Tag Archives: Clackmannanshire

Examining the evidence on the effectiveness of synthetic phonics teaching: the Ehri et al (2001) and C.Torgerson et al (2006) meta-analyses by Rhona Johnston, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Hull

Leave a reply

Examining the evidence on the effectiveness of synthetic phonics teaching: the Ehri et al (2001) and C.Torgerson et al (2006) meta-analyses
Rhona Johnston, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Hull

Introduction

In a recent article, Castles et al (2018) have concluded that there is insufficient evidence as yet to determine whether the synthetic phonics approach is superior to the analytic phonics approach, citing the meta-analyses of Ehri et al ( 2001) and C.Torgerson et al (2006).

Studies of synthetic versus analytic phonics teaching

The experiments comparing the effectiveness of synthetic versus analytic phonics teaching by Johnston and Watson (2004) were carried out on children in their first year of school (equivalent to kindergarten in the U.S.). Johnston and Watson’s (2004) synthetic phonics approach was taken from the method used in Austria, as described by Feitelson (1988), where sounding and blending was introduced at the start of reading tuition. Children learnt to read and spell very much better when taught by the synthetic phonics method compared with the typical analytic phonics method used in Scotland.

When the UK Education Select Committee recommended to the government that it consider introducing the synthetic phonics method into schools in England, it referred to it as ‘phonics first and fast’. A later introduction of sounding and blending means that other methods are used first, approaches which often undermine the synthetic phonics approach. Therefore, in order to examine the evidence supporting the effectiveness of the method, only studies where the synthetic phonics method was introduced in kindergarten should be examined.

Meta-analyses of phonics teaching

a) Ehri et al (2001)

It should be noted that Ehri et al’s (2001) analysis compared synthetic phonics programmes with those containing unsystematic phonics or no phonics (page 400), not analytic phonics, which is systematic. They did compare the effect sizes for synthetic phonics (d=0.45) and larger-subunit programmes (d=0.34), which was not statistically significant. However, in the UK analytic phonics is taught at the grapheme to phoneme level, after establishing an initial sight word vocabulary, so it is not a larger subunit approach in the early stages. In Scotland, the approach traditionally progressed to teaching sounding and blending at the end of the first year at school. In our research, the defining feature of synthetic phonics was that sounding and blending should be taught right from the start.

An examination is made here of all of the kindergarten studies using synthetic phonics included in Ehri et al (2001), with the exception of one study that did not measure word identification so cannot be directly compared to Johnston and Watson’s (2004) experiments (see Table 1). It should be noted that two of these studies carried out phonological awareness training prior to teaching participants to read via synthetic phonics (Blachman et al, 1999; J.Torgesen et al, 1999, see Notes 1 & 2). These studies have very low effect sizes at the kindergarten post-test. When these data are included (see column 3) the mean effect size is low (0.28). A different picture emerges at the next post-test, after synthetic phonics teaching had commenced, see column 4. When these data points from these two studies (see column 5) are used, a mean effect size of 0.49 is found.

The two studies by Johnston and Watson (2004) comparing synthetic phonics teaching with the analytic phonics approach used in Scotland yielded large effect sizes (see Table 2); these studies were not included in the Ehri et al (2001) meta-analysis. In the Clackmannanshire study (Experiment 1), over a 7 year period the effect sizes for word identification versus chronological age increased year after year (Johnston, McGeown and Watson, 2012).

Table 1 Effect sizes for word identification scores from kindergarten synthetic phonics studies included in Ehri et al (2001); synthetic phonics versus little or no phonics teaching

Table 1

Table 2 Effect sizes for word identification scores from Johnston and Watson’s (2004) studies comparing synthetic and analytic phonics teaching

Table 2

b) C.Torgerson et al (2006)

This meta-analysis was designed to compare synthetic with analytic phonics teaching, so included only 3 studies; it also deselected any studies which were not randomised controlled trial studies (unlike Ehri et al, 2001). They included Experiment 2 from Johnston and Watson (2004).

However, one of the studies included was an unpublished one that had an incorrect implementation of the synthetic phonics method (50% of the taught words were silent ‘e’ words, which cannot be accurately blended by initial readers). Furthermore, C.Torgerson et al (2006) put into the analysis the post-test data from the trained items, where there was a difference favouring analytic phonics, not the data from the untrained items, where there was no difference.

C.Torgerson et al (2006) also included the J.Torgesen et al (1999) study, but put in the kindergarten data from when the children were largely being taught phonological awareness. At this stage, the embedded (not analytic) phonics control condition included a lot of word reading, whereas the PASP method did not. It can be seen that when the children were exposed to the synthetic phonic element of the programme, the effect size in favour of the method was much greater (see Table 1).

