Tag Archives: evidence

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

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

Reading Failure? Not On My Watch! by Jocelyn Seamer

Books have always been a part of my life. Growing up, our house contained bookshelves bursting at the seams with volumes. A wide range of topics were represented; the classics, light romance novels, encyclopaedias, books about Buddhism, Christianity, philosophy, pottery, home improvement, self-improvement, the complete works of William Shakespeare and of course, the Readers Digest condensed books that arrived regularly in the mail. My Mother was an enlightened woman who, acutely aware of her own lack of education (despite being Dux of the School she was not permitted to stay at school because she was a girl) was determined that her children would be able to converse on a variety of topics. We watched documentaries, talked about world affairs, had deep and meaningful conversations about the meaning of life and throughout my childhood, a word of the week had to be used in a meaningful sentence a couple of times a week. Little did she know then that she was ahead of her time. It was my mother who taught me about ‘sounds’ and sounding out, expanded my vocabulary, ensured that I understood what I was reading and made me a voracious reader.  I am so very grateful.

My first encounter with teaching phonics was in 2005 where I volunteered at an independent school in the NSW Hunter Valley. The school had 27 students and was staffed by a principal and teachers whose conviction in the difference we can make the kids was palpable. I recall one teacher angrily declaring, “You never write kids off!” after hearing about their experiences at a previous school. There was a common purpose and passion and enrolments quickly grew.  This school was using a grapheme to phoneme program called LEM which taught students ‘phonograms’ where several phonemes were attached to a grapheme, digraph or trigraph. Children would learn the grapheme ‘a’ and say “fat baby in the bath all washed” learning the associated phonemes.  This school was where I first became aware of spelling rules and the logic of words. I realised at this point that reading and spelling was something that I had always just ‘done’, but not understood.  At about the same time I was seeking a more meaningful base for my study. I was appalled at how soulless and mechanical the teaching felt in my mainstream university.

I felt a call to action and began to tutor struggling students. I reasoned that even with my limited knowledge I couldn’t do any worse for these children than the school system had already done. My first student was a little boy in year 2 who had been diagnosed with Dyslexia. His previous teacher saw no reason to give him a spelling book, so he played during spelling lessons instead. The psychologist who diagnosed him told his parents that they would need to think carefully about the jobs that their son would be able to do when he grew up.  He was withdrawn, sad and disengaged. It made me furious. I tutored this little boy for free for the whole Christmas holidays. With encouragement, a focus on phonics and the effort to make reading fun he went from a little boy throwing his book across the room to one hounding his mother to read another book with him. Once back in the classroom however, this all reversed and he was back in a world of struggle.

In 2006 I found myself at an Independent faith-based tertiary college in New South Wales and the lecturers there helped to fan the flames of my passion for teaching. They were connected with schools, still taught, mentored teachers and above all, were highly dedicated and passionate about their profession. I remember one lecturer talking to us about her time teaching in the 80’s and how she had been instructed not to teach phonics. She told us that she wrote a whole language program and then taught phonics anyway.  She talked to us about the very real responsibility that we had as teachers to set our students up for success. Part of her regular lecturing program was to bring in the parent of an ex struggling student to address the preservice teachers. She made her students see their responsibility through the eyes of a parent whose child had been so very let down by the school system. From this woman I learned a defiance and steadfastness that stays with me to this day.

I continued to tutor throughout my teaching study and, other than that one year (I had a second baby and had to move to a distance program), I recall no teaching about phonics or the evidence around reading instruction.  At my busiest, I worked with 30 students each week from home. Places were tight and I had to start a waiting list. I worked with students ranging from 6 to 14 years old. For those who I saw for reading there was a common theme. They knew ‘single sounds’, a few consonant digraphs and many were very good at ‘sight words’. Without fail these students had no clue what to do when presented with unfamiliar words, particularly those containing vowel digraphs. We worked through these unknown representations systematically and explicitly and children’s reading and spelling improved. I asked parents to sit in on the sessions to build a ‘learning relationship’ with their children. I felt that building the knowledge and skills of parents was a key part of improvement. I was right. Parents would sit and take notes.  They joined in the games and met other parents who helped them see that their child’s difficulties were not because they didn’t read them enough books when they were three. When we left to come to the NT in 2012, parents cried and I felt awful, but I knew there were children even more in need than my tutoring students.

