RESEARCH IN ADOLESCENT LITERACY

RELEASE DATE:  December 19, 2002 
 
RFA: HD-03-012
 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
 (http://www.nichd.nih.gov/)
Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE), U.S. Department of Education
 (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE)
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) 
 (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS)
Institute of Education Sciences (IES) 
 (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI) 
 
LETTER OF INTENT RECEIPT DATE:  February 26, 2003 

APPLICATION RECEIPT DATE:  March 26, 2003
 
THIS RFA CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION

o Purpose of this RFA
o Research Objectives
o Mechanism of Support 
o Funds Available
o Eligible Institutions
o Individuals Eligible to Become Principal Investigators
o Where to Send Inquiries
o Letter of Intent
o Submitting an Application
o Peer Review Process
o Review Criteria
o Receipt and Review Schedule
o Award Criteria
o Required Federal Citations

PURPOSE OF THIS RFA

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), in 
partnership with the Office of Adult and Vocational Education (OVAE), the 
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), and the 
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), US Department of Education, invites 
research grant applications to develop new knowledge in the area of 
adolescent literacy.  The specific focus of this RFA is on the discovery of 
cognitive, perceptual, behavioral, genetic, hormonal, and neurobiological 
mechanisms that are influential in the continuing development of reading and 
writing abilities during the adolescent years, and on methods for the 
identification, prevention, and remediation of reading and writing 
disabilities in adolescents. 

This RFA will result in grants supporting multidisciplinary research projects 
(R01), which may be single- or multi-site; the funded investigators will 
become part of an Adolescent Literacy Research Network. 
 
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Background
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) has had 
a longstanding interest in the study of literacy and reading disabilities. 
Two recent workshops co-sponsored by multiple federal agencies and 
professional associations focused on the important but under-researched area 
of adolescent literacy.  

The Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) has an interest in 
research activities that will improve the quality and effectiveness of 
secondary education and support academic achievement of those students who 
traditionally have been held to lower expectations.  The expansion of the 
knowledge base on the literacy needs of older youth and the best methods for 
helping struggling readers develop the reading and writing skills needed to 
meet high academic standards is of particular importance to OVAE's mission to 
strengthen career and technical education programs and to support the U.S. 
Department of Education's commitment to reading proficiency for all students.

The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is highly 
interested in research activities that will improve services and results for 
adolescents with disabilities.  Adolescents with disabilities fall behind 
their peers academically, increasing the likelihood of dropping out of high 
school and affecting opportunities for full-time employment adequate to 
sustain adult living.  Research on effective instructional methods for 
adolescent students will enable OSERS to better achieve the U.S. Department 
of Education's goal of enhancing literacy and employment skills of young 
American adults. 

It is clear from epidemiological studies that learning to read is more 
difficult after nine years of age, but the factors that might explain this 
decreased learning ability are not well understood.  It is well known that in 
learning to read, kindergarten- and elementary school-age children must 
develop adequate phonological processing skills; phonics abilities; the 
ability to apply these word-reading skills fluently to both decoding and 
text-reading activities; and background knowledge, vocabulary, and reading 
comprehension strategies to facilitate understanding of what is read.  But 
there are obvious critical influences that age and experience bring to the 
reading acquisition process, particularly if basic reading abilities are not 
developed prior to the third grade.  Within the past five years, there have 
been both educational programs and publicity focusing on the important goal 
of having all children reading by the end of the third grade, reading by age 
nine.  But there has also been frequent reference to the "fourth grade 
slump." 

We know that children who have not developed foundational reading abilities 
by approximately nine years of age are highly likely to struggle with reading 
throughout their educational tenure, if not the rest of their lives, and may 
never read efficiently enough to acquire information or to enjoy the process.  
Thus, most of the middle school and high school students who are poor or 
failing readers could be "left behind" as they continue through school and 
move into the workplace.  It is time to focus in both research and 
educational practice on the "after nine" group  - on struggling readers. 

Data from the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show 
not only the often-cited fact that 41 percent of fourth grade boys and 35 
percent of fourth grade girls read below the basic level.  It also reveals 
concerning facts about high school youth.  In eighth grade, at a time when we 
expect all students to be able to acquire information through the reading of 
textbooks and other materials, 32 percent of boys and 19 percent of girls 
cannot read at the basic level.  In twelfth grade, 30 percent of boys and 17 
percent of girls cannot read at the basic level.  Among Black, Hispanic, and 
American Indian students, the picture is even more dismal:  47 percent of 
Black, 46 percent of Hispanic, and 39 percent of American Indian eighth 
graders and 43 percent of Black, 36 percent of Hispanic, and 35 percent of 
American Indian twelfth graders read below the basic level. 

Even those adolescents who score at the proficient level require continuing 
instruction, as they are faced with increasingly complex text to decipher and 
understand.  The 1998 NAEP data also indicated that nearly 60 percent of 
adolescents can comprehend specific factual information (which means of 
course that 40 percent cannot!), yet fewer than five percent of adolescents 
were able to extend or elaborate the meaning of the materials they read.  
Further, in the NAEP writing assessment, the data indicate that few 
adolescents could write effectively with sufficient detail to support main 
points.  Instruction for adolescents typically focuses on teaching content -  
science, math, literature, etc. -  and does not focus on teaching students 
how to read and write effectively. 

Approximately 1.4 million students drop out of school between grades nine and 
twelve.  Achievement varies among ethnicities and economic classes, with a 
large difference between whites and Latinos and African Americans.  A 
majority of incoming ninth graders in high-poverty urban schools read two to 
three years below grade level. 

