA STATE/U. TORONTO/TUFTS GROUP

Marilyn Adams

•   Probability of Limited Language Usage in the Home

•   Probability of Limited Literacy Interactions in the Home

•   Probability of Limited Vocabulary Development


THE AGONY OF DISADVANTAGE

Average child from a welfare family hears about 3 million words a year vs. 11 million from a professional family (Hart & Risley, 1995).

By age 4, the gap in words heard grows to 13 vs. 45 million


Differences in vocabulary development start very early

Cumulative Language Experiences

Cumulative Words Spoken to Child (in millions)

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 12 24 36 48

Age of Child (in months)

Professional

Working-class

Welfare

48

30

12 12

7.5 3

Hart and Risley, 1995

Practical Differences

I didn't know it was impossible when I did it." --Anonymous

Children enter school with a listening vocabulary ranging between 2500 to 5000.

First graders from higher SES groups know twice as many words as lower SES children (Graves & Slater, 1987)

Vocabulary differences at grade 2 may last throughout elementary school (Biemiller & Slonim, in press)

College entrants need about 11 to 14,000 root words (meter in thermometer or centimeter)

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

Reading Age Level

Chronological Age

Low Oral Language in Kindergarten

High Oral Language in Kindergarten

Hirsch, 1996

The Effects of Weaknesses in Oral Language on Reading Growth

5.2 years difference

•   In 1st and 2nd grade, children need to learn 800+ words per year, about 2 per day

•   Children need to learn 2,000 to 3,000 new words each year from 3rd grade onward, about 6–8 per day.

•   Research has shown that most typically developing children need to encounter a word about 12 times before they know it well enough to improve their comprehension.

•   4th, 5th, and 6th graders encounter about 10,000 words they have never seen before in print during a year’s worth of reading. Biemiller; Nagy & Anderson

Closing the Gap? Gut Check Time

G. Berninger R. Abbott W. Raskind T. Richards

D. Corina E. Aylward

THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON GROUP

Are you Really Serious About Closing Achievement Gaps?

Independent Reading: Minutes Per Day Words Read Per Year

65.0 4,358,000 21.1 1,823,000 14.2 1,146,000 9.6 622,000 4.6 282,000 1.3 106,000 .1 8,000

Cunningham & Stanovich, 1999

The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Poorer

Reading is a multifaceted skill, gradually acquired over years of instruction and practice.

The Many Strands that are Woven into Skilled Reading (Scarborough, 2001)

BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE

VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE

LANGUAGE STRUCTURES

VERBAL REASONING

LITERACY KNOWLEDGE

PHON. AWARENESS

DECODING (and SPELLING)

SIGHT RECOGNITION

LANGUAGE COMPREHENSION

WORD RECOGNITION

Skilled Reading- fluent coordination of word

reading and comprehension

processes

ALWAYS REMEMBER THIS:


INTERVENTION

Early Intervention is Possible

Risk characteristics present in Kindergarten & G1

Letter sound knowledge, phonological awareness, oral language development

Assess all children and INTERVENE- first in the classroom and then through supplemental instruction

Panagio's G. Simos, Ph.D.

B. Foorman J. Fletcher D. Francis K. Steubing

L. Moats A. Papanicalaou P. Mathes

The U. Texas Health Science Center/Houston Group

HOW CAN WE PREVENT READING FAILURE?