We have published our critique of the C.Torgerson et al (2006) meta-analysis in our book Teaching Synthetic Phonics, and the relevant section can be read online, page 14:
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=WOOICwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb&pg=GBS.PA14

Conclusions

The US National Reading Panel meta-analysis reported in Ehri et al (2001) included studies with a late implementation of synthetic phonics teaching, an approach which is not compatible with the method used by Johnston and Watson (2004). Even when the studies of synthetic phonics that started in kindergarten were examined, two of them were found to have a late introduction of sounding and blending for reading as phonological awareness was taught first. In both cases, the introduction of synthetic phonics later on led to a very large increase in effect size. No study in this sub-analysis self-identified itself as having an analytic phonics control condition. Furthermore, the comparison in the meta-analysis between synthetic and large subunit phonics does not encompass the analytic phonics approach used in the UK for the initial teaching of reading.

A close examination of the C.Torgerson et al (2006) meta-analysis shows evidence of multiple errors in the selection of the studies to be included and in the selection of the data entered into the analysis. The number of studies included was also too small to allow for a meaningful meta-analysis.

It cannot be concluded that these two meta-analyses showed evidence against the superiority of the synthetic over the analytic phonics method.

The synthetic phonics method as implemented in our studies involved, right from the start of school, children learning a small number of letter sounds and using that knowledge right away to sound and blend the letters to find out how to pronounce unfamiliar words. They
then rapidly learnt more letter sounds and continued to use the strategy. We found that these children had much better reading and phonological awareness skills than those taught either by analytic phonics, or by analytic phonics plus phonological awareness (Johnston and Watson, 2004, Experiment 1, the Clackmannanshire Study). Unlike broad-based meta-analytic comparisons, there was strict control of the new printed words used to teach all of the groups compared in our studies, so issues of pace of print exposure between studies do not arise. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that the early rigorous start of synthetic phonics teaching led to the children making increasing gains in reading ability compared with age long after the intervention ended (Johnston et al, 2012).

References

Blachman, B., Tangel, D., Ball, E., Black, R., & McGraw, D. (1999). Developing phonological awareness and word recognition skills: A two-year intervention with low-income, inner-city children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 239–273.

Castles, A., Rastle, K, and Nation, K (2018) Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 19(1) 5–51.

Ehri et al (2001) Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research,71, No. 3, pp. 393–44.

Feitelson, D (1988) Facts and fads in beginning reading: A cross-language perspective. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Johnston, R.S and Watson, J. (2004) Accelerating the development of reading, spelling and phonemic awareness. Reading and Writing, 17 (4), 327-357.

Johnston, R.S, McGeown, S, and Watson, J. (2012) Long-term effects of synthetic versus analytic phonics teaching on the reading and spelling ability of 10 year old boys and girls. Reading and Writing, 25, part 6, 1365-1384.

Johnston, R. and Watson, J. (2014) Teaching Synthetic Phonics, 2nd edition. Sage (Learning Matters): London.

Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., Rashotte, C., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., & Garvan, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593.

Torgerson, C., Brooks, G., & Hall, J. (2006). A systematic review of the research literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling (Research Report RR711). U.K. Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/14791/1/RR711_.pdf

Notes

1Blachman et al (1999) ‘From February to May (Semester 2) of kindergarten, treatment children participated in 41, 15 to 20 minute phonological awareness lessons (adapted from the shorter, 28 lesson program used in Ball and Blachman, 1991), delivered over an 11 week period to small, heterogeneous groups of four or five children. Classroom teachers and their
teaching assistants were responsible for teaching all of the lessons. Each lesson followed the same daily format: (1) a phoneme segmentation activity (called say-it-and-move-it) in which children learned to move disks to represent the sounds in one-, two-, and three phoneme
words spoken by the teacher, (2) a segmentation-related activity, such as grouping words on the basis of shared sounds (e.g., hat and hot go together because they share the same initial sound), and (3) one of a variety of activities to teach the letter names and sounds of eight letters (a, m, t, i, s, r, f, b).

Grade 1, for the treatment children ‘Instruction in phoneme analysis and blending skills….Children were taught to pronounce as a single unit a consonant (continuant) followed by a vowel. To begin, the teacher represented this strategy on the board as follows:
The teacher pointed to the first letter, and the child was taught to produce that letter’s sound and hold the sound until the teacher’s finger reached the second letter. When her finger touched the second letter, the second sound was produced and held. With each successive practice opportunity, the length of time between sounds was decreased until the two sounds were pronounced as a single unit. By adding final consonants (initially, stop consonants) and
pronouncing the whole word, a set of real words was built (e.g., sat, sam). Words containing new short vowels were also introduced in this manner.’