We know that reading disabilities persist over time  - they do not go away. 
Research has indicated that as much as 74 percent of children with early 
reading disabilities have reading deficits at follow-up several years later. 
Thus, we know that that the long-term implications of low literacy levels 
among pre-adolescents and adolescents are serious. 

Data from international comparisons of 16- to 18-year-olds show that even the 
top 10 percent in the United States cannot compete with the top 10 percent of 
16- to 18-year-olds in other industrial countries.  Many high school 
graduates enter college unprepared in reading.  Approximately 25 percent 
require remedial reading courses.  In community colleges, that number ranges 
from 40 to 60 percent of freshmen, and 25 percent of these students leave 
school without graduating.  Many drop out because they cannot read well 
enough to do the course work.  About 56 percent of Hispanics, African 
Americans, and students with disabilities do not finish with a diploma four 
years after they start.  

There is a clear need for both basic and intervention research on the 
development of higher-level literacy and on reading and writing disabilities 
during adolescence.  Research is needed to elucidate how adolescent students 
learn higher-level reading and writing skills (the cognitive processes 
involved and how we can best facilitate this learning), how best to ensure 
that those with difficulties are identified, and what are the most effective 
and efficient methods of prevention and intervention for these difficulties. 

This solicitation focuses on adolescent literacy, encompassing all components 
of reading.  This effort is being coordinated with all offices of the 
Department of Education, some of whom are co-funders.  In addition, the 
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (now the Institute of 
Education Sciences) recently solicited research on reading comprehension 
across all age groups, and anticipates reissuing that solicitation possibly 
in the spring of 2003.  For information on that Program of Research on 
Reading Comprehension, see the archived solicitation at 
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/fy2002competitions.html. 

Research Scope

Despite the significant advances that have been made in our understanding of 
the abilities children must acquire to become successful readers and the 
conditions under which the necessary skills are most effectively taught, very 
little converging evidence addresses how best to teach literacy -  reading 
and writing  - to middle and high school students.  We need to know the 
extent to which our current evidence about early reading instruction holds 
true for older students who fail to acquire the basic foundational skills for 
literacy.  Why does it seem that learning to read is more difficult after age 
nine, and how can we best intervene after that age?  Which specific reading 
abilities are more predictive of reading difficulties in adolescents?  Do the 
relationships among phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and 
reading comprehension that predict age-appropriate reading development for 
kindergarten to grade three children also apply to older students who are 
having reading difficulties?  How can we best identify, prevent, and 
remediate reading and writing difficulties?  And how do we motivate middle 
and high school students who have experienced failure in literacy to re-
engage in this all-important learning task? 

It is clear that much research is needed in this under-studied area.  Both 
longitudinal and cross-sectional studies are needed, and there is a need for 
novel uses of designs and methods and for the development of innovative ways 
to study this challenging group of students.  Studies should be 
multidisciplinary and study samples, wherever possible and appropriate to the 
research design and questions being addressed, should reflect the diversity 
of adolescents in the U.S. today.  In addition, studies are needed to 
establish reliable and valid measurement strategies and instruments, to 
identify critical etiological factors (cognitive, linguistic, genetic, 
neurobiological, experiential) associated with reading and writing 
disabilities in adolescents, and to develop well-defined, evidence-based 
treatment interventions.  In addition, advances in the application of 
structural and functional imaging modalities need to be expanded and applied 
to the study of brain-behavior relationships relevant to reading disabilities 
in this group.

Development can be viewed as a superordinate, organizing principle for this 
research.  There is a need to elucidate the typical developmental process, 
how many students are performing in a manner inconsistent with it, and what 
is necessary to alter the process to provide for more normative progress in 
the future for students who experience learning difficulties in reading and 
writing.  Research is needed to investigate the connections among several 
basic dynamic domains or themes that affect the development of adolescent 
literacy.  Regarding the adolescents, we need information on their abilities 
and characteristics, the context and environment, and outcomes of interest. 
We also need information on the characteristics of teachers, practices, and 
programs, and on professional development.  More detail on these areas is 
given below.  In addition, across all of these domains are three integrated 
elements that must be considered:  assessment; intervention for creating the 
outcomes, where intervention might be individual remediation, classroom 
instruction, or restructuring of school programs; and linguistic and 
sociocultural issues.  

Research Focus

The focus of the research solicited through this RFA can be summarized in two 
complex overarching questions. While not every application will be able to 
answer both or either of these questions completely, it is anticipated that 
longitudinal studies of change over time, possibly with cross sectional 
components, will be required to attempt to address at least some part of 
these overarching questions. In addition to the two following questions, 
which focus on the adolescent reader, there is interest by at least one 
funding agency in the teacher issues (preparation and continued professional 
development) that would contribute to successful reading and writing outcomes 
for these students.

1. What characterizes adolescent readers and adolescent struggling readers? 
That is, what are the characteristics of these students, their environments, 
the context in which they receive instruction, and the nature of that 
instruction with regard to reading and writing during adolescence?  What 
characterizes these students at different developmental levels of literacy? 
What are the interactions, the reciprocal relationships, among these factors? 

2. How do the factors affecting the development of literacy change over time?  
Specifically, how do the characteristics of students, their environments, the 
contexts in which they receive instruction, and the nature of that 
instruction with regard to reading and writing during adolescence change and 
develop over the course of adolescence?  This is not a passive model of 
change.  How do adolescents navigate and work through the transitions into 
and from one level to the next within adolescence?  What resources do they 
access, what literacy practices do they engage in on their own, and what 
factors affect, mediate, or moderate change?