In July 2012 I started my first teaching role in a remote Aboriginal school in the NT. I had a class of children aged between 4 and 7 who were all at the same achievement level in literacy. That is, there was virtually no achievement in literacy. Of the 50 or so students at our school only 3 or 4 could read anything approaching appropriate levels for their age.  It was the status quo and, I was to discover, very normal.  Our kids lived in overcrowded, rundown houses, had English as a third or fourth language and very often experienced extreme dysfunction at home. A term into this role I was introduced to ‘Miss O’. Miss O was a veteran teacher, a passionate advocate for children and had taken up the role of literacy and ESL advisor in our region. We were part of a ‘group school’. A cluster of 13 small remote schools managed under the umbrella of a central office in ‘town’.  Miss O was determined that evidence based practice was going to be put in place in our schools. She started with phonological and phonemic awareness which we began to teach explicitly. She then went in search of a systematic synthetic phonics program that could be rolled out to our schools with a minimum of training. With high teacher turnover and hours and hours of driving between each school this was really important. Miss O found Jo-Anne Dooner and the Get Reading Right program. It completely changed the way we approached reading instruction. The whole language movement was very much entrenched in the NT (and in many places still is). Large amounts of money had been spent on Accelerated Literacy and other whole language programs. It was not going away without a fight. In our school we were a group of young, fairly new teachers eager to help kids get results lead by a Principal who wanted the best for his kids. We took Get Reading Right on board for phonics (along with vocabulary teaching and comprehension strategies) and saw results very quickly. Kids who had been stumbling along on the same Level 2 PM reader for four years were suddenly reading level 10, and then 12 and then 15, despite no change in their home lives or overall English skills.  But, at the end of 2013 our Group School was disbanded in favour of school autonomy. Schools were on their own and the momentum of rigorous phonics existed only in small pockets of dedicated classrooms.  We hadn’t had the time to prove that the approach worked. We saw the modest gains made on paper and knew that the potential was there for even more.  Our story is now largely forgotten in the region.

In 2014 we moved to town. I taught in a mainstream school for a term and then accepted the role as Teaching Principal for term 3 and 4. The school is a very small, remote (but otherwise mainstream) school on a cattle station. I took over from Miss Jasmine and was delighted to walk into a school where phonics and explicit teaching were well established. Though my approach differed a little from Jasmine’s the fundamentals were the same and the children there were doing well. We had 3 preschool students. We developed their phonological and phonemic awareness and by the end of their preschool year they were blending and segmenting orally and had begun to do so with graphemes as well. I felt good that they were set up for success. Of course, I had stuck with Miss O’s rule of ‘reading five times every day’ and the school was in a good position.

We were ready for a change and headed interstate in 2015. I selected my next school (and that of our children) based mostly on its approach to teaching literacy. Our eldest was in year 6, our middle child in year 3 and our youngest in her first year of full time school. We wanted only the best for our kids. So, we headed off to another small, somewhat remote school. There I was content knowing that phonological and phonemic skills were taught first, then followed explicitly and systematically by synthetic phonics. A focus on vocabulary and building up all the required skills for reading helped me be confident in the education that my children and the other students. How did I find this school? Well, I followed Miss O!  I knew that I wasn’t going to get all of that anywhere else.

At the end of last year the NT beckoned and we are here once again. I did a stint as acting Teaching Principal at another remote Aboriginal school teaching Direction Instruction (Big D, big I). I won’t go into it here but it’s not my first choice of program. It was, at least, structured and didn’t have sight words.

I am now Teaching Principal at another remote mainstream school. I have 21 students in my care (including my own two youngest) and am delighted at being able to ‘run my own show’ again. I have banished PM readers and sight word programs, introduced a rather eclectic program of explicit systematic synthetic phonics based on a few different programs and my own experience. I am thankful to Debbie Hepplewhite for support when I’ve been ‘standing out on the limb’ with regional leadership. It seems that ‘the limb’ is where I need to learn to be comfortable. We now have rich, decodable cumulative readers in place as well as daily supported reading and writing experiences.  We explicitly teach phonology, morphology, etymology and comprehension strategies and seek to base all that we do on best practice, evidence and what is best for our kids.

