Bowers (Educational Psychology Review, 32, 681-705, 2020) reviewed 12 meta-analytic syntheses addressing the effects of phonics instruction, concluding that the evidence is weak to nonexistent in supporting the superiority of systematic phonics to alternative reading methods. We identify five issues that limit Bowers’ conclusions: (1) definition issues; (2) what is the right question?; (3) the assumption of “phonics first”; and (4) simplification of issues around systematic versus explicit phonics. We then go on to consider (5) empirical issues in the data from meta-analyses, where Bowers misconstrues the positive effects of explicit phonics instruction. We conclude that there is consistent evidence in support of explicitly teaching phonics as part of a comprehensive approach to reading instruction that should be differentiated to individual learner needs. The appropriate question to ask of a twenty-first century science of teaching is not the superiority of phonics versus alternative reading methods, including whole language and balanced literacy, but how best to combine different components of evidence-based reading instruction into an integrated and customized approach that addresses the learning needs of each child.

鲍尔斯（教育心理学评论，32, 681-705, 2020) 审查了 12 篇针对语音教学效果的元分析综合，得出的结论是，在支持系统语音学优于替代阅读方法方面的证据微弱甚至不存在。我们确定了限制鲍尔斯结论的五个问题：（1）定义问题；(2) 什么是正确的问题？（3）“语音优先”的假设；(4) 简化围绕系统语音与明确语音的问题。然后，我们继续考虑 (5) 荟萃分析数据中的经验问题，其中 Bowers 误解了明确的语音教学的积极影响。我们的结论是，有一致的证据支持明确地教授语音作为阅读教学综合方法的一部分，应该根据个人学习者的需求进行区分。