As noted in "Background" above, there are specific areas where additional 
information is needed to address these questions.  These areas are discussed 
below:

o Abilities and Characteristics of Students  

In describing learners, several factors must be considered.  First, 
cognition, knowledge, and executive function (self-regulation, metacognition) 
must be measured and characterized over time, and should be considered in 
designing interventions.  Similarly, it will be important to describe 
language and communication characteristics, psychosocial factors (such as 
identity and motivation), and sociocultural factors (such as socioeconomic 
status, culture, and English as a second language).  In addition, because 
learning can be constrained by neurobiological factors, it will be important 
to study the neurobiological aspects of the learning process as adolescents 
advance their reading and writing skills.  Research samples and individuals 
should be sufficiently well characterized that studies can be replicated and 
results can be generalized to some extent in attempting to answer the 
overarching questions.

o Context and Environment 

The school context, in general, can affect motivation and learning, as well 
as how instruction and intervention are provided; thus, the context in which 
students are learning must be considered.  Research should also examine the 
context in which adolescents are functioning, and what should be changed in 
those contexts to help students read better.  School environment in both 
middle and high school should be considered. Studies might be designed to 
address differences between the two, and how the characteristics of each, the 
differences between them, and the demands of the middle school and high 
school learning environments affect student learning and motivation. It is 
also important to consider implications for instruction as well as for 
teacher preparation and professional development.  Other environmental 
factors should also be taken into account, such as home, after-school 
activities, peer groups, the neighborhood and the community, although clearly 
not every project can study all contexts and environments in depth.  The 
language spoken in all of these locales is an important part of the learning 
environment, and should be considered, as should the cultural differences 
that may exist within schools and communities.

o Outcomes of Interest 

Literacy is a broad concept, but is here operationally defined as the ability 
of the learner to perform reading and writing tasks.  Outcomes of interest in 
adolescent literacy should include all of the same components of reading as 
in younger children, but the level of complexity of the material and the 
expertise that will constitute success for adolescents differ.  Note that 
grades four to six are an important period in the development of reading 
proficiency, and are an area in which prevention of adolescent reading 
difficulties should take place.  Reading and writing outcomes studied in 
early adolescence may thus relate to preventive interventions that take place 
in the latter half of the elementary school period. 

o Characteristics of Instruction and Intervention  

The foundational information on developmental changes that occur as 
adolescents learn to read and write and as they develop these skills at 
increasingly complex levels will serve as the basis for identifying the 
specific intervention needs of struggling adolescent readers and writers, and 
for the design and implementation of interventions.  As for all other age 
groups, it is crucial to determine the most appropriate and effective 
instructional approaches and interventions for adolescents.  Intervention 
research must answer the question of which instructional program and 
interventions are most effective, for which students, under which conditions. 
Thus, it will be important for studies to document both characteristics of 
instructional programs and interventions and their fidelity of 
implementation.  In determining "for which students," it will be important to 
consider students' linguistic and cultural differences in the design, 
implementation, and assessment of interventions' effectiveness.  These 
interventions are no less important than interventions for any other age 
group, and are possibly even more complex for adolescents who are 
experiencing peer pressure and neurobiologic changes, and whose motivation 
and self image may have already suffered from failure to achieve mastery in 
literacy.  There is also a need to more fully understand and address the 
literacy instruction and intervention needs of students with various types of 
disabilities, both learning disabilities (reading and other learning areas) 
and other disabilities (including those with significant cognitive, motor, or 
communication needs) that can interfere with the process of developing 
reading and writing abilities.  Finally, there is a need to identify the 
instructional strategies for supporting the literacy development and academic 
achievement of those students who have traditionally been relegated to lower-
level tracks and expectations (e.g., vocational education students). 

Issues of scalability and sustainability should be considered when 
instructions/interventions are conceptualized.  That is, we need to design 
interventions that inherently contain the attributes that would facilitate 
their being taken to scale.  Much of what researchers develop may be highly 
effective in a research setting, but too cumbersome or difficult to implement 
in the classroom.  If our intent is to have all students taught with 
scientifically based instruction, then it is imperative that our 
instructional practices, and at least some of our intervention practices, be 
in a form that can be brought to scale.  One way of bringing programs to 
scale, for classroom instruction, may be through the development of 
instructional models or curricula; this RFA will support the development of 
such models, and their preliminary testing.  Data should be gathered that 
include careful sample characterization so that we can learn which models 
work better for which students, classrooms or schools.  However, large 
studies testing the actual bringing to scale of proven interventions will 
naturally exceed the cost limitations of the current solicitation.   
Researchers wishing to propose such large-scale studies are referred to the 
Interagency Education Research Initiative (IERI), an NICHD/Department of 
Education/National Science Foundation annual solicitation, at   
http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?nsf0074. 

o Assessment Methods and Measures 

In addition to asking appropriate questions and applying appropriate research 
designs and methods, researchers must have instruments for assessing the 
constructs under study that will lead to valid and reliable inferences. 
Reading and writing are developmental processes and assessment methods are 
needed to determine how children are progressing along the continuum.  A need 
exists for many different types of measures.  Measurement development is 
anticipated to be a substantial part of the research to be funded under this 
RFA.  For example, it is possible that during an initial period of a project, 
the research team might develop and test new measures. 

