How best can children be enabled to learn
to read and write? This review investigated how effective
different approaches to the initial teaching of reading
and spelling are in comparison to each other. The Department
for Education and Skills (DfES) commissioned the Universities
of York and Sheffield to conduct a systematic review of
experimental research on the use of phonics instruction
in the teaching of reading and spelling. This review is
based on evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
The effect of phonics on reading:
. Systematic phonics instruction within a broad literacy
curriculum was found to have a statistically significant
positive effect on reading accuracy.
. There was no statistically significant difference between
the effectiveness of systematic phonics instruction for
reading accuracy for normally-developing children and for
children at risk of reading failure.
. The weight of evidence for both these findings was moderate
(there were 12 randomised controlled trials included in
the analysis).
. Both of these findings provided some support for those
of a systematic review published in the United States in
2001 (Ehri et al., 2001).
. An analysis of the effect of systematic phonics instruction
on reading comprehension was based on weak weight of evidence
(only four randomised controlled trials were found) and
failed to find the statistically significant positive difference
which was found in the previous review.
The effect of synthetic and analytic phonics:
. The weight of evidence on this question was weak (only
three randomized controlled trials were found). No statistically
significant difference in effectiveness was found between
synthetic phonics instruction and analytic phonics instruction.
The effect of phonics on spelling:
. The weight of evidence on this question was weak (only
three randomized controlled trials were found). No effect
of systematic phonics instruction on spelling was found.
The review concluded that systematic phonics
instruction within a broad literacy curriculum appears to
have a greater effect on children's progress in reading
than whole language or whole word approaches. The effect
size is moderate but still important. However, there is
still uncertainty in the RCT evidence as to which phonics
approach (synthetic or analytic) is most effective. It also
outlines several recommendations for teaching, teacher training
and research.
Torgerson, C., Brooks, G. & Hall, J. (2006).
A systematic review of the research literature on the use
of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling. Research
Report 711. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Download the research brief from: www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RB711.pdf
Download the full report from: www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR711_.pdf
On 30 November 2004 the Minister for Education,
Science and Training, the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson MP, announced
details about the Australian Government National Inquiry
into the Teaching of Literacy. The Inquiry was a broad,
independent examination of reading research, teacher preparation
and practices for the teaching of literacy, particularly
reading. Below are some of the Inquiry's main findings.
The Inquiry found strong evidence that a whole-language
approach to the teaching of reading on its own is not in
the best interests of children, particularly those experiencing
reading difficulties. Moreover, where there is unsystematic
or no phonics instruction, and children's literacy progress
is significantly impeded, inhibiting their initial and subsequent
growth in reading accuracy, fluency, writing, spelling and
comprehension.
The Committee came to the view that since
the effective teaching of reading is a highly developed
professional skill, teachers must be adequately prepared
both in their pre-service education and during subsequent
years of practice, if children are to achieve at levels
consistent with their potential. The quality of teaching
provided is fundamental to children's success in reading,
and several of the recommendations are directed to this
end. Indeed, this report places a major emphasis on teacher
quality, and on building capacity in teachers towards quality,
evidence-based teaching practices that are demonstrably
effective in meeting the developmental and learning needs
of all students.
In addition, the Inquiry Committee came to
a view that the assessment of all children by their teachers
at school entry and regularly during the early years of
schooling is of critical importance to the teaching of reading,
and in particular, to identify children who are at risk
of not making adequate progress. The early identification
of children experiencing reading difficulties means that
interventions to provide support for these children can
be put in place early. This early assessment should be a
key element of responsible system and school literacy planning
and monitoring. In addition, the reading growth of individual
children should be closely monitored by ongoing assessment
to inform parents, as well as provide feedback information
that can be used to guide teaching and learning. Information
gathered from these formative assessments may then be used
to shape improvements and to adjust teaching strategies
that meet individual students' learning needs.
