Disputing recent attempts to reject the evidence in favour of systematic phonics instruction

Abstract

AbstractTwo recent articles from authors in Britain have attempted to show that the evidence in favour of systematic phonics in initial literacy instruction is weak; here, their arguments are disputed. Bowers (‘Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction’, Educational Psychology Review, 32, 2020) attempts to show that there is little or no research evidence that systematic phonics instruction is more effective than other commonly used methods. Detailed inspection shows that his analysis appears flawed. Wyse and Bradbury (‘Reading wars or reading reconciliation’, Review of Education, 10, 2022) offer four strands of evidence which, they suggest, undermine the case for systematic phonics teaching. However, they themselves admit they cannot draw conclusions from two of those strands; their survey of teachers in primary schools in England is unrepresentative and therefore unreliable; and their analysis of previous systematic reviews adopts such unnecessarily restrictive criteria that its conclusions cannot be accepted. Context and implicationsRationale for this studyEvidence in favour of using systematic phonics instruction as part of the teaching of initial literacy has grown steadily for decades, as shown by Brooks (2022). However, other specialists in the field have disputed whether the evidence on the effectiveness of systematic phonics is reliable.Why this mattersIf that evidence were proved inadequate, much official policy on, and widespread practice in, initial literacy teaching would be cast in doubt. This article therefore analyses two recent critiques from British authors (Bowers, 2020; Wyse & Bradbury, 2022), and attempts to demonstrate that those critiques fail in their attempts to show that the evidence on phonics is unreliable.ImplicationsGiven this, in the current state of knowledge the evidence in favour of systematic phonics seems robust, and the key implication for teachers of initial literacy is therefore that systematic phonics instruction should remain an essential element within their repertoire. Furthermore, institutions of teacher education should ensure that intending teachers of early years are trained to provide phonics teaching that is soundly based on research evidence.