Research Questions

Below are several examples of specific research questions that need to be 
addressed in the area of adolescent literacy.  These are offered only as 
examples of research topics that applicants may consider when developing 
their responses to this solicitation.  Research questions and topics 
considered responsive to this RFA include, but are not limited to the 
following: 

Questions related to student abilities and characteristics: 

o To what extent does oral language proficiency affect a student's ability to 
learn to read and write?  This is important to examine for all students, but 
should also be studied in depth for English-language learning students.  How 
do these relations differ for adolescent students and students in earlier 
grades? 

o What is the role of motivation in learning to read and write?  How does one 
instill a sense of confidence and an attitude of self-efficacy in the 
adolescent reader?  Does the content of the reading material contribute to 
the motivation level of the adolescent?  How do the text structures and 
readability level contribute to motivation?  Good readers do not necessarily 
read for pleasure; to achieve something, it is not always necessary to enjoy 
doing it, but there should be a value to the student in the accomplishment. 
When one achieves, there is believed to be an increase in intrinsic 
motivation.  What is the relationship between student perception of the 
importance of reading and writing and student performance?  How does 
motivation differ for students in different cultures?  What are the different 
motivating factors that must be recognized and taken into account in 
attempting to measure literacy skills and develop interventions for 
linguistically and/or culturally different groups of students?  
Psychometrically sound measures (e.g., self-report, teacher ratings, 
observations) are needed to assess motivation.

o What is the role of the background knowledge that the student brings to the 
task of reading?  How and to what extent does background knowledge limit the 
adolescent student's reading performance, and what are the most effective and 
efficient remediation approaches?  How does background knowledge differ for 
students from different cultural or ethnic groups?

o Prevalence of reading disabilities in adolescents.  Longitudinal, 
epidemiological studies are needed to estimate the true prevalence of 
reading-related learning disabilities in adolescents, whether alone or as a 
co-morbid condition with other learning disabilities.  Such studies should 
identify specific linkages between reading disability and sociocultural, 
economic, and demographic factors.  Of particular import are the specific 
effects of poverty on the failure to develop literacy proficiency, and the 
identification of risk and protective factors within these contexts.  
Questions related to severity, classroom behavior, teacher expectations and 
perceptions, student motivation, and the influence of comorbidities need to 
be addressed explicitly.

Questions dealing with context and environment: 

o How do schools where large numbers of students achieve high levels of 
literacy differ both structurally and functionally from those where students 
do not perform as well? Are there effects of school or program design or 
structure on literacy development? Specifically, is there a fit between 
school characteristics and differences in adolescent literacy ability levels 
and motivation for reading and writing? 

o What is the role of classroom composition in affecting student literacy 
outcomes in middle and high school?  To what extent does instructional group 
size and composition impact learning?

o Because an adolescent's values and position on education may be strongly 
influenced by his or her peer social group, the values of the group can be 
key to a student's development. How do adolescent social groups, both inside 
and outside of school, relate to adolescents' literacy development and 
outcomes? What is the role of social groups in motivating or affecting a 
student's commitment to learning to read and write, and how can this 
information be used in the design and implementation of effective 
interventions? Cultural differences must be taken into account in any such 
research. 

Questions related to outcomes of interest: 

o What are the characteristics (the profile) of adolescent readers with 
different levels of ability?  And how do these characteristics change over 
time, within the various components of literacy? 

o What roles do core components of reading (e.g., phonology, fluency, 
vocabulary, reading comprehension) and background knowledge play in affecting 
students' writing abilities?  Research is needed to define and describe the 
developmental aspects of the core reading components and outcomes for 
adolescents and how they interact within the context of the types of text 
that students encounter, such as newspapers, textbooks, or texts in the work 
environment.

o What are the relationships among the phonology, fluency, vocabulary and 
syntax, and reading comprehension in adolescents?  How do these components 
interact in the ongoing development of reading and writing ability in 
adolescents? 

o How are reading comprehension and listening comprehension related, and how 
can these relations be exploited in the development of complex reading and 
writing abilities in adolescents?  How do alternative modes of input and 
output affect comprehension/ composition of text?  What strategies are 
effective for improving adolescents' comprehension of text, and their written 
expression?  What are the contexts across which specific strategies 
generalize, and which strategies do not generalize well?  What strategies 
should adolescents be taught, and why?  Under what contexts should 
adolescents be taught to use specific strategies, and what can adolescents 
and their teachers expect will result from such instruction?  How do students 
best learn strategies for reading comprehension, and what factors influence 
when, whether, and how well they implement those strategies?

Questions regarding instruction and intervention: 

o How well does research on younger learners apply to adolescents?  How much 
of what we know about effective instruction and intervention can be used in 
developing and testing instruction and interventions for middle or high 
school students?  How much of what we know about effective instruction and 
intervention can be used in preventive instructional programs for students in 
the grades just prior to middle school? 

o To what extent do interventions affect student motivation, and to what 
extent are the effects on achievement mediated or moderated by effects on 
motivation? 

o What structural elements (e.g., scheduling, grouping configurations, level 
of teacher support) in middle and high school support successful 
implementation of reading and writing strategies?

o There is a direct interaction between writing and reading and derivational, 
morphological knowledge in spelling.  How should instruction and intervention 
techniques for literacy address both writing and reading?  What is the role 
of text format, rhetorical characteristics, and derivational morphology in 
developing literacy and how can these be incorporated into effective 
instructional approaches and interventions?

o What interventions will be most effective for which learners?  Are 
different intervention strategies needed for particular subgroups, especially 
students who are English-language learners and those with a range of 
disabilities?

o How is reading textbooks similar to and different from reading other texts? 
Are there alternatives to textbooks?  Are there alternatives to having all 
students reading the same text?  How do teachers use different types of text 
to supplement their teaching strategies?  What types of support do teachers 
need to be effective in using a diversity of texts in their classrooms?  How 
accessible is text to special populations where accommodations are needed? 