Coming in, I have found the same patterns as when I was tutoring. Those struggling with their reading know ‘single sounds’, some consonant digraphs and many are good with ‘sight words’.   In our first term together confidence has grown. Kids are feeling empowered to use effective strategies and parents are positive about the changes.  I feel that we are on the way. It is early days yet but I am hopeful that together we are going to see great growth in our kids. I am lucky to be part of a new project here in the NT that focuses on ‘the good stuff’. There is a common purpose, strong dialogue and a sense of hope that our efforts will result in measureable outcomes.

Despite the extra work load brought about by the loss of group schools, the autonomy we now have means that I can follow the path that I feel is best for the school and respond to the needs of the students in front of me. We still have to PM benchmark as a system requirement but I am not using this to measure our growth. I want to see 8 months growth for 6 months of work. I want to see eyes shining as kids read books. I want parents to give a sigh of relief as they realise that their children can and will succeed. For me, teaching is not about lessons and pay. It’s about social justice. We know that low literacy is one of the biggest risk factors for all of the awful stuff of life. Knowing that, how can we NOT respond to the evidence? How can we NOT fight for change? How CAN we condemn so many kids to a life that is less than they deserve? Reading failure? Not on my watch!

I am still a voracious reader. Admittedly I now read in snippets and half pages in between managing budgets and programs and family time. But I still have at least one book on the go. I am eternally thankful to my Mother who ignited my fire for reading and social justice and to the wonderful teachers and colleagues who have taught and encouraged me. I am so looking forward to learning more and doing better and continuing to make a difference.  Wish me luck!

Jocelyn Seamer

A New Paper by Professors James W. Chapman and William E. Tunmer on Reading Recovery

IFERI is delighted to be able to share with you a brand new paper by Professors James W. Chapman and William E. Tunmer, from the Institute of Education at Massey University, New Zealand.

This paper was presented, by invitation, at the 39th Annual Conference of the International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities (IARLD), Vancouver, Canada, July 8, 2015. Professor James Chapman has been a Fellow of IARLD since 1983.

IARLD (International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities) is an international professional organization dedicated to conducting and sharing research about individuals who have learning disabilities. Fellows of IARLD include premier scientists, educators and clinicians in the field of learning disabilities throughout the world.

For convenience, some extracts and conclusions from the paper are published as part of this blog post. To open or download the complete paper, simply click the title below.

The Literacy Performance of ex-Reading Recovery Students Between Two and Four Years Following Participation on the Program: Is this Intervention Effective for Students with Early Reading Difficulties?

 James W. Chapman and William E. Tunmer

Sustainability of Gains Made in Reading Recovery

Considered together, the PIRLS results for 9-year-old children who had received RR in Year 2, the enrolment data for students receiving support from RT:Lits, and the two New Zealand studies on the sustainability of RR outcomes for discontinued children, show that RR simply has not achieved its primary goals in New Zealand. Clay’s avowal that RR would “clear out of the remedial education system all children who do not learn to read” (Clay, 1987, p. 169), and the RR New Zealand’s website claim that RR operates as an “effective prevention strategy against later literacy difficulties” and, therefore, “may be characterised as an insurance against low literacy levels” (www.readingrecovery.ac.nz/reading_recovery), are without foundation.

Why Does Reading Recovery Fail to Result in Sustainable Gains?

We have argued elsewhere (Chapman et al., 2015) that the effectiveness of RR interacts with where children are located on the developmental progression from pre-reader to skilled reader. Because of limited knowledge of print at the outset of learning to read, and/or developmental delay in acquiring the phonological awareness skills that are essential for learning to read successfully (e.g., Pressley, 2006; Snow & Juel, 2005; Tunmer, Greaney & Prochnow, 2015), a large proportion of young struggling readers operate at low developmental phases of word learning, which Ehri (2005) described as pre-alphabetic and partial-alphabetic phases. Delayed readers who are still in these phases, typically those students who struggle the most with learning to read, will not be able to grasp the alphabetic principle and discover spelling-to-sound relationships on their own or in a program that emphasizes text rather than word level instructional approaches. These students will require more intensive and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemically based decoding skills than what is provided in typical RR lessons.

What Should be Done to Improve the Effectiveness of Reading Recovery?