The Committee also notes the fundamental importance
of literacy in schooling and the recommendations it proposes
are designed to make effective evidence-based practices
accessible to all teachers and so influence positively all
children in Australian schools. Health professionals draw
attention to the overlap that is often evident between students'
under-achievement in literacy (especially in reading) and
their poor behavioural health and wellbeing. Dealing with
reading problems early, as outlined in this report, should
assist in the alleviation of this seemingly intractable
problem.
Finally, the Committee recognised the importance
of the years before school in giving children the best start
to their literacy development. While it is the responsibility
of schools to teach children to read and write, there are
many things that parents and carers can do to assist in
the development of their children's literacy skills, such
as regular child-adult reading aloud activities.
National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy
(2005). Teaching Reading. Australian Government: Department
of Education, Science and Training.
Download the full report from: www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/report_recommendations.pdf
This review of the research literature on
teaching practices for students, with and without reading
difficulties, relies largely, though not exclusively, on
well-designed meta-analytic syntheses that: (a) partial
out methodological artefacts from the effect sizes; and
(b) base their analyses on the actual procedures and components
of instruction used in the studies reviewed.
Following a brief outline of the background
and purposes related to the National Inquiry into the Teaching
of Literacy, attention is given to the prevailing contexts
of: the importance of literacy in schooling; the overlap
between students' under-achievement in literacy (especially
in reading) and their poor behavioural health and wellbeing;
the complexities entailed in literacy teaching and learning;
and contemporary understandings of effective teaching practice.
Despite a lack of supporting evidence for its effectiveness,
the prevailing educational philosophy of constructivism
(as a theory of knowing) has had marked influences on pre-service
teacher education, and subsequent professional practice,
by shaping teachers' interpretations of how they should
teach. However, there is a strong body of evidence that
constructivist approaches to teaching, including whole-language,
are not in the best interests of students with learning
diffi culties and especially for those with reading difficulties.
For beginning reading during the early years
of schooling, findings from metaanalytic syntheses of a
large volume of local and international evidence-based research
consistently indicate that direct, systematic instruction
in phonics makes signifi cantly greater contributions to
children's initial and subsequent growth in reading, writing,
spelling and comprehension, than do alternative approaches
involving unsystematic or no phonics instruction. Indeed,
the evidence reviewed indicates that all students are provided
with the best opportunities for success when teachers integrate
the following skills via explicit instruction in: phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary knowledge and comprehension.
Emphasis is given to: (a) the need for evidence-based pre-service
teacher education and in-service professional development
related to reading/literacy instruction; and (b) the need
to provide teachers with training in the use of appropriate
diagnostic and developmental assessment tools.
The review concludes by highlighting substantive
issues related to the vital point that pedagogical practices
and instructional strategies per se are not independent
of the teachers who deliver them to students, whether or
not those students experience reading difficulties. Thus,
there is need for a major focus on teacher quality, and
building capacity in teachers towards quality, evidence-based
teaching practices that are demonstrably effective in maximising
the developmental and learning needs of all students.
National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy
(2005). Teaching Reading - A review of the evidence-based
research literature on approaches to the teaching of literacy,
particularly those that are effective in assisting students
with reading difficulties. Australian Government: Department
of Education, Science and Training.
Download the full literature review from: www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/literature_review.pdf
This report outlines the effectiveness of a synthetic
phonics programme in teaching and reading, which was trialled in primary
schools in Clackmannanshire/Scotland in 1998. Around 300 children in
primary 1 were divided into three groups: the first group learnt by
the synthetic phonics method, the second by the standard analytic method,
and the third by an analytic phonics programme that also included systematic
phonemic awareness teaching without reference to print.
Children taught by synthetic phonics were reading and
spelling 7 months ahead of chronological age. When compared to the other
teaching methods, the synthetic phonics group read around 7 months ahead
of the other two groups, and were almost 9 months ahead in spelling.
