Scribd
Upload
18 views

title 1

Uploaded by

Claire Joy Gallego
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
18 views

title 1

Uploaded by

Claire Joy Gallego
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Gallego, Claire Joy M.

3 BEED-A

1. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Phonics Learning on Students'


Reading Development
Objectives:
•develop the decoding skills, improves spelling and foster
proficient and reading abilities
•helps students to build a strong foundation for literacy
•promote phonemic awareness that supports the language
fluency and tackle words with confidence

RRL and Literature Cited


The obvious way to test whether the improved decoding skills
translate to better reading is to compare the PSC results to the
SATs carried out at key stages 1 and 2 during the years 2012–
2017. These are the same tests analyzed by Machin et al.
(2018) above (although they analyzed data from before 2012).

Machin, S., McNally, S., & Viarengo, M. (2018). Changing how


literacy is taught: Evidence on synthetic phonics. American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 10(2), 217-241.

As noted above, systematic phonics explicitly teaches children


grapheme-phoneme correspondences prior to emphasizing the
meanings of written words in text (as in whole language or
balanced literacy instruction) or the meaning of written words
in isolation (as in morphological instruction). That is,
systematic phonics is committed to the “phonology first”
hypothesis (Bowers and Bowers 2018a).

Bowers, J. S., & Bowers, P. N. (2018). Progress in reading


instruction requires a better understanding of the English
spelling system. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
27(6), 407-412.
The conclusion that systematic phonics is better than
alternative methods is further compromised by additional
factors not considered by Torgerson et al. (2018)

Umbach, B., Darch, C., & Halpin, G. (1989). Teaching reading to


low performing first graders in rural schools: A comparison of
two instructional approaches. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 16(3), 112.

report, used “the spectacular success of England shown in the


latest PIRLS data” as further evidence in support of systematic
synthetic phonics (Rose 2017).

Sherman, K. H. (2007). A meta-analysis of interventions for


phonemic awareness and phonics instruction for delayed older
readers. University of Oregon.

The obvious way to test whether the improved decoding skills


translate to better reading is to compare the PSC results to the
SATs carried out at key stages 1 and 2 during the years 2012–
2017. These are the same tests analyzed by Machin et al.
(2018)

Bowers, J. S., & Bowers, P. N. (2018). Progress in reading


instruction requires a better understanding of the English
spelling system. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
27(6), 407-412.

it is not possible to attribute these gains to the phonics


screening check because these children completed year 1 in
2011, and accordingly, were never given the PSC. As noted by
Walker et al. (2015)

Walker, M., Sainsbury, M., Worth, J., Bamforth, H., & Betts, H.
(2015). Phonics screening check evaluation: Final report.
National Foundation for Educational Research, U.K.
Department for Education. Retrieved from
https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/YOPC03/YOPC03.pdf

For example, one possibility is that reading instruction in


English should focus more on the role that meaning plays in
organizing spellings (via morphology) and that English spelling
system makes sense once the interrelation between
phonology, morphology, and etymology are considered
(Bowers and Bowers 2017, 2018c)

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.

meta-analysis that failed to obtain long-term benefits of


systematic phonics. Furthermore, the claim that 10 of the 12
meta-analyses reported a significant benefit for systematic
phonics does not incorporate a key point highlighted by
Torgerson et al. (2018)

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, 1-
31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1420816

Why the different conclusions? One key point to note is that


although the SAT scores did start slowly increasing in 2012
(consistent with Buckingham 2016)
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading
wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5-51.

Bowers, J. S., & Bowers, P. N. (2018). Progress in reading


instruction requires a better understanding of the English
spelling system. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
27(6), 407-412.

When only state schools are considered, performance dropped


to 11th (rather than joint 8th), same as the 2011 PIRLS rating
(Solity 2018).
Solity, J. (2018). Commercial systematic synthetic phonics
programmes: a possible cause of pupils’ literacy difficulties.
Poster presented at Society for the Scientific Study of Reading,
Brighton.

You might also like