Reconsidering the Evidence That Systematic Phonics Is More Effective Than Alternative Methods of Reading Instruction

AbstractThere 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.

Download Full-text

Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction

10.31234/osf.io/xz4yn ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Jeffrey S Bowers

Keyword(s):

Reading Instruction ◽

Whole Language ◽

Experimental Studies ◽

Language Instruction ◽

Alternative Methods ◽

System P ◽

Alternative Approach ◽

Alternative Approaches ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Initial Reading

There is a widespread consensus in the research community that reading instruction in English should first systematically teach children letter (grapheme) to sound (phoneme) correspond-ences rather than meaning-based reading approaches such as whole language instruction. That is, initial reading instruction should emphasize systematic phonics. In this systematic review I show this conclusion is not justified. First, I review and critique experimental studies that have assessed the efficacy of systematic phonics as summarized in 12 meta-analyses and two government reports. Not only are the results and conclusions of these reports often mischar-acterized in the literature, there are serious flaws in analyses that undermine the conclusions that are drawn. Second, I review non-experimental studies have been used to support the conclusion that systematic phonics is most effective. Again, I show the conclusions are not justified. These findings should not be taken as an argument in support of whole language and related methods, but rather, highlight the need for alternative approaches to reading in-struction. Third, I consider why the scientific consensus in support of systematic phonics is so at odds with the data, and briefly outline an alternative approach to reading instruction called Structured Word Inquiry (SWI). SWI takes key insights from both systematic phonics and whole language, but goes beyond either approach by teaching children the logic of their writing system.

Download Full-text

The science of reading provides little or no support for the widespread claim that systematic phonics should be part of initial reading instruction: A response to Buckingham

10.31234/osf.io/f5qyu ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Jeffrey S Bowers ◽

Peter N Bowers

Keyword(s):

Reading Instruction ◽

Whole Language ◽

Balanced Literacy ◽

Alternative Methods ◽

Alternative Form ◽

The Past ◽

Initial Reading ◽

Made In

It is widely claimed that the science of reading supports the conclusion that systematic phonics should be part of initial reading instruction. Bowers (2020) challenged this conclusion after reviewing all the main evidence, and Buckingham (2020a) provided a detailed response where she argues that the evidence does indeed support systematic phonics and criticizes an alternative form of instruction called “Structured Word Inquiry” or (SWI). Here we show that every substantive criticism Buckingham makes is factually incorrect or reflects a fundamental mischaracterization. There is nothing in her article that challenges the conclusions that Bowers (2020) draws regarding systematic phonics, and nothing that challenges the claims we have made in the past regarding SWI. This should not be used to support whole language or balanced literacy, but it should motivate researchers to consider alternative methods that are well motivated on theoretical grounds, such as SWI.

Download Full-text

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

The Educational and Developmental Psychologist ◽

10.1017/edp.2020.12 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 37 (2) ◽

pp. 105-113 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jennifer Buckingham

Keyword(s):

Reading Instruction ◽

Essential Element ◽

Research Literature ◽

Reading Programs ◽

Alternative Methods ◽

Classroom Teachers ◽

Phonics Instruction ◽

Early Reading Acquisition ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Educational Psychology Review

AbstractThis 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.

Download Full-text

Foreign Language Attainment of Children/Adolescents with Poor Literacy Skills: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Educational Psychology Review ◽

10.1007/s10648-020-09566-6 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Alexa von Hagen ◽

Saskia Kohnen ◽

Nicole Stadie

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Foreign Language ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Past Research ◽

Individual Variability ◽

Language Instruction ◽

Literacy Skills ◽

Foreign Language Instruction ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract This systematic review investigated how successful children/adolescents with poor literacy skills learn a foreign language compared with their peers with typical literacy skills. Moreover, we explored whether specific characteristics related to participants, foreign language instruction, and assessment moderated scores on foreign language tests in this population. Overall, 16 studies with a total of 968 participants (poor reader/spellers: n = 404; control participants: n = 564) met eligibility criteria. Only studies focusing on English as a foreign language were available. Available data allowed for meta-analyses on 10 different measures of foreign language attainment. In addition to standard mean differences (SMDs), we computed natural logarithms of the ratio of coefficients of variation (CVRs) to capture individual variability between participant groups. Significant between-study heterogeneity, which could not be explained by moderator analyses, limited the interpretation of results. Although children/adolescents with poor literacy skills on average showed lower scores on foreign language phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and reading comprehension measures, their performance varied significantly more than that of control participants. Thus, it remains unclear to what extent group differences between the foreign language scores of children/adolescents with poor and typical literacy skills are representative of individual poor readers/spellers. Taken together, our results indicate that foreign language skills in children/adolescents with poor literacy skills are highly variable. We discuss the limitations of past research that can guide future steps toward a better understanding of individual differences in foreign language attainment of children/adolescents with poor literacy skills.