•   Development of Sensitive and Valid Screening Measures

•   Professional Development and Use of a Professional Common Language

•   Implementation of Three-Tier Models

•   Continuous Assessment of Progress

•   Appreciation of School Leadership and Capacity Factors

Study Amt. of instruction Pre RX Post RX

Foorman 174 hrs.- classroom 35% 6%

Felton 340 hrs. - groups of 8 32% 5%

Vellutino 35- 65 hrs. 1:1 tutoring 46% 7%

Torgesen 88 hrs. 1:1 tutoring 30% 4%

Torgesen 80 hrs. 1:3 tutoring 11% 2%

NICHD INTERVENTION STUDIES

Percent of children scoring below the 30th percentile

Torgesen 91 hrs. 1:3 or 1:5 tutoring 28% 1.6%

Mathes 80 hrs. 1:3 tutoring 31% .02%

R. Morris M. Lovett M. Wolf

THE GEORGIA STATE/U. TORONTO/TUFTS GROUP

THE SUNY-ALBANY GROUP

F. Vellutino D. Scanlon

F. Wood R. Felton L. Flowers G. Eden

The Bowman Gray – Wake Forest Group

The consensus view of the most important instructional features for interventions

Provide ample opportunities for guided practice of new skills

Provide a significant increase in intensity of instruction

Provide systematic and explicit instruction on component skills that are deficient

Interventions are more effective when they:

Provide appropriate levels of scaffolding as children learn to apply new skills

Are we Really Serious About Closing Achievement Gaps?

NEUROBIOLOGY


A. Galaburda Hortense G. Sherman

THE HARVARD-BETH ISRAEL GROUP

THE YALE GROUP S. Shaywitz B. Shaywitz R. Fulbright J. Gore

A. Liberman D. Shankweiler Jack Fletcher K. Pugh

E. Mencl L. Katz R. Morris B. Blachman

R! L!

1! 1!

2!

3!

4!5!

6!

7!

One Year After Intervention

Shaywitz et al., Biol. Psychiatry, 2004

Z=+12

Z=-4

I didn't know it was impossible when I did it." -Anonymous

NI DYS NI > DYS R L Nonword Reading

Shaywitz, B.A., et al 2002 Shaywitz et al., 2004.

\

NICHD Perspective

Source: Simos, Fletcher et al., 2002. Fig 1.

•   L R L R •   Before After

Magnetic Source Imaging (MSI)



THE GEORGETOWN GROUP

NICHD Perspective

G. Eden C. Vaidya C. LaSasso F. Wood

L. Flowers B.Fischl P.Turkeltaub

Changes in brain activity following reading intervention in adults with developmental dyslexia

(Eden et al., Neuron, 2004)





THE JOHNS HOPKINS GROUP

M. Denckla A. Reiss L. Cutting

K. Pugh H. Scarborough D. Speece



The University of Louisville Group

D. Molfese V. Molfese

GENETICS

Genetic Factors in Reading Disability

Sites on chromosomes 1, 2, 6, 15, -6 and 15 replicated in 3- 5 labs

Little evidence for genes specific to poor reading- “generalist genes”

50- 80% of the variability explained by genetic factors

F. Wood R. Felton L. Flowers G. Eden

The Bowman Gray – Wake Forest Group



SCIENCE, POLICY, AND POLITICS

“Things are only impossible until they're not ”

--Jean-Luc Picard

“Courage is the power to let go of the familiar”

--Raymond Lindquist

W. Goodling B. Clinton E. Kennedy A. Northup THE FEDS

T. Cochran R. Sweet L. Bush-R. Lyon POTUS-R. Lyon

↔ NIH “ I am so tired of the #!₡**)# metro “ ↔ Congress

↕ ↔The White House ↨ ↨ ↔ HHS ↨ ↔ Dept. Of Ed ↕

Reid’s Daily Rounds – 2002-2005

Three Congressional Questions

In 1996, Bill Goodling, Chairman of the House Education and Work Force Committee Asked Reid Three Questions:

1. Why Are So Many Kids Not Learning To Read?

2. Does NICHD Have Any Answers?

3. How Can We Help These Kids Learn to Read?

RESPONSE TO QUESTION # 1

“Why Are So Many Kids Not Learning To Read”?

WHY?

“Education did not typically base curricular and instructional practices on scientific research.

If research information was used it was communicated in a manner that frequently confused the educational consumer

Neither school administrators nor teachers had been prepared in their training to be knowledgeable consumers of research and to distinguish between the bad and the good” Lyon, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005).

