Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Commentary on Bowers (2020) and the Role of Phonics Instruction in Reading

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable

References

  • Adams, M. J. (1994). Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2011). Pedagogical strategies for teaching literacy to ESL immigrant students: a meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(Pt 4), 629–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(2), 141–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Clonan, S. M., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 444–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Murray, M. S., Munger, K. A., & Vaughn, M. G. (2014). Intensive reading remediation in grade 2 or 3: are there effects a decade later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 46–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, J. S. (2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, J. S., & Bowers, P. N. (2017). Beyond phonics: the case for teaching children the logic of the English spelling system. Educational Psychologist, 52(2), 124–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camilli, G., Wolfe, M., & Smith, M. L. (2006). Meta-analysis and reading policy: perspectives on teaching children to read. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camilli, G., Kim, S. H., & Vargas, S. (2008). A response to Stuebing et al., “Effects of systematic phonics instruction are practically significant”: the origin of the National Reading Panel. Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 16, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, V., & Savage, R. S. (2014). Evidence for a simplicity principle: teaching common complex grapheme-phonemes improves reading and motivation in at-risk readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(2), 196–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, C. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2016). Individualizing student instruction in reading: implications for policy and practice. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 54–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, M. D. L., Kame'enui, E. J., Simmons, D. C., & Harn, B. A. (2004). Beginning reading intervention as inoculation or insulin: first-grade reading performance of strong responders to kindergarten intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 90–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C., & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14, 135–163.

  • Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelmann, S., & Bruner, E. C. (1988). Reading mastery I/II fast cycle: teacher’s guide. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2012–13). Guided reading: the romance and the reality. Reading Teacher, 66, 268–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galuschka, K., Ise, E., Krick, K., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2014). Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One, 9(2), e89900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galuschka, K., Görgen, R., Kalmar, J., Haberstroh, S., Schmalz, X., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2020). Effectiveness of spelling interventions for learners with dyslexia: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Educational Psychologist, 55(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1659794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial & Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammill, D. D., & Swanson, H. L. (2006). The National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis of phonics instruction: another point of view. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, I. (2010). Evidence-based reading instruction for English language learners in preschool through sixth grades: a meta-analysis of group design studies. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy. http://hdl.handle.net/11299/54192. Acccessed 13 Apr 2020.

  • Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: the phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65(1), 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI). (1990). The teaching and learning of reading in primary schools. London: Department of Education and Science (DES).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjeldsen, A.-C., Kärnä, A., Niemi, P., Olofsson, A., & Witting, K. (2014). Gains from training in phonological awareness in kindergarten predict reading comprehension in grade 9. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(6), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2014.940080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, B., & Lysynchuk, L. (1997). Beginning word recognition: benefits of training by segmentation and whole word methods. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(4), 359–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, B., Bourassa, D., & Horn, C. (1999). Fast and slow namers: benefits of segmentation and whole word training. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73(2), 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, A. L. (1996). Speech: a special code. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

  • Lortie-Forgues, H., & Inglis, M. (2019). Most rigorous large-scale educational RCTs are uninformative: should we be concerned? Educational Researcher, 48(3), 158–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., & Borden, S. L. (2000). Putting struggling readers on the PHAST track: a program to integrate phonological and strategy-based remedial reading instruction and maximize outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 458–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masterson, J., Stuart, M., Dixon, M., & Lovejoy, S. (2008). Children’s printed word database: continuities and changes over time in children’s early reading vocabulary. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 221–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). An evaluation of two reading interventions derived from diverse models. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McArthur, G., Eve, P. M., Jones, K., Banales, E., Kohnen, S., Anandakumar, T., Larsen, L., Marinus, M., Wang, E., & Castles, A. (2012). Phonics training for English speaking poor readers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD009115.

  • McArthur, G., Sheehan, Y., Badcock, N. A., Francis, D. A., Wang, H. C., Kohnen, S., Banales, E., Anandakumar, T., Marinus, E., & Castles, A. (2018). Phonics training for English-speaking poor readers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 11, CD009115.

  • Moats, L. (2019). Structured literacy: effective instruction for students with dyslexia and related reading difficulties. https://dyslexiaida.org/structured-literacy-effective-instruction-for-students-with-dyslexia-and-related-reading-difficulties/.

  • Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., Wolf, M. A., Sevcik, R. A., Steinbach, K. A., Frijters, J. C., & Shapiro, M. (2012). Multiple-component remediation for developmental reading disabilities: IQ, socioeconomic status, and race as factors in remedial outcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 99–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petscher, Y., Fien, H., Stanley, C., Gearin, B., Gaab, N., Fletcher, J. M., & Johnson, E. (2019). Screening for dyslexia. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Improving Literacy Retrieved from improvingliteracy.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, R. S. (2020). The Simple View of Reading: a scientific framework for effective teaching. The Reading League Journal, 1, 41–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, R. S., Georgiou, G., Parrila, A., & R., & Maiorino, K. (2018). Preventative reading interventions teaching direct mapping of graphemes in texts and set-for-variability aid at-risk learners. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(3), 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scammacca, N., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., Williams, K., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., & Carroll, M. (2016). A century of progress: reading interventions for students in grades 4-12, 1914-2014. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 756–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: how we read, why so many cannot, and what can be done about it. New York: Basic Books.

  • Seidenberg, M. S., Cooper Borkenhagen, M., & Kearns, D. M. (2020). Lost in translation? Challenges in connecting reading science and educational practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S119–S130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, L. R., & Solity, J. (2008). Delivering phonological and phonics training within whole class teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 597–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Share, D. L. (2008). On the anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: the perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 584–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, K. H. (2007). A meta-analysis of interventions for phonemic awareness and phonics instruction for delayed older readers. University of Oregon, ProQuest Dissertations.

  • Smith, F. (2004). Understanding reading (6th ed.). Erlbaum. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Snow, C. E., & Juel, C. (2005). Teaching children to read: what do we know about how to do it? In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), Science of reading: a handbook (pp. 501–520). Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Stockard, J., & Wood, T. W. (2017). The threshold and inclusive approaches to determining “best available evidence”. An empirical analysis. American Journal of Evaluation, 38(4), 471–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Student Achievement Partners. (2020). Comparing reading research to program design: an examination of Teachers College Units of Study. https://achievethecore.org/page/3240/comparing-reading-research-to-program-design-an-examination-of-teachers-college-units-of-study. Acccessed 13 Apr 2020.

  • Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A., Cirino, P., Francis, D., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). A response to recent reanalyses of the National Reading Panel report: effects of systematic phonics instruction are practically significant. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 123–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A. E., Molfese, P. J., Weiss, B., & Fletcher, J. M. (2009). IQ is not strongly related to response to reading instruction: a meta-analytic interpretation. Exceptional Children, 76(1), 31–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suggate, S. P. (2010). Why what we teach depends on when: grade and reading intervention modality moderate effect size. Developmental Psychology, 46(6), 1556–1579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suggate, S. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1), 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson, C. J., Brooks, G., & Hall, J. (2006). A systematic review of the research literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling (DfES research rep. 711). London: Department for Education and Skills, University of Sheffield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgerson, C., Brooks, G., Gascoine, L., & Higgins, S. (2018). Phonics: reading policy and the evidence of effectiveness from a systematic ‘tertiary’ review. Research Papers in Education, 34, 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tse, L., & Nicholson, T. (2014). The effect of phonics-enhanced big book reading on the language and literacy skills of 6-yearold pupils of different reading ability attending lower SES schools. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1222.

  • Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D., Hagan, E. C., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English intervention for English-language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 449–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 211–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M., Miller, L., & Donnelly, K. (2000). Retrieval, Automaticity, Vocabulary Elaboration, Orthography (RAVE-O): a comprehensive, fluency-based reading intervention program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(4), 375–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, S., & Savage, R. S. (2020). Teaching grapheme-phoneme correspondances using a direct mapping approach for at risk second language learners: a randomized control trial. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(2), 131–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Professor Genevieve McArthur for discussion of ideas in this paper and Dr. Yusra Ahmed for assistance with the computation of effect sizes.

Funding

Grant P50 HD052117, Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, supported Fletcher and Vaughn. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA

    Jack M. Fletcher

  2. Department of Psychology and Human Development, Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK

    Robert Savage

  3. Department of Special Education, University of Texas-Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Sharon Vaughn

Authors
  1. Jack M. Fletcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Savage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sharon Vaughn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jack M. Fletcher.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

Not applicable

Consent to Participate

Not applicable

Code Availability

Not applicable

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fletcher, J.M., Savage, R. & Vaughn, S. A Commentary on Bowers (2020) and the Role of Phonics Instruction in Reading. Educ Psychol Rev 33, 1249–1274 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09580-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09580-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation