No abstract

Phonics continues to be one of the most controversial literacy instruction topics debated in the USA, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Given the importance placed on phonics in early literacy learning and the role that teacher beliefs play in the types of code-related literacy children encounter, the purpose of this two phase mixed-methods study was to investigate the relationship between teachers’ reported play–literacy beliefs, their phonics practices and the reasons behind their decisions not to use commercial phonics programmes in the prior-to-school years. This mixed-methods study found there was a correlation related to teachers’ play-based, child-centred literacy beliefs, their reported holistic early literacy phonics practices and their decisions not to use commercial phonics programmes. Logistic regression analysis revealed a positive and significant relationship between early childhood teachers who stated that they would never consider using a commercial phonics programme and their reported belief that children learn letters and sounds incidentally. Thematic analysis of interview data found that the teachers interpreted phonics instruction as a method occurring as an isolated skill–drill activity and subsequently held strong views against heavily scripted commercial phonics programmes. The interview data also revealed a range of play-based and holistic phonics examples embedded through everyday classroom experiences over explicit systematic instruction reported. Early childhood teachers’ knowledge, experience and reported beliefs, together with a high level of confidence in addressing parental pressure to engage in formalised phonics lessons, were reasons behind their reported practices. This study has important implications for understanding the different types of phonics methods children encounter, teacher concerns over loss of play-based literacy learning and the continuing controversy between adult-directed phonics and child-initiated, play-literacy practices.

Commercial phonics programmes (e.g. Jolly Phonics and Letterland) are becoming widely used in the early years of school. These programmes claim to use a systematic explicit approach, considered as the preferred method of phonics instruction for teaching alphabetic code-breaking skills in Australia and the UK in the first years of school (Department of Education, Science and Training, 2005; Rose, 2006). However, little is known about the extent to which they are being used in prior-to-school settings, and the reasons behind decisions to use them. This study surveyed 283 early childhood staff in Sydney, Australia and found that commercial phonics programmes were being used in 36% of the early childhood settings surveyed. Staff with early childhood university qualifications and staff working in not-for-profit service types were less likely to use a commercial phonics programme than staff without university qualifications and staff working in for-profit services. Staff with less than 10 years' experience were also more likely to use a commercial phonics programme. The rationale behind decisions determining whether or not staff used the programmes ranged from pragmatic reasons, such as parent pressure or higher management decisions, to pedagogical reasons, such as teacher beliefs about how children learn to read and write. The practices staff engage in to teach phonics are explored.

Language-rich environments are key to overall quality in early childhood settings, including frequent child-staff interactions around picture books and dramatic play. In a language-rich environment, explicit teaching of literacy concepts, such as phonics, is embedded in authentic and meaningful situations where alphabet letters and sounds are taught in a context meaningful to the child. Recent research, however, suggests that the use of commercial pre-packaged phonics programs (such as Letterland and Jolly Phonics) is widespread in prior to school settings in Sydney, Australia. Little is known about why early childhood teachers choose to use such programs with children aged five and under. In the present study, thematic analysis of data from interviews with five early childhood teachers using commercial phonics programs found that their reasons were pragmatic rather than pedagogical. Motivations included the idea that the programs reduced their workload, provided tangible evidence to parents of their child's 'school readiness', and served as a marketing tool to attract parents. Further analysis found that the teachers were unable to articulate what phonics and phonological awareness are and how they are learnt in early childhood.

No abstract