Advances and Missed Opportunities in the Development of the 2026 NAEP Reading Framework

Autor/inn/en	Forzani, Elena; Afflerbach, Peter; Aguirre, Sarah; Brynelson, Nancy; Cervetti, Gina; Cho, Byeong-Young; Coiro, Julie; García, Georgia Earnest; Guthrie, John T.; Hinchman, Kathleen; Lee, Carol D.; Pacheco, Mariana; Pearson, P. David; Ross, Alicia; Skerrett, Allison; Uccelli, Paola
Titel	Advances and Missed Opportunities in the Development of the 2026 NAEP Reading Framework
Quelle	In: Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 71 (2022) 1, S.153-189 (37 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Forzani, Elena)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	2381-3369
DOI	10.1177/23813377221112388
Schlagwörter	National Competency Tests; Reading Comprehension; Reading Tests; Evaluation Methods; Test Construction; Equal Education; Educational Change; Governing Boards; Elementary Secondary Education; National Assessment of Educational Progress + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Leseverstehen; Lesetest; Testaufbau; Bildungsreform; Governing body; Governing bodies; Leitungsgremium
Abstract	The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in Reading aims to measure reading comprehension for students in the United States and to monitor progress in our education system. NAEP Reading is developed based on an assessment framework document that is periodically revised to reflect the latest understandings about reading comprehension and its assessment. A key goal of the Visioning Panel (VP) and the Development Panel (DP) charged with updating the NAEP Reading Assessment Framework for 2026 was to lay the foundation for an assessment that made progress toward greater fairness, equity, and validity. In this essay, we discuss how the Framework development process unfolded and its results. We document the unusual ways the National Assessment Governing Board ("the Board") shaped the development process. We provide evidence that a small group of Board members aimed to preserve the status quo in reading assessment by downplaying reliance on expertise and authoritative sources of research on reading, learning, and assessment and by removing attention to equity in NAEP Reading. We also discuss both successful (i.e., approved by the Board) and unsuccessful (i.e., rejected by the Board) recommendations for changes to the 2026 Framework that initially were proposed by the DP. We end by considering how, despite the efforts of the small group of Board members, we as a literacy field can improve the nature and impact of our large-scale reading assessments, and NAEP in particular. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01