Allington indicated that NRP report was written under the condition of insufficient fund, time, and staff. As I read this, I came to understand why I couldn’t help but feel that the report seems incomplete in some reasons. In fact, while I was reading NRP report, I could sense that NPR report was based on ‘rigorous methodology research.’ I appreciated that the board was careful to choose and include studies by setting high criteria in order to find more research based evidence. I also appreciated the board’s effort to listen to the public who would particularly influenced by NRP report. I could see that the board purposefully chose empirical /quasiexperimental studies in order to see the impact of five aspects of reading instruction (Alphabetics, Fluency, comprehension, teacher education and reading instruction, and computer technology and reading instruction). Nevertheless, I was wondering why the board did not broaden search and inclusion criteria depending on the topics that might be less studied in empirical/quasi-empirical way (e.g. teacher education)and why the board decided to focus persistently on intervention studies without getting informed from other types of studies. If the board could broaden their review of literature, wouldn’t the final report become different from what it is now?
In addition, what made me sad was that NRP report has been misrepresented due to the dominant ideology about children’s reading. As examples, Allington indicated that Put Reading First published by NICHD misused and misinterpreted the information from NRP in order to serve the organization’s ideology. Thus, the reading programs implemented by Put Reading First provide anti-scientific teaching methods and reading materials to the children – such as “whole-class reading instruction using a sicentific’ reading series with remediation”, about which Allington raised awareness that such ‘one-size fits all’ instruction and material could not support children with reading difficulties, as well as teachers. It is so deplorable that NRP’s intention to support teachers and children was distorted to give harms rather than benefits. It seems that continuous skepticism and awareness as researchers, teachers, and teacher educators are possible ways not to fall into the logic of misrepresenting ideas.
What I found interesting in the NRP report about teacher education programs was that two of the studies included in the review reported the inconsistent effect of in-service teacher education programs on teachers’ behaviors and attitudes. In addition, these studies also reported that teachers reverted the strategies and methods informed from the programs. This made me wonder about the possibilties of other factors influencing on teachers such as teachers’ intial attitudes, the implicit messages from schools and mandates, and students’ characteristics. Such factors might also affect teachers when they decided to choose strategies in order for them to serve their teaching and students’ learning better. This also made me think that the effect of teacher education programs might be one of challening area for researchers to look into not only because of the reasons that the NRP subgroup pointed out, but also because the nature of teaching deals with such a broad range of issues.
