Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:00:36.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematic phonics instruction belongs in evidence-based reading programs: A response to Bowers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2020

Jennifer Buckingham
Jennifer Buckingham*
Affiliation:
MultiLit Pty Ltd, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Jennifer Buckingham, Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article is a rejoinder to J.S. Bowers (2020), ‘Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction’, Educational Psychology Review (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y). There is strong agreement among reading scientists that learning the phonological connections between speech and print is an essential element of early reading acquisition. Meta-analyses of reading research have consistently found that methods of reading instruction that include systematic phonics instruction are more effective than methods that do not. This article critiques a recent article by Jeffery S. Bowers that attempts to challenge the robustness of the research on systematic phonics instruction. On this basis, Bowers proposes that teachers and researchers consider using alternative methods. This article finds that even with a revisionist and conservative analysis of the research literature, the strongest available evidence shows systematic phonics instruction to be more effective than any existing alternative. While it is fair to argue that researchers should investigate new practices, it is irresponsible to suggest that classroom teachers use anything other than methods based on the best evidence to date, and that evidence favours systematic phonics.

Keywords

systematic phonicsreading instructionphonics screening check
Type
Articles
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , December 2020 , pp. 105 - 113
Copyright
© Australian Psychological Society Ltd, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adesope, O.O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2011). Pedagogical strategies for teaching literacy to ESL immigrant students: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 629–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakker, A., Cai, J., English, L., Kaiser, G., Mesa, V., & Van Dooren, W. (2019). Beyond small, medium, or large: Points of consideration when interpreting effect sizes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 102, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, J.S. (2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, S., & Bowers, P. (2008). Understanding SWI: ‘Structured word inquiry’ or ‘scientific word investigation’. http://www.wordworkskingston.com/WordWorks/Structured_Word_Inquiry.html Google Scholar
Bowers, J.S., & Bowers, P.N. (2017). Beyond phonics: The case for teaching children the logic of the English spelling system. Educational Psychologist, 52, 124–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, J.S., & Bowers, A.N. (2018). Progress in reading instruction requires a better understanding of the English spelling system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418773749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, P.N., & Kirby, J.R. (2010). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 515–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, G. (2015). Dictionary of the British English Spelling System. Open Book Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckingham, J. (2016). Focus on phonics: Why Australia should adopt the Year 1 Phonics Screening Check [Research Report 22]. Centre for Independent Studies.Google Scholar
Camilli, G., Vargan, S., & Yurecko, M. (2003). Teaching children to read: The fragile link between science and federal education policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camilli, G., Wolfe, M., & Smith, M.L. (2006). Meta-analysis and reading policy: Perspectives on teaching children to read. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 27–36.10.1086/509525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5–51.10.1177/1529100618772271CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, C.A., & Bowey, J.A. (2005). The efficacy of orthographic rime, grapheme–phoneme correspondence, and implicit phonics approaches to teaching decoding skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 327–349.10.1207/s1532799xssr0904_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colenbrander, D., Parsons, L., Murphy, S., Hon, Q., Bowers, J., & Davis, C. (2018). Morphological intervention for children with reading and spelling difficulties. https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Davis204217920-20Colenbrander20SSSR202018.pdf Google Scholar
Department for Education. (2011). A third of children reach expected level in pilot of the phonics check. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a-third-of-children-reach-expected-level-in-pilot-of-phonics-check Google Scholar
Devonshire, V., & Fluck, M. (2010). Spelling development: Fine-tuning strategy use and capitalising on the connections between words. Learning and Instruction, 20, 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devonshire, V., Morris, P., & Fluck, M. (2013). Spelling and reading development: The effect of teaching children multiple levels of representation in their orthography. Learning and Instruction, 25, 85–94.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Double, K.S., McGrane, J.A., Stiff, J.C., & Hopfenbeck, T. (2019). The importance of early phonics improvements for predicting later reading comprehension. British Educational Research Journal, 45, 1220–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehri, L. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning, Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Stahl, S.A., & Willows, D.M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galuschka, K., Ise, E., Krick, K., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2014). Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One, 9, e89900.10.1371/journal.pone.0089900CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia, J.G., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which readers and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84, 74–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, P.B., & Tunmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammill, D.D., & Swanson, H.L. (2006). The National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis of phonics instruction: Another point of view. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, I. (2010). Evidence-based reading instruction for English language learners in preschool through sixth grades: A meta-analysis of group design studies [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Minnesota. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/54192 Google Scholar