o How do teachers and students use text and how do they communicate teacher-
to-student and student-to-teacher about text?  To what extent and how do 
students communicate with one another about texts, and to what extent do 
these communications affect students motivation to engage in literacy, and 
affect literacy outcomes?  How can texts be better designed to facilitate the 
development of higher-level literacy abilities?  What are the optimal text 
and/or document characteristics for different content areas?  Is there a set 
of core text characteristics that is common across content areas?  How can we 
optimize the interaction between instructional approach and text 
characteristics, and what types of training would best prepare teachers to 
effectively implement instruction with different types of text/documents?

o Computers and multimedia technology play an important role in adolescent 
literacy.  Most adolescents will do a great deal of their writing and reading 
on computers, and will read a large amount of text in multimedia format. 
Characterizing the technological learning environment and its utility in 
motivating, instructing, assessing, and intervening with adolescent readers 
and writers is an important research aim.  What is the role of technology in 
reading and writing?  How can technology tools be used to mirror and support 
literacy instruction?  How are technology tools effectively integrated into 
the literacy curriculum?  Which tools are best suited to different subgroups 
of adolescent learners?  Which tools assist students in self-regulating 
reading and writing processes at the appropriate times and at the appropriate 
levels?  How can these tools be used to effectively facilitate instruction in 
reading and writing?

Questions related to teacher preparation and professional development:
 
o What do prospective and current teachers need to know and be able to do in 
order to deliver effective, high-quality literacy instruction to adolescents? 
For example, to be successful, does a teacher need to know about learner 
characteristics and learning environments?  To what extent is this 
information part of programs of teacher preparation or professional 
development for middle or high school teachers?  What are the most effective 
methods of delivering needed professional development for middle and high 
school teachers?

o How do teachers learn new strategies?  For how long after an initial gain 
or change in instructional behavior do teachers maintain that behavior? 
(There is preliminary evidence that if teachers change their behavior, 
student outcomes improve, but if the teachers revert to old teaching habits, 
student performance declines.) Replication and more in-depth investigation 
are needed of these findings. 

o What are the crucial aspects of professional development within content 
areas? Do students have specific literacy instructional needs within content 
areas?  How does the presentation of knowledge differ across content areas, 
such as math or history?  Are there specific differences that might help to 
inform both instruction and intervention?  Should some aspects of reading and 
writing be taught by content area teachers and, if so, how should those 
teachers be prepared?  What is needed in professional development and how can 
that best be delivered?  What combination of professional development 
opportunities is most effective?

o What are the characteristics of exemplary teachers?  How do they support 
literacy in their classrooms?  What are they doing?  How can other teachers 
be motivated to do what these effective teachers are doing?  Which students 
are the exemplary teachers helping? 

o What training is required for teachers depends not only on what students 
are being taught, but also on who the students are.  What do teachers need to 
know and be able to do to successfully teach literacy when English is not the 
native language of the student, and/or when many languages are represented 
within the classroom, and which teachers might most benefit from training in 
English as a Second Language (ESL) or other specific instructional 
approaches? 

o What are the optimal methods of teaching literacy to adolescent students 
whose first language is not English?  What techniques are effective with a 
group of students whose first language is the same (e.g., Spanish) and what 
techniques are effective with a group of English language learning students 
who have different first languages?  Is it more effective to teach struggling 
adolescent readers to read in their native language first and then to 
transition them to English?  How do adolescent English language learners 
access/acquire literacy in the content areas?  How do we teach students who 
are both limited in their English proficiency and have learning disabilities?

Neurobiology (Neuroanatomy, Neurophysiology, Neuroimaging)

A research area that cuts across the many student questions and issues is the 
neurobiological underpinnings of reading disabilities in the adolescent 
period. Given advances in neuroimaging technology, the timing is excellent to 
use these tools to clarify the relationships between brain structure/function 
and the persistence of reading difficulties into the adolescent period.  
Recent advances in the application of functional neuroimaging modalities 
(e.g., fMRI) have indicated that neural activation patterns differ 
significantly between reading disabled children and normal readers.  Ideally, 
convergent evidence will be gathered using any of a number of neuroimaging 
modalities (e.g., MRI, fMRI, MEG, MRS, Diffusion Tensor Imaging) and 
dependent measures to assess the neural organization of cognitive and 
linguistic abilities in adolescent struggling readers.  Given the findings of 
a "neural signature" for skilled reading and for reading disability, it will 
be important to determine whether there is a change with age in the 
individual's potential to change such neural signatures. 

Preliminary data suggest that changes in reading behavior produced by well-
defined early interventions are reflected in changes in neural activation in 
those brain regions implicated in the development of basic reading skills.  
Integrated intervention-neuroimaging studies need to be replicated and 
expanded to better understand the specific impact of behavioral perturbation 
on brain development and function, and to determine whether the intensity and 
duration of the intervention required to produce both behavioral and neural 
changes vary as a function of chronological age.

MECHANISM OF SUPPORT
 
This RFA will use National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Project Grant  
(R01) award mechanism.  As an applicant you will be solely responsible for 
planning, directing, and executing the proposed project.  This RFA is a one-
time solicitation.  Future unsolicited, competing-continuation applications 
based on this project will compete with all investigator-initiated 
applications and will be reviewed according to the customary peer review 
procedures.  The earliest anticipated award date is October 1, 2003; some 
awards will be made by December 1, 2003. 

This RFA uses just-in-time concepts.  It also uses the modular as well as the 
non-modular budgeting formats
(see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm).
Specifically, if you are submitting an application with direct costs in each
year of $250,000 or less, use the modular format.  Otherwise follow the
instructions for non-modular research grant applications.

