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)

Abstract

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.

Instructional Psychology and Teaching Reading: An analysis of the evidence underpinning government policy and practice

“…The key features can be summarised as: (i) teaching SSP first and fast through a DfE validated programme; (ii) decoding CEWs through emphasising GPCs that are not consistent with what they have been taught; and (iii) students applying their knowledge of GPCs to reading phonically decodable texts. The evidence discussed in Part 2 indicates that the evidence in favour of teaching phonics through SSP is strong, although this finding is not universally accepted (for example, see Bowers, 2020, 2021 as well as Buckingham, 2020 and Fletcher et al, 2021 for detailed responses to Bowers).…”

Reading wars or reading reconciliation? A critical examination of robust research evidence, curriculum policy and teachers' practices for teaching phonics and reading

“…However, it is important to note the differing conclusions that these robust SRs and MAs can reach even when their analyses are based on some of the same kinds of original sources. For example, Bowers questions some of the methods and conclusions in the Torgerson et al study, and in turn Bowers' conclusions have also been questioned in a response to Bowers' paper by Fletcher et al (2020), which Bowers responds to in a further paper (Bowers, 2021). The differing conclusions, and the methodological limitations, underline the complexity of the debate but also the need for analyses which not only take account of the statistical outcomes of SRs and MAs but go beyond these to systematically examine the contextual details of studies relevant to teaching and reading policies in particular regions of the world, and locate these in a wider historical and political context for the debate, an approach to analysis that we took to inform this paper.…”

There is still little or no evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than common alternative methods of reading instruction: Response to Brooks (2023).

“…Both Bowers (2020Bowers ( , 2021 and Wyse and Bradbury (2022) challenged the evidence taken to support the conclusion that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative forms of instruction common in schools (such as whole language and balanced literacy). In this journal, Brooks (2023) claimed that these "critiques fail in their attempts to show that the evidence on phonics is unreliable".…”

“…Given that recent meta-analyses do not compare systematic phonics to common alternative methods, perhaps the most relevant evidence comes from the experience in England where systematic phonics has been mandated in state schools since 2007, and where a Phonics Screening Check was introduced in 2012 that assesses whether phonics is being effectively implemented in schools. Although Brooks (2023) did not consider this work, Bowers (2020Bowers ( , 2021 reviews the evidence and shows that systematic phonics is indeed being well implemented in schools (the results of the Phonics Screening Check have gone up), but there is little or no evidence that phonics has improved reading outcomes in England as measures by Standard Assessment Tests (SAT), Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), and Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests.…”

“…Since Bowers (2020Bowers ( , 2021, the results of the PIRLS 2021 have recently been released (Lindorff, Stiff, & Kayton, 2023). This is a test of reading comprehension, and England ranked 4 th , up from 8 th in 2016.…”