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

Bowers, Jeffrey S.

doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y

Cited by 63 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Particular concerns relate to the assertion that there is a consensus across the research community about the primacy of systematic phonics approaches. This supposedly undisputed consensus was severely challenged by the findings of a review of meta‐analyses (Bowers, 2020).…”

Section: The Svr and Structured Literacymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Confluence of Complexity: Intersections Among Reading Theory, Neuroscience, and Observations of Young Readers

Compton‐Lilly¹,

Mitra²,

Guay³

et al. 2020

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this position article, the authors explore a confluence of evidence that supports the understanding that multiple factors, various processes, and multiple sources of information inform reading. The authors open by briefly describing concerns related to how some scholars and media reporters have characterized the simple view of reading and narrowly applied that model to teaching young readers. The authors then explore a confluence of complexity across (a) theoretical models of reading based on empirical research, (b) emerging information related to the brain and reading, and (c) research findings based on close observations of young learners. Finally, the authors argue that reductive and singular models of reading fail to not only honor the individuality of young readers but also to recognize the systemic changes needed in schools and communities to equitably serve all students.

show abstract

Section: The Svr and Structured Literacymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Confluence of Complexity: Intersections Among Reading Theory, Neuroscience, and Observations of Young Readers

Compton‐Lilly¹,

Mitra²,

Guay³

et al. 2020

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For a more detailed discussion and debate on this issue, see refs. [27,[47][48][49] Similarly, multiple redundant grandmother cells are consistent with grandmother cell theory, [26,27,46] and indeed, redundant localist codes can emerge in artificial neural network models after training, [50] making the model more robust to the removal of a single unit.…”

Section: The Theoretical Confusion That Leads To the Premature Rejectmentioning

confidence: 84%

Researchers Keep Rejecting Grandmother Cells after Running the Wrong Experiments: The Issue Is How Familiar Stimuli Are Identified

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is widespread agreement in neuroscience and psychology that the visual system identifies objects and faces based on a pattern of activation over many neurons, each neuron being involved in representing many different categories. The hypothesis that the visual system includes finely tuned neurons for specific objects or faces for the sake of identification, so‐called “grandmother cells”, is widely rejected. Here it is argued that the rejection of grandmother cells is premature. Grandmother cells constitute a hypothesis of how familiar visual categories are identified, but the primary evidence against this hypothesis comes from studies that have failed to observe neurons that selectively respond to unfamiliar stimuli. These findings are reviewed and it is shown that they are irrelevant. Neuroscientists need to better understand existing models of face and object identification that include grandmother cells and then compare the selectivity of these units with single neurons responding to stimuli that can be identified.

show abstract

“…Yes children need to learn their GPCs but there really is little or no evidence that systematic or explicit phonics is effective: A response to Fletcher, Savage, and Sharon (2020) I am pleased that Fletcher, Savage, and Sharon (2020) have responded to my article entitled "Reconsidering the Evidence That Systematic Phonics Is More Effective Than Alternative Methods of Reading Instruction" published in this journal (Bowers, 2020). I hope this exchange will encourage researchers to more fully consider the evidential basis for the widespread claim that systematic phonics is effective.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Yes children need to learn their GPCs but there really is little or no evidence that systematic or explicit phonics is effective: A response to Fletcher, Savage, and Sharon (2020)

Bowers¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fletcher, Savage, and Sharon (Educational Psychology Review, 2020) have raised a number of conceptual and empirical challenges to my claim that there is little or no evidence for systematic phonics (Bowers, Educational Psychology Review, 32, 681-705, 2020). But there are many mistakes, mischaracterizations, and omissions in the Fletcher et al. response that not only obscure the important similarities and differences in our views, but also perpetuate common mischaracterizations of the evidence. In this response I attempt to clarify a number of conceptual confusions, perhaps most importantly, the conflation of phonics with teaching GPCs. I do agree that children need to learn their GPCs, but that does not entail a commitment to systematic or any other form of phonics. With regards to the evidence, I respond to Fletcher et al.’s analysis of 12 meta-analyses and briefly review the reading outcomes in England following over a decade of legally mandated phonics. I detail why their response does not identify any flaws in my critique nor alter my conclusion that there is little or no support for the claim that phonics by itself or in a richer literacy curriculum is effective. We both agree that future research needs to explore how to combine various forms of instruction most effectively, including an earlier emphasis of morphological instruction, but we disagree that phonics must be part of the mix. I illustrate this by describing an alternative approach that rejects phonics, namely, structured word inquiry.

show abstract

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

Cited by 63 publications

References 42 publications

A Confluence of Complexity: Intersections Among Reading Theory, Neuroscience, and Observations of Young Readers

A Confluence of Complexity: Intersections Among Reading Theory, Neuroscience, and Observations of Young Readers

Researchers Keep Rejecting Grandmother Cells after Running the Wrong Experiments: The Issue Is How Familiar Stimuli Are Identified

Yes children need to learn their GPCs but there really is little or no evidence that systematic or explicit phonics is effective: A response to Fletcher, Savage, and Sharon (2020)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About