FUNDS AVAILABLE 

The participating co-sponsors intend to commit approximately $2.8 million in 
total costs [Direct plus Facilities and Administrative (F & A) costs] in FY 
2003 to fund four to six new grants in response to this RFA.  An applicant 
may request a project period of up to five years and a budget of up to 
$750,000 direct costs per year.  Because the nature and scope of the proposed 
research will vary from application to application, it is anticipated that 
the size and duration of each award will also vary. Although the financial 
plans of the co-sponsors provide support for this program, awards pursuant to 
this RFA are contingent upon the availability of funds and the receipt of a 
sufficient number of meritorious applications.
 
ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS
 
You may submit an application if your institution has any of the following 
characteristics:

o For-profit or non-profit organizations 
o Public or private institutions, such as universities, colleges, hospitals, 
and laboratories 
o Units of State and local governments
o Eligible agencies of the Federal government  
o Domestic or foreign
o Faith-based or community-based organizations 
 
INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE TO BECOME PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS   

Any individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry 
out the proposed research is invited to work with their institution to 
develop an application for support.  Individuals from underrepresented racial 
and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always 
encouraged to apply for NIH programs.   

SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Meeting for Investigators
 
Principal Investigators of projects funded through this RFA will be expected 
to attend one meeting per year to share research designs and proposed 
measurement strategies, as well as methods and approaches to data collection 
and analysis, and to establish, where possible, core instrumentation intended 
to maximize the systematic collection of converging data across projects.  
Requests for funds for annual travel to this meeting should be included in 
the application budget request.

Application Considerations
 
In preparing applications in response to this RFA, applicants should insure 
that the following methodological and organizational issues are addressed:

1. Research Population

The selection of the research population should be based upon the need to 
conduct integrated prospective, developmental, longitudinal investigations 
incorporating cognitive/behavioral, early (and later) treatment/intervention, 
and possibly neurobiological studies with adolescents who manifest reading 
disabilities, alone or in combination with one or more of several domains to 
include oral language and written expression, as well as deficits in 
attention or executive function. Within this context, longitudinal studies 
may be initiated with late-elementary grade children, with the students being 
followed as they enter and proceed through middle school. Studies might also 
be initiated with middle school students, and follow them longitudinally 
through the transition to high school.  Cross-sectional studies of reading 
disabled children of different ages ranging across the later elementary and 
middle school or middle- to high school age-span also should be considered, 
but such studies should be related meaningfully to the questions being asked 
within the longitudinal studies. 

Students selected for study likely will vary across cultural, familial, 
ethnic, racial, economic, and other demographic characteristics that could 
influence development.  There likely will be subgroups and subtypes of 
children with significantly different patterns of demographic 
characteristics, academic deficits, different patterns of comorbidity, levels 
of severity, and different psychological/cognitive processing deficits.  
Therefore, applicants should consider research protocols that are capable of 
identifying well-defined subgroups and subtypes that exist within the sample.  
Investigators also should consider casting the sampling net wide enough to 
insure a representative number of subtypes and contrast groups within the 
study population.  For example, of interest are studies of subtypes or 
profiles of struggling readers of varying demographic characteristics, 
intellectual abilities, with primary deficits in reading who display no 
comorbid deficits, a single comorbid deficit, or a combination of comorbid 
deficits in attention, behavior, and social competencies, etc.  

2. Subject Selection Criteria

The samples for study must be defined rigorously so that complete replication 
can be accomplished.  Within this context, applicants should provide clearly 
documented and operationalized definitions for their subject selection 
criteria.  These definitions and criteria must be specified in an a priori 
manner.  The selection of "school-identified" or "clinic-identified" 
learning-disabled children is clearly discouraged unless the demographic and 
diagnostic characteristics in these cases match the applicant's 
a priori established selection criteria.  Likewise, criteria for selection of 
contrast group(s) must be specified in an a priori manner.

All individuals selected for study must be defined with reference to age, 
gender, grade level, length of time in special education placement (if 
applicable), type of current special education placement (if applicable), 
previous special education placement(s) (if applicable) to include intensity 
and duration, ethnicity, socio-economic status, primary learning disability, 
comorbid disabilities, severity of disability, familial and/or genetic 
findings, physical/neurological findings, intellectual status, cognitive-
linguistic status, neurophysiological and neuropsychological status, levels 
of academic achievement in oral language, reading, and written language, and 
presence or absence of attention deficit disorder.  

3.  Measurement Criteria

Standardized tests, laboratory tasks, observational measures, interview 
schedules, and other assessment procedures (e.g., dynamic assessment 
procedures, case studies, ethnographic studies) must be selected on the basis 
of known reliability, validity, trustworthiness, and appropriateness for the 
samples under study.  If reliability, validity and trustworthiness of the 
measurement/assessment/observational procedures are initially unknown, the 
application must include specific plans for establishing these measurement 
properties.  The valid measurement of change over time is critical to much of 
the research solicited via this RFA since the study of developmental course 
and treatment effectiveness is of primary concern.  If instructional 
treatment studies are proposed, applicants should be aware of and employ 
robust procedures for separating treatment effects from the effects of 
development, in general.  The use of growth curve models and longitudinal 
data is encouraged as is the collection of sufficient data prior to, during, 
and following the instructional/treatment study to allow for estimation of 
change over time.