The other two groups were then also taught the synthetic phonics method,
completing the programme by the end of primary 1. Of interest is also
the finding that boys performed equally well at the end of primary 2
in word reading regardless of the method with which they had started
primary 1, whilst girls read less well if they had started started one
of the other two programmes.
Synthetic phonics not only has an immediate impact on
word reading and spelling, its effects are also sustained over time.
At the end of primary 7, word reading was 3 years 6 months ahead of
chronological age, spelling was 1 year and 8 months ahead, and reading
comprehension was 3.5 months ahead. At the end of primary 7 boys' word
reading was significantly ahead of that of the girls (it had been since
primary 3). Boys were also ahead of girls in spelling and reading comprehension
(although insignificantly so).
Overall, the authors conclude that the synthetic programme,
as part of the reading curriculum, is more effective than the analytic
phonic approach, especially if synthetic phonics is taught at the beginning
of primary 1.
Johnston, R. & Watson, J. (2005). The effects of synthetic
phonics teaching on reading and spelling attainment. Edinburgh: Scottish
Executive Education Department.
Download the full report (pdf) from www.scotland.gov.uk
Report to the Department for Education and Skills by Professor Greg
Brooks, University of Sheffield, July 2003
Early in 2003, the DfES conducted a consultation asking, "To
what extent, and in what ways, does the phonics element of the NLS
need modifying?" Here Professor Brooks reports the origins and
stages of the process, as well as his analysis of the issues and recommendations.
While Professor Brooks' concludes that a major redirection of the
phonics element of the NLS is neither necessary nor appropriate, he
does state that a number of revisions and some focused research are
needed. To guide those revisions and research he makes a number of
recommendations. These include carrying out a systematic review on
the relative effectiveness of analytic and synthetic phonics, and
convening a focused debate between experts on how much phonics needs
to be taught and the need to differentiate phonics for reading and
phonics for spelling. Professor Brooks also recommends that the National
Literacy Strategy focus on teaching sight recognition only for those
words that are phonetically irregular.
To download the report, along with other papers presented as part
of the consultation, visit www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/new/published/phonics/
The National Reading Panel (US) reviewed the evidence
of experimental studies on the effectiveness of several forms of instruction
to help students learn to read. In this paper, presented at the DfES
phonics seminar in March 2003, Ehri reviewed the evidence on systematic
phonics instruction. In this meta-analysis, the effectiveness of systematic
phonics instruction was compared to various types of non-phonics or
unsystematic phonics instruction given to control groups (only studies
involving control groups were included in this analysis)
Exploring whether systematic phonics instruction produced
higher reading scores than non-phonics instruction, this paper shows
that systematic phonics helped children learn to read more effectively
than programmes with little or no phonics instruction. Indeed, phonics
instruction facilitated reading acquisition in both younger and older
readers. However, the impact of phonics instruction was significantly
greater when phonics was used in the first years of schooling than in
later years after children had made some progress with another method.
Ehri, L.C. (2003). Systematic phonics instruction: Findings
of the National Reading Panel. London: DfES
Download the paper from www.standards.dfes.gov.uk
This paper, presented at the DfES seminar on phonics in
March 2003, begins by reviewing the research into teaching phonics and
the most effective ways of teaching literacy and identifies a number
of issues that need to be addressed when translating research outcomes
into classroom practice. It then outlines Early Reading Research (ERR),
which has evaluated a framework for teaching reading, writing and spelling
through a series of large-scale classroom-based experimental studies.
This framework is unique in combining phonics teaching with the use
of 'real books', which are typically seen as alternative rather than
complementary approaches to teaching reading. The paper then highlights
the implications of the ERR for teaching phonics and argues that if
the Government wants to increase literacy attainments in key stage 1
and 2, fundamental changes are required, not only to the contexts, content
and methodologies through which phonics is taught, but also more fundamentally,
to how children are taught to read, write and spell.
Solity, J. (2003). Teaching phonics in context: A critique
of the National Literacy Strategy. London: DfES.
Download the paper from www.standards.dfes.gov.uk
80px.gif)