2J.Torgesen et al (1999) PASP (Phonological awareness plus Synthetic Phonics) condition. Started in Semester 2 of Kindergarten. ‘This group received the Auditory Discrimination
in Depth Program as developed and outlined by Patricia and Charles Lindamood (1984). The program provided explicit instruction in phonemic awareness by leading children to discover and label the articulatory gestures associated with each phoneme. This discovery work was followed by activities to build skills in tracking the phonemes in words using mouth-form pictures, colored blocks, and letters to represent the phonemes in words

‘War and Peace in Reading – Time for a Truce?’ by Sir Jim Rose

Leave a reply

Some children we teach imprint indelible memories. One such was Raymond. He was a ‘blitz of a boy’ fashioned in the mould of Charles Causley’s, ‘Timothy Winters’. For him, school was not always a pretty sight. During a story writing lesson, he asked: ‘‘Sir, how do you spell peace?’’ I said, ‘’Do you mean as in a piece of pie, Raymond?’’ He said, ‘’No. I mean like when ‘me’ dad says: turn that bloody telly off and let’s have a bit of peace.’’ This was almost 60 years ago when I was a ‘rookie’ primary teacher and Raymond was one of 40 children in my class of nine-year-olds.

While much has changed markedly for the better in primary education over the years it seems that peace has yet to break out over how best to teach young children to read and write. In the never-ending ‘Reading Wars’, the noise of battle is sometimes akin to those repetitious adverts on the ‘telly’ that numb the brain: once described by a teacher colleague as ‘stereophonic porridge — cold grey and coming at you from all directions’. For hardworking, dedicated primary teachers much of this debate must come over as a Tower of Babel, especially when they look to research for help only to find that it, too, often points in opposite directions.

On the face of it, two recent papers by Greg Brooks, seem to be another attempt to stir the porridge in Australia and in England. The first argues forcibly that Australia should resist the temptation to introduce a version of the Phonics Screening Check (PSC). The second is one of a brigade of papers in a recent book edited by Margaret Clark, a long-standing critic of the Reading Review (Rose 2006), who seems to be stuck fast in an unreconstructed, Plowdenesque view of primary education.

Australia is debating the value of a Phonic Screening Check for their schools and is wisely drawing upon rich seams of national and international academic expertise and professional practice to inform their decisions. This paper therefore focuses upon the papers by Brooks and Clark in the case of England. In passing, however, it is perhaps worth saying the PSC is turning out to be an exceptional initiative, not least, by providing a very strong incentive for schools and teachers to verify their judgements and keep children’s progress in phonics under review.
Since it was published, I have spent much time reminding critics, first, about the remit of our 2006 Review and, secondly, on explaining what it did not say to those inclined to believe everything they read in the press, as well as those with vested interests be they ideological, or commercial.

I agree with Greg Brooks in that many who take issue with the 2006 Review have either not read it or have chosen to ignore its key recommendations which, for example, set phonics in the context of a powerfully enriched primary school curriculum that prioritises literacy, with serious attention given to developing spoken language and attentive listening alongside reading and writing. ‘If they can’t say it they can’t write it’ has always seemed to me to be one of several obvious reasons for fostering ‘oracy’ from birth, as a precursor for literacy and much else. How many times and ways does the message that: ‘high quality phonic work is essential but not sufficient for teaching children to read’, need to be parroted before it sinks in?
I part company with Greg Brooks when he takes issue with the Reading Review on the grounds that it overstates the case for synthetic phonics and conflates it with systematic phonics. So, what does the Review actually say on that score? It says:

‘‘Research, inspection and leading-edge work of settings and schools may inform best practice. However, findings from different research programmes are sometimes contradictory or inconclusive, and often call for further studies to test tentative findings. While robust research findings must not be ignored, developers of national strategies, much less schools and settings, cannot always wait for the results of long-term research studies. They must take decisions, based on as much firm evidence as is available from a range of sources at the time, especially from replicable and sustainable best practice”

Greg Brooks applies a sleight of hand by ignoring the first, specific remit for the Review, notably, to make a judgement about: ‘What best practice should be expected of early reading and synthetic phonics?’

Even though the research in 2006 may have been inconclusive the requirement was to make a judgement, not to sit on the fence. Ten years on, I would argue that the research is now far from inconclusive, rather it amounts to an even stronger case for synthetic phonics.

By any reasonable definition ‘synthetic phonics’ is systematic, that is to say, it must be taught directly, regularly and incrementally according to a planned progression that takes full account of children’s different but developing abilities.

