Responses to Bowers' claim that SSP is not well-evidenced by Jennifer Buckingham + others

Downloads and links to relevant research and articles, along with book recommendations.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2282
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Responses to Bowers' claim that SSP is not well-evidenced by Jennifer Buckingham + others

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Sat Jul 04, 2020 12:57 pm

Here’s a paper from Jennifer Buckingham published in The Educational and Developmental Psychologist:

Systematic phonics instruction belongs in evidence-based reading programs: A response to Bowers


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... F7352B1D12

The danger in Bowers’ article is its potential to undermine hard-won gains in evidence-based reading instruction. It is one thing to say that researchers should consider investigating as yet unproven alternative methods, but it is irresponsible to make the same recommendation for practitioners.Teachers and educational psychologists working with schools and in private practice with children learning to read should continue to use the methods with the strongest available evidence base, and right now that is undeniably systematic phonics.


It is notable that detractors from the promotion of systematic phonics are often those who have an approach or paper of their own.

Sadly, instead of introducing their paper for information and to raise public awareness and possible interest, there seems to be a tendency to undermine systematic synthetic phonics - often quite vociferously.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2282
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: 'Systematic phonics instruction belongs in evidence-based reading programs: A response to Bowers' by Jennifer Buckin

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:30 am

This source for Jennifer Buckingham's response to Bowers has been flagged up via the DDOLL network:


Jen Buckingham also wrote a very teacher-friendly version of her argument about the Bowers’ conclusions for the LDA Bulletin:

Buckingham, J, (2020). Evidence strongly favours systematic synthetic phonics. Learning Difficulties Australia Bulletin, 52(1), pp. 30-34.

The whole issue can be downloaded here: https://www.ldaustralia.org/lda-publica ... l#bulletin
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2282
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: Responses to Bowers' claim that SSP is not evidenced by Jennifer Buckingham + others

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Wed Nov 11, 2020 10:34 am

This paper has also been flagged up via the DDOLL network:


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

Jack M. Fletcher & Robert Savage & Sharon Vaugh

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.

From Educational Psychology Review Read full article here:


https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/ ... 0ktPh44%3D

Return to “Research and Recommended Reading”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests