Abstract
Decades of reading research have improved our understanding of the ways that young children learn how to read and of the component skills that support the ongoing development of reading and reading comprehension. However, while these investments have transformed reading instruction and reading outcomes for many learners, too many children are not reading at the basic level nor are they reading with understanding. The Institute of Education Sciences created the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative in 2010 to fund a set of connected projects that would enrich the theoretical frameworks that undergird efforts to improve deep comprehension and to design and test new interventions and assessments to improve reading for understanding across all grades in US schools. This article describes the central themes that guided the design of the Reading for Understanding Initiative and the work underway by the six research teams funded under this program.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Full abstracts for each grant along with links to their project websites are available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/projects/program.asp?ProgID=62.
Examples of topics for curriculum can be viewed at http://wg.serpmedia.org/.
References
Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next—a vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: a report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Braasch, J., Goldman, S. R., & Wiley, J. (2013). The influences of text and reader characteristics on learning from refutations in science texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 15, 561–568.
Connor, C. M., Alberto, P. A., Compton, D. L., & O’Connor, R. E. (2014a). Improving reading outcomes for students with or at risk for reading disabilities: a synthesis of the contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences research centers (NCSER 2014–3000). Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Connor, C. M., Phillips, B. M., Kaschak, M., Apel, K., Kim, Y. S., Al Otaiba, S., et al. (2014b). Comprehension tools for teachers: reading for understanding from pre-kindergarten through fourth grade. Educational Psychology Review. doi:s10.1007/s10648-014-9267-1.
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325.
Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277–299.
Federal Register. (2002). Volume 67, Number 14, pp. 2864–2866. Downloaded from the Federal Register Online via GPO Access (www.wais.access.gpo.gov). DOCID:fr22ja02-51. Accessed 2 May 2014.
Fogarty, M., Oslund, E., Simmons, D., Davis, J., Simmons, L., Anderson, L., et al. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of a multicomponent reading comprehension intervention in middle schools: a focus on treatment fidelity. Educational Psychology Review. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9270-6.
Gamse, B. C., Jacob, R. T., Horst, M., Boulay, B., & Unlu, F. (2008). Reading first impact study. Final report. NCEE 2009-4038. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
Institute of Education Sciences (2010) Request for applications: Reading for Understanding research initiative. CFDA Number: 84.305F. http://ies.ed.gov/funding/pdf/2010_84305F.pdf.
Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281–300.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lemons, C. J., Fuchs, D., Gilbert, J. K., & Fuchs, L. S. (2014). Evidence-based practices in a changing world: reconsidering the counterfactual in education research. Educational Researcher, 43(5), 242–252.
Levine, S. (2014). Making interpretation visible with an affect-based strategy. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(3), 283–303. doi:10.1002/rrq.71.
National Reading Panel (NRP)(US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (2000). Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
O’Reilly, T., & Sabatini, J. (2013). Reading for understanding: how performance moderators and scenarios impact assessment design (Report No. RR-13-31). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
O’Reilly, T., Weeks, J., Sabatini, J., Steinberg, J., & Halderman, L. (2014). Designing reading comprehension assessments for reading interventions: how a theoretically motivated assessment can serve as an outcome measure. Educational Psychology Review. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9269-z.
Perfetti, C. (1999). Comprehending written language: a blueprint of the reader. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 167–208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pratt, A., & Logan, J. (2014). Improving language-focused comprehension in primary-grade classrooms: impacts of the Let’s know! experimental curriculum. Educational Psychology Review. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9275-1.
Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31–74.
Roberts, G., Scammacca, N., Osman, D. J., Hall, C., Mohammed, S. S., & Vaughn, S. (2014). Team-based learning: moderating effects of metacognitive elaborative rehearsal and middle school history content recall. Educational Psychology Review. doi:10.1007/s10648-014-9266-2.
Sabatini, J., & O’Reilly, T. (2013). Rationale for a new generation of reading comprehension assessments. In B. Miller, L. Cutting, & P. McCardle (Eds.), Unraveling reading comprehension: behavioral, neurobiological, and genetic components (pp. 100–111). Baltimore: Brookes.
Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., & Deane, P. (2013). Preliminary reading literacy assessment framework: foundation and rationale for assessment and system design. (Report No. RR-13-30). Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., Halderman, L., & Bruce, K. (2014). Integrating scenario-based and component reading skill measures to understand the reading behavior of struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 36–43.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. In S. R. Goldman & H. Van Oostendorp (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vaughn, S., Swanson, E. A., Roberts, G., Wanzek, J., Stillman-Spisak, S. J., Solis, M., et al. (2013). Improving reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 77–93. doi:10.1002/rrq.039.
Vorstius, C., Radach, R., Mayer, M. B., & Lonigan, C. J. (2013). Monitoring local comprehension monitoring in sentence reading. School Psychology Review, 42, 191–206.
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Kent, S. C., Swanson, E. A., Roberts, G., Haynes, M., et al. (2014). The effects of team-based learning on social studies knowledge acquisition in high school. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7, 183–204.
Wolters, C., Denton, C. A., York, M., & Francis, D. J. (2013). Adolescents’ motivation for reading: group differences and relation to standardized achievement. Reading and Writing, 27, 503–533. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9454-3.
Acknowledgments
The Reading for Understanding Research Initiative is funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education under the following grant numbers: R305F100002, R305F100005, R305F100007, R305F100013, R305F100026, R305F100027.
Conflict of Interest
Karen Douglas is employed by the Institute as the Program Officer for the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative. Elizabeth Albro is employed by the Institute as the Associate Commissioner for the Teaching and Learning Division in the National Center for Education Research. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Education or the U.S. government.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Douglas, K.M., Albro, E.R. The Progress and Promise of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative. Educ Psychol Rev 26, 341–355 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9278-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9278-y