There are serious shortcomings and much-needed improvements in several aspects of RR, including the theoretical underpinnings of the program, the assessment battery which fails to include measures of phonological processing skills, the specific instructional strategies emphasized in the program (e.g., the multiple cues approach to word identification), the manner of program delivery (one-to-one versus instruction in pairs), and the congruence between classroom literacy instruction and the RR program.

Regarding the issue of congruence between classroom literacy instruction and RR, the program was originally developed to complement regular whole language classroom literacy instruction in New Zealand. Clay (1993), nevertheless, claimed that RR was compatible with all types of classroom literacy programs, but she offered no evidence in support of this claim. To test this belief, Center et al. (2001) investigated whether the efficacy of RR varied as a function of the regular classroom literacy program. They compared the effects of RR in “meaning oriented” (i.e., whole language) classrooms and “code-oriented” classrooms (i.e., those that included explicit and systematic instruction in phonological awareness and alphabetic coding skills). Their results indicated that at the end of the second year of schooling, children in the code-oriented classrooms (regular and RR students combined) significantly outperformed children in the meaning-oriented classrooms on measures of phonological recoding, reading connected text, and invented spelling, as well as on a standardized measure of reading comprehension. Overall, however, Center et al. (2001) reported that the RR students in both types of classrooms failed to reach the average level of their peers on any of the literacy measures. These findings clearly contradict Clay’s (1993) claim that the regular classroom context does not differentially affect the literacy performance of RR children.

Although regular classroom literacy instruction influences the effectiveness of RR, the most serious shortcoming of the program is the differential benefit at the individual level. The program may be useful in the short term for some struggling readers but not others, especially those struggling readers who need help the most. More intensive and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemically-based decoding skills is likely to be required than what is normally provided in RR lessons for those who struggle most with learning to read, and for any gains made in RR to have a lasting effect (Iversen, Tunmer & Chapman, 2005; Tunmer & Greaney, 2010).

Slavin et al. (2011) found reading programs for younger children that had less emphasis on phonics, including RR, showed smaller effect sizes than those programs that included phonics. They noted that RR is the most extensively researched and used reading intervention program in the world, but that the outcomes were less than might be expected. Further, Slavin et al. observed that the overall effect size for 18 studies involving paraprofessional or volunteer tutors using structured and intensive programs was about the same as the effect size for RR studies (+0.24 vs. +0.23), despite the very intensive training that RR teachers receive.

Conclusion

The RR program remains largely un-revised in its instructional approach despite clear evidence showing that claims about RR being an insurance against on-going literacy difficulties are without foundation. The New Zealand Reading Recovery website continues to assert the effectiveness of RR; assertions that are not supported by the New Zealand Ministry of Education’s own data (national monitoring reports and PIRLS), or by the two independent studies undertaken in New Zealand on students two to four years following successful completion of the program. If the RR program is not changed to reflect contemporary scientific research on reading interventions, it should be dropped and replaced by a more contemporary, research-based, reading intervention approach, together with more effective literacy instruction in children’s first year of schooling.

See also:

Excellence and equity in literacy education: the case of New Zealand. W.E. Tunmer & J.W. Chapman (eds.) (June, 2015). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/excellence-and-equity-in-literacy-education-william-e-tunmer/?K=9781137415561

Phonics: An International Perspective

Phonics is not just a national issue for us here in the UK. Supporting the optimum number of children to read the English language fluently and confidently is an international issue. Although I thought I already had a fair picture of what is happening overseas, since being involved as a member of IFERI I have been amazed at the synergy between our situation and that of so many other countries worldwide. The growing evidence and support internationally for phonics as the key to reading success is so strong. However many other countries also have almost exactly the same issues with ingrained but misinformed and, yes, prejudiced opposition. They too need so many more policy makers, head teachers, teachers and parents (perhaps especially parents) to start to question what they have been led to ‘believe’ about learning to read and start to pay due regard to the actual evidence, no only of research, but of the demonstrated classroom efficacy of high quality phonics practice. We are fortunate in this country that some key national policy makers understand what is needed to get all our children reading. This means that we are well ahead of many other countries in moving towards teaching based on the principle of using phonic decoding as the route to reading unknown words. There are many in other countries who are envious of our position and fully appreciate what is being done. That makes it all the more tragic that there are still large numbers of teaching professionals, and others, in our country who don’t. Please start to look regularly at the IFERI website and see the whole picture for yourself. Gordon Askew