I


Alternatives To Research-Based Instruction

ANECDOTES

UNTESTED BELIEFS ABOUT TEACHING AND LEARNING

FADS, QUICK FIXES, AND APPEALS TO AUTHORITY

STUDENT FAILURE

House Testimony (Cont.) (Lyon, 1997)

“A major impediment to serving the needs of children demonstra7ng difficul7es learning to read is current teacher prepara7on prac7ces. Many teachers lack basic knowledge and understanding of reading

development and the nature of reading difficul7es. Major efforts should be undertaken to ensure that colleges of educa7on possess the exper7se and

commitment to foster exper7se in teachers at both persevere and in service levels”.

EDUCATION AS ANTI-SCIENCE •   The Influence of Postmodernism – “Truth is in the Eye

of the Beholder”

•   Cause and Effect Principles do not Exist

•   Scientific Methods to Determine Cause and Effect were Useless

•   Many Colleges of Education Remain Wedded to Anti-Scientific Perspectives

•   Experience Valued Above Use of Scientific Research

UNEVEN QUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

From Levine (2005, 2006)

•   SUPERFICIAL •   LACKING IN RIGOR •   EMPHASIZES BREADTH OVER DEPTH •   BASED ON IDEOLOGY RATHER THAN

SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES •   INACCURATE (WRONG DESIGN AND

METHODS)


Does NICHD Have Any Answers?

Testimony Before The House of Representatives Education and Work Force Committee, (Lyon, 1997)

“We have learned that for 90% to 95% of poor readers, prevention and early intervention programs that combine instruction in phoneme awareness, phonics, and reading comprehension strategies provided by well trained teachers can increase reading skills to average reading levels. However, we have also learned that if we delay early intervention until nine-years-of-age, (the time that most children with reading difficulties receive services), approximately 75% of the children will continue to have difficulties learning to read throughout high school”.

Testimony Before The House of Representatives Education and Work Force Committee, (Lyon, 1997)

“Learning to read is a lengthy and difficult process for many children, and success in learning to read is based

in large part on developing language and literacy-related skills very early in life. A massive effort needs to be undertaken to inform parents, and the educational

and medical communities of the need to involve children in reading from the first days of life …Parents

must become intimately aware of the importance of vocabulary development and the use of verbal

interactions with their youngsters to enhance grammar, syntax, and verbal reasoning”.


“… reading programs should be constructed to ensure that adequate instruc7onal 7me be alloDed to the teaching of phonemic awareness skills, phonics skills, the development of reading fluency and automa7city, and the development of reading comprehension strategies. All of these components of reading are necessary but not sufficient in and of themselves. For children demonstra7ng difficulty in learning to read, it is impera7ve that each of these components be taught within an integrated context and that ample prac7ce in reading familiar material be afforded”.


“Kindergarten programs should be designed so that all children will develop the prerequisite

phonological, vocabulary, and early reading skills necessary for success in the first grade. All children should acquire the ability to recognize and print both upper and lowercase leDers with reasonable ease and accuracy, develop familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of reading and wri7ng, and develop age‐appropriate language”.


“How Can We Help These Kids Learn to Read”?

In order to develop the most effective instructional approaches and interventions, we must clearly define what works, the conditions under which it works, and what may not be helpful. This requires a thoughtful integration of experimental, quasi-experimental and qualitative/descriptive methodologies…

Reid Lyon, Chief, Child Development and Behavior Branch, NICHD, Congressional Testimony House Science Committee, Subcommittee on Basic Research, Oct. 26, 1999




“Our NICHD preven7on and early interven7on studies in Houston, Texas, Tallahassee, and Albany, and SeaDle, speak to the importance of early iden7fica7on and interven7on with children at‐risk for reading failure. Procedures now exist to iden7fy such children with good accuracy. This informa7on needs to be widely disseminated to schools, teachers, and parents”.