WHERE TO SEND INQUIRIES

We encourage inquiries concerning this RFA and welcome the opportunity to 
answer questions from potential applicants.  Inquiries may fall into three 
areas:  scientific/research, peer review, and financial or grants management 
issues:

o Direct your questions about scientific/research issues to:

Peggy McCardle, Ph.D., MPH
Child Development and Behavior Branch
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Suite 4B05, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD  20892-7510
Telephone:  (301) 435-6863
FAX:  (301) 480-0230
Email:  [email protected] 

Marlene Simon, Ph.D.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
U.S. Department of Education
330 C Street, SW, Room 2128
Washington, DC  20447
Telephone:  (202) 205-9089
FAX:  (202) 401-4079
Email:  [email protected] 
 
Peggy Zelinko, Ph.D.
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
U.S. Department of Education
330 C Street, SW, Room 2128
Washington, DC  20447
Telephone:  (202) 401-9963
FAX:  (202) 401-4079
Email:  [email protected]

Anne Sweet, Ph.D.
Institute of Education Sciences
U.S. Department of Education
555 New Jersey Ave., NW, Room 513A
Washington, DC 20208
Telephone:  (202) 219-2043
FAX:  (202) 219-1402
Email:  [email protected]

o Direct your questions about peer review issues to:

Robert Stretch, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Scientific Review
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD  20892-7510
Telephone:  (301) 496-1485
FAX:  (301) 402-4104
Email:  [email protected]

o Direct your questions about financial or grants management matters to:

Dianna Bailey
Grants Management Branch
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8A17, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD  20892-7510
Telephone: (301) 435-6978
FAX:  (301) 402-0915
Email:  [email protected] 
 
LETTER OF INTENT
 
Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes 
the following information:

o Descriptive title of the proposed research
o Name, address, and telephone number of the Principal Investigator
o Names of other key personnel 
o Participating institutions
o Number and title of this RFA 

Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not 
enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it 
contains allows NICHD staff to estimate the potential review workload and 
plan the review.
 
The letter of intent is to be sent by the date listed at the beginning of 
this document.  The letter of intent should be sent to:

Peggy McCardle, Ph.D., MPH
Child Development and Behavior Branch
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Suite 4B05, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD  20892-7510
Telephone:  (301) 435-6863
FAX:  (301) 480-0230
Email:  [email protected]

SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION

Applications must be prepared using the PHS 398 research grant application 
instructions and forms (rev. 5/2001).  The PHS 398 is available at 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an interactive 
format.  For further assistance contact GrantsInfo, Telephone (301) 710-0267, 
Email: [email protected].
 
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR MODULAR GRANT APPLICATIONS:  Applications 
requesting up to $250,000 per year in direct costs must be submitted in a 
modular grant format.  The modular grant format simplifies the preparation of 
the budget in these applications by limiting the level of budgetary detail.  
Applicants request direct costs in $25,000 modules.  Section C of the 
research grant application instructions for the PHS 398 (rev. 5/2001) at 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html includes step-by-step 
guidance for preparing modular grants.  Additional information on modular 
grants is available at 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm.

USING THE RFA LABEL:  The RFA label available in the PHS 398 (rev. 5/2001) 
application form must be affixed to the bottom of the face page of the 
application.  Type the RFA number on the label.  Failure to use this label 
could result in delayed processing of the application such that it may not 
reach the review committee in time for review.  In addition, the RFA title 
and number must be typed on line 2 of the face page of the application form 
and the YES box must be marked. The RFA label is also available at: 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/label-bk.pdf.
 
SENDING AN APPLICATION TO THE NIH:  Submit a signed, typewritten original of 
the application, including the Checklist, and three signed, photocopies, in 
one package to:
 
Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD  20892-7710
Bethesda, MD  20817 (for express/courier service)
 
At the time of submission, two additional copies of the application must be 
sent to:
 
Robert Stretch, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Scientific Review
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD  20892-7510
Telephone:  (301) 496-1485
FAX:  (301) 402-4104
Email:  [email protected]

APPLICATION PROCESSING:  Applications must be received by the application 
receipt date listed in the heading of this RFA.  If an application is 
received after that date, it will be returned to the applicant without 
review.
 
The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) will not accept any application in 
response to this RFA that is essentially the same as one currently pending 
initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending application.  The 
CSR will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one 
already reviewed. This does not preclude the submission of substantial 
revisions of applications already reviewed, but such applications must 
include an Introduction addressing the previous critique.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS  
 
Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed for completeness by the CSR and 
responsiveness by the NICHD.

Incomplete and/or non-responsive applications will be returned to the 
applicant without further consideration.

Applications that are complete and responsive to the RFA will be evaluated 
for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group 
convened by the NICHD in accordance with the review criteria stated below.  
As part of the initial merit review, all applications will:

o Receive a written critique
o Undergo a process in which only those applications deemed to have the 
highest scientific merit, generally the top half of the applications under 
review, will be discussed and assigned a priority score
o Receive a second level review by the National Advisory Child Health and 
Human Development Council.

REVIEW CRITERIA

The goals of NIH-supported research are to advance our understanding of 
biological systems, improve the control of disease, and enhance health.  In 
the written comments, reviewers will be asked to discuss the following 
aspects of your application in order to judge the likelihood that the 
proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these 
goals: 

o Significance 
o Approach 
o Innovation
o Investigator
o Environment
  
The scientific review group will address and consider each of these criteria 
in assigning your application's overall score, weighting them as appropriate 
for each application.  Your application does not need to be strong in all 
categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact and thus 
deserve a high priority score.  For example, you may propose to carry out 
important work that by its nature is not innovative but is essential to move 
a field forward.

