Reconsidering the Evidence That Systematic Phonics Is More Effective than Alternative Methods of Reading Instruction
Saved in:
| Title: | Reconsidering the Evidence That Systematic Phonics Is More Effective than Alternative Methods of Reading Instruction |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Bowers, Jeffrey S. (ORCID |
| Source: | Educational Psychology Review. Sep 2020 32(3):681-705. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 25 |
| Publication Date: | 2020 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Information Analyses |
| Descriptors: | Reading Instruction, Meta Analysis, Phoneme Grapheme Correspondence, Foreign Countries, Phonics, Whole Language Approach, English, State Schools, Instructional Effectiveness, Teaching Methods |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom (England) |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y |
| ISSN: | 1040-726X |
| Abstract: | There is a widespread consensus in the research community that reading instruction in English should first focus on teaching letter (grapheme) to sound (phoneme) correspondences rather than adopt meaning-based reading approaches such as whole language instruction. That is, initial reading instruction should emphasize systematic phonics. In this systematic review, I show that this conclusion is not justified based on (a) an exhaustive review of 12 meta-analyses that have assessed the efficacy of systematic phonics and (b) summarizing the outcomes of teaching systematic phonics in all state schools in England since 2007. The failure to obtain evidence in support of systematic phonics should not be taken as an argument in support of whole language and related methods, but rather, it highlights the need to explore alternative approaches to reading instruction. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2020 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1263190 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | There is a widespread consensus in the research community that reading instruction in English should first focus on teaching letter (grapheme) to sound (phoneme) correspondences rather than adopt meaning-based reading approaches such as whole language instruction. That is, initial reading instruction should emphasize systematic phonics. In this systematic review, I show that this conclusion is not justified based on (a) an exhaustive review of 12 meta-analyses that have assessed the efficacy of systematic phonics and (b) summarizing the outcomes of teaching systematic phonics in all state schools in England since 2007. The failure to obtain evidence in support of systematic phonics should not be taken as an argument in support of whole language and related methods, but rather, it highlights the need to explore alternative approaches to reading instruction. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1040-726X |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y |