A Congressional Question Following 1997 Testimony

How Can We Ensure That Education Practices and Policies are Based on Scientific Evidence?

WE HAVE TO OVERTURN THE STATUS QUO!

The fundamental core of our strategy was to make Federal funding for educational programs contingent upon documenting that the products, and professional development associated with the products, were based upon scientifically-

based reading research (SBRR).

Elements of the Strategy

Elevate critical importance of reading proficiency (1991-2005)

Stress negative consequences of reading failure (1996-2005) - “Reading Failure is not only an educational problem – it is a public health problem” (1996 - 2005)

Congressional testimony to gain support for SBRR (1997-2005)

Develop Evidence-Based Education Policies

Testimony Before The House of Representatives Education and Work Force Committee, (Lyon, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,

2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005)

READING FAILURE IS AN EDUCATIONAL

AND A PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM!

Reading Proficiency is Critical to Academic Learning and Success in School (Lyon, 1998; 2002, 2003, 2004; Snow, Burns & Griffin,

1998)

The Ability to Read Proficiently is Significantly Related to Quality of Life and Health Outcomes (Lyon, 1997; Lyon & Chhabra, 2004;

Thompson, 2001)

SOME READING FIRST IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS

•   Failure to ensure an absence of ideology and to stress the paramount importance of science

•   Relatively less emphasis on vocabulary and comprehension than word level skills*

•   Overemphasis on “linear” instruction

*Limited vocabulary and comprehensions assessments; V and C both difficult to teach; teachers unfamiliar with teaching word level skills which demanded a significant emphasis in PA, Phonics, and Fluency


•   Unrealistic expectations of time involved in implementation

•   Government officials and educators did not understand the lack of state and LEA understanding of SBRR and readiness to implement the program

•   Softening of the instructional program selection criteria

•   Significant lack of clarity on rules and guidelines for peer review, contractor agreements, and Conflicts of Interest


•   Lack of Transparency

•   Failure to ensure an absence of ideology and the to stress the paramount importance of science

•   Mismanagement of the Program Evaluation Process (delay of studies, inadequate coverage of evaluation questions, “too little, too late”

SIGNIFICANT LIMITATIONS OF THE RFIS •   The Study was underfunded ($35 Mil out of $150 Mil)

•   The study examined RF schools and non-RF schools within districts

•   Significant within district contamination not accounted for – both RF and non-RF schools implemented same programs, materials, and PD, which increased yearly

•   Unrepresentative sample – only 17 LEAs participated in the study resulting in a sample of approximately 2% of the total LEAs funded

LESSONS LEARNED •   Collaborate More Effectively With Stakeholders •   Clearly Understand the Political Challenges •   Recruit Highly Experienced Individuals in Leadership

Roles •   Require 1 year Implementation Phase for Program

Initiation (First year devoted to Guidance, Technical Support, PD)

•   Establish Very Clear COI Guidelines •   Transparency, Transparency, Transparency •   Make Sure Critical Program Elements are in Place and

ON TIME!!!

LESSONS LEARNED

•   Transparency, Transparency, Transparency

•   Make Sure Critical Program Elements are in place and ON TIME!!!

•   Make Sure Assessments Do Not Constrain Instruction

•   Be Much More Explicit in Requiring “Integrated Instruction” Rather Than Linear Instruction in Reading Components

Congressional, NICHD, and DoED Collaborative Initiatives

•   Reading Excellence Act (1998) •   NRC Report on Beginning Reading (1998) •   National Reading Panel Report (2000) •   Reading First legislation (2001) •   Partnership for Reading (2001) •   What Works Clearing House (2001) •   NRC Report on Scientific Research in

Education (2002) •   Education Sciences Reform Act - IES (2002)

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he

fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those

cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” Theodor Roosevelt 1910 NICHD Perspective

Moving Forward

Thank you for your attention!

G. Reid Lyon

www.ReidLyon.com

The NICHD Reading Research Program

Documents

Transcript of The NICHD Reading Research Program