Hatcher, P.J., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M.J. (2004). Explicit phoneme training combined with phonic reading instruction helps young children at risk of reading failure. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 338–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hilton, M. (2006). Measuring standards in primary English: Issues of validity and accountability with respect to PIRLS and National Curriculum test scores. British Educational Research Journal, 32, 817–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjetland, H.N., Lervåg, A., Lyster, S.-A.H., Hagtvet, B.E., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2019). Pathways to reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from 4 to 9 years of age. Journal of Educational Psychology. 11, 751–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R., McGeown, S., & Watson, J. (2011). Long-term effects of synthetic versus analytic phonics teaching on the reading and spelling ability of 10 year old boys and girls. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1365–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, B. (2019). Overcoming the odds: A study of Australia’s top performing disadvantaged schools [Research Report 39]. The Centre for Independent Studies.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, D., & O’Brien, S. (2019). Effective prevention and intervention for word-level reading difficulties. In Kilpatrick, D., Joshi, R.M. & Wagner, R.K. (Eds.), Reading development and difficulties: Bridging the gap between research and practice (pp. 179–210). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, B., & Lysynchuk, L. (1997). Beginning word recognition: Benefits of training by segmentation and whole word methods. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 359–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, B., Bourassa, D., & Horn, C. (1999). Fast and slow namers: Benefits of segmentation and whole word training. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73, 115–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Louden, B. (2015). High performing schools: What do they have in common? Western Australia Department of Education.Google Scholar
Machin, S., McNally, S., & Viarengo, M. (2018). Changing how literacy is taught: Evidence on synthetic phonics. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 10, 217–241.Google Scholar
McArthur, G., Eve, P.M., Jones, K., Banales, E., Kohnen, S., Anandakumar, T., … Castles, A. (2012). Phonics training for English speaking poor readers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009115.pub2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McArthur, G., Sheehan, Y., Badcock, N.A., Francis, D.A., Wang, H.C., Kohnen, S., … Castles, A. (2018). Phonics training for English-speaking poor readers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009115.pub3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrane, J., Stiff, J., Baird, J., Lenkiet, J., & Hopfenbeck, T. (2017). Progress in International Reading Literacy Study: National report for England. UK Department for Education. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/664562/PIRLS_2016_National_Report_for_England-_BRANDED.pdf Google Scholar
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Goh, S., & Prendergast, C. (Eds.). (2017). PIRLS 2016 encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in Reading. Northern Ireland. http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/encyclopedia/countries/northern-ireland/languagereading-curriculum-in-the-fourth-grade/ Google Scholar
Nation, K., & Hulme, C. (1997). Phonemic segmentation, not onset-rime segmentation, predicts early reading and spelling skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 154–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Google Scholar
Northern Ireland Department of Education. (2011). Count, Read, Succeed. A strategy to improve outcomes in literacy and numeracy. https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/de/count-read-succeed-a-strategy-to-improve-outcomes-in-literacy-and-numeracy.pdf Google Scholar
UK Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED). (2010). Reading by six: How the best schools do it. UK Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills.Google Scholar
Rastle, K. (2019). The place of morphology in learning to read in English. Cortex, 116, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Sherman, K.H. (2007). A meta-analysis of interventions for phonemic awareness and phonics instruction for delayed older readers (Publication No. 3285626) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.Google Scholar
Suggate, S.P. (2010). Why what we teach depends on when: Grade and reading intervention modality moderate effect size. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1556–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suggate, S.P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 77–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanovich, K.E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Torgerson, C.J., Brooks, G., & Hall, J. (2006). A systematic review of the research literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling [DfES Research Report 711]. Department for Education and Skills, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Torgerson, C., Brooks, G., Gascoine, L., & Higgins, S. (2018). Phonics: Reading policy and the evidence of effectiveness from a systematic ‘tertiary’ review. Research Papers in Education, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1420816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vousden, J.I., Ellefson, M.R., Solity, J., & Chater, N. (2011). Simplifying reading: Applying the simplicity principle to reading. Cognitive Science, 35, 34–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, M., Sainsbury, M., Worth, J., Bamforth, H., & Betts, H. (2015). Phonics screening check evaluation: Final report. National Foundation for Educational Research, UK Department for Education. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/YOPC03/YOPC03.pdf Google Scholar