(1) SIGNIFICANCE:  Does your study address an important problem? If the aims 
of your application are achieved, how do they advance scientific knowledge?  
What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that 
drive this field?

(2) APPROACH:  Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses 
adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the 
project?  Do you acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative 
tactics?

(3) INNOVATION:  Does your project employ novel concepts, approaches or 
methods? Are the aims original and innovative?  Does your project challenge 
existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?

(4) INVESTIGATOR:  Are you appropriately trained and well suited to carry out 
this work?  Is the work proposed appropriate to your experience level as the 
Principal Investigator and to that of other researchers (if any)?

(5) ENVIRONMENT:  Does the scientific environment in which your work will be 
done contribute to the probability of success?  Do the proposed experiments 
take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ 
useful collaborative arrangements?  Is there evidence of institutional 
support?

ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA: In addition to the above criteria, your 
application will also be reviewed with respect to the following:

o PROTECTIONS:  The adequacy of the proposed protection for humans, animals, 
or the environment, to the extent they may be adversely affected by the 
project proposed in the application.

o INCLUSION:  The adequacy of plans to include subjects from both genders, 
all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups), and children as appropriate for 
the scientific goals of the research.  Plans for the recruitment and 
retention of subjects will also be evaluated. (See Inclusion Criteria 
included in the section on Federal Citations, below.)

o DATA SHARING:  The adequacy of the proposed plan to share data. (

o BUDGET:  The reasonableness of the proposed budget and the requested period 
of support in relation to the proposed research.

RECEIPT AND REVIEW SCHEDULE

Letter of Intent Receipt Date:  February 26, 2003
Application Receipt Date:  March 26, 2003
Peer Review Date:  June-July 2003
Council Review:  September 2003
Earliest Anticipated Start Date:  October 1, 2003 or December 1, 2003

AWARD CRITERIA

Criteria that will be used to make award decisions include:

o Scientific merit (as determined by peer review)
o Availability of funds
o Programmatic priorities, including programmatic balance in funding a broad 
array of projects, geographic balance, socio-demographic balance in 
populations studied, and adherence to the goals and objectives of the RFA, 
and the specific missions of the co-funding agencies.
 
REQUIRED FEDERAL CITATIONS 

INCLUSION OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN CLINICAL RESEARCH:  It is the policy of 
the NIH that women and members of minority groups and their sub-populations 
must be included in all NIH-supported clinical research projects unless a 
clear and compelling justification is provided indicating that inclusion is 
inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of 
the research. This policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 
(Section 492B of Public Law 103-43).

All investigators proposing clinical research should read the AMENDMENT "NIH 
Guidelines for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical 
Research - Amended, October, 2001," published in the NIH Guide for Grants and 
Contracts on October 9, 2001
(http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html);
a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm.
The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical 
research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new OMB 
standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical 
trials consistent with the new PHS Form 398; and updated roles and 
responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community.  The policy 
continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a) 
all applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of 
plans to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by 
sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; 
and b) investigators must report annual accrual and progress in conducting 
analyses, as appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group 
differences.

INCLUSION OF CHILDREN AS PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS: 
The NIH maintains a policy that children (i.e., individuals under the age of 
21) must be included in all human subjects research, conducted or supported 
by the NIH, unless there are scientific and ethical reasons not to include 
them. This policy applies to all initial (Type 1) applications submitted for 
receipt dates after October 1, 1998.

All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the 
"NIH Policy and Guidelines" on the inclusion of children as participants in 
research involving human subjects that is available at 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm 

REQUIRED EDUCATION ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECT PARTICIPANTS:  NIH 
policy requires education on the protection of human subject participants for 
all investigators submitting NIH proposals for research involving human 
subjects.  You will find this policy announcement in the NIH Guide for Grants 
and Contracts Announcement, dated June 5, 2000, at 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.

PUBLIC ACCESS TO RESEARCH DATA THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT:  The 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to 
provide public access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA) under some circumstances.  Data that are (1) first produced in a 
project that is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds and (2) 
cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an action 
that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed 
through FOIA.  It is important for applicants to understand the basic scope 
of this amendment.  NIH has provided guidance at 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm.

Applicants may wish to place data collected under this RFA in a public 
archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the 
distribution for an indefinite period of time.  If so, the application should 
include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include 
information about this in the budget justification section of the 
application. In addition, applicants should think about how to structure 
informed consent statements and other human subjects procedures given the 
potential for wider use of data collected under this award.

URLs IN NIH GRANT APPLICATIONS OR APPENDICES:  All applications and proposals 
for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations. 
Unless otherwise specified in an NIH solicitation, Internet addresses (URLs) 
should not be used to provide information necessary to the review because 
reviewers are under no obligation to view the Internet sites.   Furthermore, 
we caution reviewers that their anonymity may be compromised when they 
directly access an Internet site.

HEALTHY PEOPLE 2010:  The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to 
achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy 
People 2010," a PHS-led national activity for setting priority areas. This 
RFA is related to one or more of the priority areas. Potential applicants may 
obtain a copy of "Healthy People 2010" at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.

AUTHORITY AND REGULATIONS:  This program is described in the Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance No. 93.865, 84.051B, 84.324 and 84.305P and is 
not subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 
12372 or Health Systems Agency review.  Awards are made under authorization 
of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 
241 and 284) and administered under NIH grants policies described at 
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm and under Federal Regulations 
42 CFR 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. 

The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free 
workplace and discourage the use of all tobacco products.  In addition, 
Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in 
certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which 
regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early 
childhood development services are provided to children.  This is consistent 
with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of 
the American people.

Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices

			Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health®