Moreover, ‘inconclusive’ seems to be an outcome to which educational research is particularly prone. What are teachers expected to do when research accrued over years at considerable expense comes to no conclusion and they have to teach something as crucially important as reading? One obvious response to that question is to take ‘proven practice’ (R. Slavin 2016) into account and that, too, was written into my remit as ‘best practice’.

Greg Brooks and one of his colleagues, Carole Torgerson had a different answer. If memory serves, having themselves already conducted a review of research on phonics, they wanted to spend another four years at considerable expense on a randomised control trial designed to settle the matter on synthetic phonics. This was because their review had found in favour of systematic phonics but was ambivalent about the primacy of synthetic phonics over ‘analytic phonics’. In my view and that of other members of our Advisory Group so doing risked kicking the can down the road for another four years thus paralysing action in schools and teacher training.

Contrary to Greg’s reflections on the run up to my Review, we spent a great deal of time, especially in schools, observing the teaching of reading, including a very helpful visit to the famous Clackmannanshire Project. We saw most, if not all of the leading-edge, published reading programmes in action and attended teacher training events. We also had the benefit of an HMI survey designed to inform the Review, plus numerous meetings of stakeholders, such as, parents. Though unacknowledged by Clark and Brooks, all of this is set out in the Review.

Prior to the Review I had also taken part in HMI exercises reporting on what turned out to be a flawed ‘Searchlights’ model of reading in England’s National Literacy Strategy, as well as directly observing the teaching of reading in projects overseas, including the USA and Europe.
In consequence, we reported that:

‘Having considered a wide range of evidence, the review has concluded that that the case for systematic phonic work is overwhelming and much strengthened by a synthetic approach the key features of which are to teach beginner readers:

  • grapheme/phoneme (letter/sound) correspondences (the alphabetic principle) in a clearly defined, incremental sequence
  • to apply the highly important skill of blending (synthesising) phonemes in order all-through a word to read it
  • to apply the skills of segmenting words into their constituent phonemes to spell
  • that blending and segmenting are reversible processes.’

In the case of phonic work, it is very clear that for any programme to be successful, first and foremost, it must be systematic. That is ‘square one’. This much at least seems to be common ground with Greg Brooks but less so it seems with Margaret Clark.

Judgements about synthetic phonics therefore covered one, albeit hugely important, aspect of the remit.

Greg Brooks admits that he is theoretically disposed to accept synthetic phonics as the front runner when compared to ‘analytic phonics’. He writes:

‘I was convinced then, and still am, that theory suggests that synthetic phonics is more coherent than analytic phonics as a strategy for young learners working out unfamiliar words.’

So, the question seems to be: ‘Synthetic phonics works in practice but does it work in theory?’ Fair dues – Greg is working on it.

He will no doubt take on board the spectacular success of England shown in the latest PIRLS data as reported by the BBC: ‘Northern Ireland and England are in the top 10 of the world’s best primary school readers in global rankings.’

And, reflect on the comments about the Phonics Check in the DFE report – Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) National Report for England December 2016:

‘The present PIRLS findings provide additional support for the efficacy of phonics approaches, and in particular, the utility of the phonics check for flagging pupils’ potential for lower reading performance in their future schooling. Additionally, the correlation between the phonics check and PIRLS performance also potentially bodes well for England’s pupils’ average performance in future PIRLS cycles, as 58% of pupils met the phonics check expected standard in 2012, whereas this has increased to 81% in 2017. Pupils who met this standard in 2012 had an average PIRLS 2016 performance of 587, compared to the overall average of 559.’

Perhaps we should remind ourselves that wars have winners and losers and in this phoney battle over phonics; the risk is that the real losers will be children, especially those who struggle to learn to read and of whom much more needs to be said than can be covered in this paper.
Today, as I write, the BBC is commenting on this year’s imminent OFSTED Annual Report, as follows:

  • More than 100 schools have not improved in the last 10 years, education watchdog Ofsted is expected to say.
  • The annual report by the Chief Inspector of Schools being released on Wednesday is expected to show that 130 schools have failed to record a “good” inspection since 2005.
  • It is reported that of the 20,000 schools in the country, 500 of those for children of primary age and 200 for over-11s have failed to make the grade.
  • However, 90% of all primary schools and nearly 80% of all secondary schools are rated good or outstanding, the report will say.

Clearly the rising tide of reading success in England is a cause for rejoicing but it is not lifting a worrying minority of boats that are firmly stuck in the mud. We need to keep working at it. Given that we know so much about ‘what works’ to secure high standards of reading in schools – perhaps we should now pay more attention to that other crucial piece of the territory and ask: what works to best effect in teacher training?

Jim Rose
13.12.17

For further information and discussion, please visit the forum here.