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.

中文翻译：

---

系统语音教学属于循证阅读计划：对鲍尔斯的回应

摘要 本文是对 JS Bowers (2020) 的反驳，“重新考虑系统语音比其他阅读教学方法更有效的证据”，教育心理学评论 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09515 -y)。阅读科学家们一致认为，学习语音和文字之间的语音联系是早期阅读习得的基本要素。阅读研究的元分析一致发现，包含系统语音教学的阅读教学方法比不包含系统语音教学的方法更有效。这篇文章批评了 Jeffery S. Bowers 最近的一篇文章，该文章试图挑战系统语音教学研究的稳健性。以这个为基础，Bowers 建议教师和研究人员考虑使用替代方法。本文发现，即使对研究文献进行修正主义和保守的分析，最有力的证据表明系统语音教学比任何现有的替代方法都更有效。虽然争论研究人员应该调查新的实践是公平的，但建议课堂教师使用基于迄今为止最佳证据的方法以外的任何方法是不负责任的，并且证据有利于系统语音。