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

Abstract

This 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.

Gove’s Greatest Contribution?

“…Although England's mean reading score improved from 495 in 2009 to 505 in 2018 the improvements were not statistically significant , and it performed similarly to English-speaking countries that have not adopted SSP as a fundament of early reading instruction. Buckingham (2020) notes, however, that this cohort would have been exposed to variable phonics instruction.…”

Untitled

“…Some LAs still did not have them in 2019 (Riddell, ibid), despite pressure from RSCs. This could form the sort of 'glue' role for LAs described in Greany (2020) in the future, beyond the scope of this article.…”

“…Accordingly, school improvement work was to be undertaken by a range of participants, including MAT staff, supported by TSC officials. The agreement and allocation of time and support would be take place through a new network of regional, sub-regional and local authority level boards (TSC, ibid), building on both previously established committees to oversee the agreement and implementation of the 'Strategic School Improvement Fund' (another time limited central allocated development budget) and the school partnerships investigated by Hatcher (2014), Riddell (2019 and Greany (2020). These LA level boards are all largely professional-dominated, include all the above listed organisations, MAT CEOs as well as maintained headteachers, and again meet behind closed doors.…”

“…It rejects the vilification of what is reasonably thought, written, and said, or of indifference to received opinion. McWhorter has recently written movingly of the dreadful alternatives (2020).…”

Recent advances in reading instruction

“…In the second article, Jennifer Buckingham takes a broader view of literacy instruction to describe the research in favour of a systematic phonics approach to word-level reading instruction (Buckingham, 2020). This paper effectively serves as a rejoinder to another recently published article, in which the author argues against the research evidence that has accumulated over the decades in support of systematic phonics (Bowers, 2020).…”