Instruction that includes systematic phonics leads to better spelling and reading outcomes than instruction that does not¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The review cites meta-analytic evidence that systematic phonics instruction produces better spelling and reading outcomes than instruction without it. → Treiman Rebecca 2013

Evidence¶

Treiman Rebecca 2013¶

Treiman Rebecca, Kessler Brett. (2013). Learning to Use an Alphabetic Writing System. Language Learning and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2013.812016

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review attributes this finding to the National Reading Panel meta-analysis by Ehri and colleagues; the reviewed meta-analysis itself was not read here, so the claim is second-hand and reported as the review states it.

"research showing that instruction that includes systematic phonics leads to better spelling and reading outcomes than instruction that does not (Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001) suggests that children benefit from the power of generics in learning about alphabetic writing systems."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Systematic phonics outperforms unsystematic or no-phonics instruction on children's reading overall, but its advantage over whole-word teaching on novel words is untested in children and contested — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• The group taught by synthetic phonics showed better word reading, spelling, and reading comprehension overall than the analytic phonics group — related
• Under analytic phonics teaching, boys matched girls in word reading but had inferior spelling and reading comprehension — related
• Boys taught by synthetic phonics showed better word reading than girls in their classes, with spelling and reading comprehension as good as the girls' — related
• Gender differences in reading outcomes at age 10 depend on the type of phonics teaching received in early literacy programmes — related
• Phonics instruction has a small but statistically confirmed effect for children with reading disabilities, while Orton-Gillingham structured-literacy programs show positive but non-significant effects — related
• Early synthetic phonics teaching that emphasises blending letter sounds showed no evidence of impairing reading of irregular words — related
• Phonemic Awareness Training Improves Reading — related
• Over a decade of legally mandated synthetic phonics in England has not improved standardized reading outcomes (PIRLS, PISA, SATs) — related
• There is little or no support for the claim that systematic phonics is effective by itself or within a richer literacy curriculum — reports the opposite
• The National Reading Panel provided no evidence that phonics helps the majority of struggling readers above grade 1 — related
• Reading interventions improve word spelling (g = 0.93) more than word reading (g = 0.63) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim