Running head: SYSTEMATIC PHONICS 1 Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction Jeffrey S. Bowers University of Bristol Author Note: Jeffrey S. Bowers, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol. I would like to thank Patricia Bowers, Peter Bowers, Danielle Colenbrander, Rebecca Marsh, Kathy Rastle, Robert Ross, and Gail Venable for comments on previous drafts and Abla Hatherell for help on compiling the data for Figures 2-3. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeffrey S Bowers, School of Experimental Psychology, 12a Priory Road, Bristol, BS8-1TU. Email j.bow- [email protected] Personal website: https://jeffbowers.blogs.ilrt.org/research/ SYSTEMATIC PHONICS 2 Abstract There is a widespread consensus in the research community that reading instruction in Eng- lish should first systematically teach children letter (grapheme) to sound (phoneme) corre- spondences rather than meaning-based reading approaches such as whole language instruc- tion. That is, initial reading instruction should emphasize systematic phonics. In this system- atic 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-anal- yses and two government reports. Not only are the results and conclusions of these reports often mischaracterized 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 conclu- sions 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 instruction. 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 in- struction called Structured Word Inquiry (SWI). SWI takes key insights from both system- atic phonics and whole language, but goes beyond either approach by teaching children the logic of their writing system. SYSTEMATIC PHONICS 3 Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction There is a widespread consensus in the research community that early reading instruc- tion in English should emphasize systematic phonics. That is, initial reading instruction should explicitly and systematically teach letter (grapheme) to sound (phoneme) correspond- ences before focusing on the meaning of written words in isolation and in text. This contrasts with the main alternative method called whole language in which children are encouraged to focus on the meanings of words embedded in meaningful text, and where letter-sound corre- spondences are only taught incidentally when needed (Moats, 2000). Within the psychologi- cal research community, the “Reading Wars” (Pearson, 2004) that pitted whole language and phonics is largely settled – systematic phonics is claimed to be more effective. Indeed, it is widely claimed that systematic phonics is better than all alternative methods of reading in- struction. The evidence for this conclusion comes from various sources, including government panels that assessed the effectiveness of different approaches to reading instruction in English (e.g., the US National Reading Panel, 2000; a review commissioned by the English govern- ment, Rose, 2006), multiple systematic reviews of experimental research, as well as non-ex- perimental studies that have tracked progress of students in England since the requirement to teach systematic phonics in state schools. The results are claimed to be clear-cut. For exam- ple, in his review for the English government, Sir Jim Rose writes: Having considered a wide range of evidence, the review has concluded that the case for systematic phonic work is overwhelming …” (Rose, 2006, p. 20). Many of the most prominent researchers reach similarly strong conclusions. In his re- cent book on reading entitled “Reading at the Speed of Sight: How We Read, Why So Many Can’t, and What Can Be Done About It”, Mark Seidenberg (2017) writes: The phonological pathway requires knowing how print relates to sound, the focus on “phonics” instruction… For reading scientists the evidence that the phonological pathway is used in reading and especially important in beginning reading is about as close to conclusive as research on complex human behavior can get. (p. 124) Similarly, in his book entitled “Raising Kids Who Read: What Parents and Teachers Can Do”, Daniel Willingham (2017) writes: … there are few topics in educational psychology that have been more thor- oughly studied, and for which the data are clearer… it’s clear that virtually all kids benefit from explicit instruction in the [letter-sound] code, and that such instruction is crucial for children who come to school with weak oral language skills. The cognitive neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene, author of the best-selling book “Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read”, writes: SYSTEMATIC PHONICS 4 It should be clear that I am advocating here a strong ‘phonics’ approach to teaching, and against a whole-word or whole-language approach… theoreti- cal and laboratory-based arguments converge with school-based studies that prove the inferiority of the whole-word approach in bringing about fast im- provements in reading acquisition. (Dehaene, 2011, p. 26). Countless quotes to this effect could have been included. Importantly, this strong consensus has resulted in important policy changes in Eng- land and US. Based on the Rose (2006) review, systematic phonics became a legal require- ment in state-funded primary schools in England since 2007, and in to ensure compliance, all children (ages 5-6) complete a national “phonics screen” since 2012 that measures how well they can sound out a set of words and meaningless pseudowords. Similarly, based on the rec- ommendations of the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000), systematic phonics instruction was included in the Common Core State Standards Initiative in the US (http:// www.corestandards.org/). The Thomas Fordham Foundation concluded that the NRP docu- ment is the third most influential policy work in US education history (Swanson & Barlage, 2006). Nevertheless, despite this strong consensus, I will show that there is no evidence that systematic phonics is better than the main alternative method used in schools, namely, whole language and balanced literacy. Importantly, this should not be taken as an argument in sup- port of these alternative methods, but rather, it should be taken as evidence that all the current methods used in schools are far from idea. Once this is understood, my hope is that research- ers and politicians will be more motivated to consider alternative methods. Structure of Paper The remainder of the paper is organized in four main sections. First, I review the most common methods of reading instruction. There are some points of overlap between the alternative methods, but a commitment to systematic phonics entails some specific claims about what constitutes effective early reading instruction. Second, I explore the experimental evidence taken to support of systematic phonics. The majority of this section is devoted to a detailed review of the existing meta-analyses that assess the efficacy of systematic phonics under a range of conditions, including for beginning readers and children with reading diffi- culties. The conclusion from this review is simple: There is no evidence that systematic phon- ics is better than the most common alternative methods used in schools. I finish this section by briefly consider findings from educational neuroscience taken to support systematic phon- ics, and again, show the conclusions are unjustified. Third, I review non-experimental re- search that has assessed the impact of requiring systematic phonics in all English state schools since 2007. Again, the findings provide no evidence that systematic phonics has im- proved reading. Fourth, I briefly outline one reason why so many researchers have endorsed an unjustified conclusion, and outline an alternative approach that is consistent with the cur- rent experimental and non-experimental research. What is Systematic Phonics and What are the Main Alternatives? All forms of reading instruction are motivated by one or more of the following facts: (1) written words have pronunciations, (2) written words have a meaning, (3) words are com- SYSTEMATIC PHONICS 5 posed of parts, including letters and morphemes (4) written words tend to occur in meaning- ful text, and (5) the ultimate goal of reading is to extract meaning from text. Different forms of instruction emphasize some of these points and down-play or ignore others, but there is nevertheless some overlap between different methods, and this complicates the task of com- paring methods. For example, whole language instruction focuses on understanding words in the context of text, but it also includes some degree of phonics (e.g., Moats, 2000), and this has implications for how the meta-analyses described below can be interpreted. A further complication is that it is widely claimed that systematic phonics should be embedded in a broader literacy curriculum. For instance, the NRP (2000) emphasizes that systematic phon- ics should