Download Full-text

Good Statistical Practices for Contemporary Meta-Analysis: Examples Based on a Systematic Review on COVID-19 in Pregnancy

BioMedInformatics ◽

10.3390/biomedinformatics1020005 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 64-76

Author(s):

Yuxi Zhao ◽

Lifeng Lin

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Worked Examples ◽

Alternative Methods ◽

Sufficient Information ◽

Good Practices ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

In Pregnancy

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been increasingly used to pool research findings from multiple studies in medical sciences. The reliability of the synthesized evidence depends highly on the methodological quality of a systematic review and meta-analysis. In recent years, several tools have been developed to guide the reporting and evidence appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and much statistical effort has been paid to improve their methodological quality. Nevertheless, many contemporary meta-analyses continue to employ conventional statistical methods, which may be suboptimal compared with several alternative methods available in the evidence synthesis literature. Based on a recent systematic review on COVID-19 in pregnancy, this article provides an overview of select good practices for performing meta-analyses from statistical perspectives. Specifically, we suggest meta-analysts (1) providing sufficient information of included studies, (2) providing information for reproducibility of meta-analyses, (3) using appropriate terminologies, (4) double-checking presented results, (5) considering alternative estimators of between-study variance, (6) considering alternative confidence intervals, (7) reporting prediction intervals, (8) assessing small-study effects whenever possible, and (9) considering one-stage methods. We use worked examples to illustrate these good practices. Relevant statistical code is also provided. The conventional and alternative methods could produce noticeably different point and interval estimates in some meta-analyses and thus affect their conclusions. In such cases, researchers should interpret the results from conventional methods with great caution and consider using alternative methods.

Download Full-text

Foreign language attainment of children/adolescents with poor literacy skills: A systematic review and meta-analysis

10.31219/osf.io/w2tr7 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Alexa von Hagen ◽

Saskia Kohnen ◽

Nicole Stadie

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Foreign Language ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Past Research ◽

Individual Variability ◽

Language Instruction ◽

Literacy Skills ◽

Foreign Language Instruction ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Meta Analyses

This systematic review investigated how successful children/adolescents with poor literacy skills learn a foreign language compared to their peers with typical literacy skills. Moreover, we explored whether specific characteristics related to participants, foreign language instruction and assessment moderated scores on foreign language tests in this population. Overall, 16 studies with a total of 968 participants (poor reader/spellers: n = 404; control participants: n = 564) met eligibility criteria. Only studies focusing on English as a foreign language were available. Available data allowed for meta-analyses on 10 different measures of foreign language attainment. In addition to standard mean differences (SMDs), we computed natural logarithms of the ratio of coefficients of variation (CVRs) to capture individual variability between participant groups. Significant between-study heterogeneity, which could not be explained by moderator analyses, limited the interpretation of results. Although children/adolescents with poor literacy skills on average showed lower scores on foreign language phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and reading comprehension measures, their performance varied significantly more than that of control participants. Thus, it remains unclear to what extent group differences between the foreign language scores of children/adolescents with poor and typical literacy skills are representative of individual poor readers/spellers. Taken together, our results indicate that foreign language skills in children/adolescents with poor literacy skills are highly variable. We discuss limitations of past research that can guide future steps towards a better understanding of individual differences in foreign language attainment of children/adolescents with poor literacy skills.

Download Full-text

Corrective Feedback in Whole Language Teaching: Implications for Children with Learning Problems

Australasian Journal of Special Education ◽

10.1017/s1030011200023976 ◽

1992 ◽

Vol 16 (2) ◽

pp. 22-31 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Barry A. Fields ◽

Ann Kempe

Keyword(s):

Reading Instruction ◽

Oral Reading ◽

Whole Language ◽

Corrective Feedback ◽

Essential Element ◽

Language Instruction ◽

Language Teachers ◽

Learning Problems ◽

Teaching Learning ◽

Reading Miscues

Corrective feedback has long been regarded as an essential element in the teaching-learning process. There is, however, little agreement among educators as to what constitutes appropriate feedback. In reading instruction, views on error correction differ in relation to the perspective on reading adopted.In this study, the corrective feedback of whole language teachers was examined. The responses of teachers to a set of oral reading miscues were compared to recommended practices for whole language practitioners and to ideal feedback behaviour based on a review of the literature on effective teaching. This information was then used as a basis for examining both the strengths and limitations of whole language instruction for children who experience difficulty in learning to read.

Download Full-text

Psychological and Cognitive Aspects of Borderline Intellectual Functioning

European Psychologist ◽

10.1027/1016-9040/a000293 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (3) ◽

pp. 159-166 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Bastianina Contena ◽

Stefano Taddei

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Intellectual Functioning ◽

Clinical Impact ◽

Review Of The Literature ◽

Borderline Intellectual Functioning ◽

General Quality ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Over Time

Abstract. Borderline Intellectual Functioning (BIF) refers to a global IQ ranging from 71 to 84, and it represents a condition of clinical attention for its association with other disorders and its influence on the outcomes of treatments and, in general, quality of life and adaptation. Furthermore, its definition has changed over time causing a relevant clinical impact. For this reason, a systematic review of the literature on this topic can promote an understanding of what has been studied, and can differentiate what is currently attributable to BIF from that which cannot be associated with this kind of intellectual functioning. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria, we have conducted a review of the literature about BIF. The results suggest that this condition is still associated with mental retardation, and only a few studies have focused specifically on this condition.

Download Full-text