The Reference Desk, using available evidence and research, provides quick-turnaround responses to questions submitted by education stakeholders around the Northeast and Islands Region. Every Friday, REL-NEI highlights one or two questions submitted to its Reference Desk.
Question of the Week
Does Phonics Instruction Impact Student Achievement as Part of a Balanced Reading Program?
The Reference Desk receives many requests each month for research on effective instructional practices, particularly in reading and math. This week’s Digest highlights one such request; in this case, the requestor wanted to know whether evidence exists that phonics instruction can improve student achievement when it is incorporated into a “balanced reading program.”
Question
According to the research, what is the impact on student achievement of a systematic approach to phonics as part of a balanced reading program?
Research Synthesis
Reference Desk researchers found several resources suggesting that systematic approaches to phonics as part of balanced reading programs can have a positive impact on student achievement. For instance, in a Report by the National Reading Panel (2000; see below), “meta-analyses were conducted to answer several questions about the impact of systematic phonics instruction on growth in reading when compared with instruction that does not emphasize phonics. Findings provided strong evidence substantiating the impact of systematic phonics instruction on learning to read” (p. 2-132). However, the authors also state “that systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a balanced reading program. Phonics instruction is never a total reading program” (p. 2-97).
Publicly Available Resources
- Effective Beginning Reading Programs: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. January 2009; Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., and Davis, S.; Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University School of Education’s Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education; Best Evidence Encyclopedia; 55 pages.
From the conclusion: “[T]here are several important patterns in the findings that are worthy of note. First, this article finds that successful programs almost always provide teachers with extensive professional development and followup focused on specific teaching methods. In particular, most of the programs with strong evidence of effectiveness have cooperative learning at their core … Second, all of the programs found to be effective or promising in qualifying experiments have a strong focus on teaching phonics and phonemic awareness. This is particularly true of Success for All, PALS, Reading Reels, phonological awareness training, Open Court Phonics Kits, Scholastic Phonics Readers with Literacy Place, Reading and Integrated Literacy Strategies (RAILS), Direct Instruction, Phonics-Based Reading, and Sing, Spell, Read, and Write. It is important to note that studies of all of these programs found positive effects on comprehension and/or total reading measures, not just decoding measures that would appear more slanted toward phonetic approaches. However, an emphasis on phonics did not guarantee positive effects. Phonetic curricular approaches and computer-assisted instruction models, in particular, had minimal impacts on student outcomes. It clearly matters a great deal how reading is taught, and an emphasis on phonics may be necessary but it is not sufficient to ensure meaningful reading gains.”
- A Systematic Review of the Research Literature on the Use of Phonics in the Teaching of Reading and Spelling. 2006; Torgerson, C. J., Brooks, G., and Hall, J.; Nottingham, UK: The University of Sheffield Department for Education and Skills; 82 pages.
From the Executive Summary: “Key findings – The effect of phonics on reading:
- Systematic phonics instruction within a broad literacy curriculum was found to have a statistically significant positive effect on reading accuracy.
- There was no statistically significant difference between the effectiveness of systematic phonics instruction for reading accuracy for normally-developing children and for children at risk of reading failure.
- The weight of evidence for both these findings was moderate (there were 12 randomized controlled trials included in the analysis).
- Both of these findings provided some support for those of a systematic review published in the United States in 2001 (Ehri et al., 2001).
An analysis of the effect of systematic phonics instruction on reading comprehension was based on weak weight of evidence (only four randomized controlled trials were found) and failed to find the statistically significant positive difference which was found in the previous review.”
- Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. 2000; Washington, DC: National Reading Panel, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; NIH Pub. No. 00-4769; 449 pages.
The Conclusion of Chapter 2, “Part II: Phonics Instruction, Executive Summary” states that “meta-analyses were conducted to answer several questions about the impact of systematic phonics instruction on growth in reading when compared with instruction that does not emphasize phonics. Findings provided strong evidence substantiating the impact of systematic phonics instruction on learning to read” (p. 2-132). However, the authors also state in the results section “that systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a balanced reading program. Phonics instruction is never a total reading program” (p. 2-97).
The Reference Desk also found
these organizations and resources to be helpful in learning more about phonics and reading instruction in general:
- What Works Clearinghouse
What Work Clearinghouse hosts reports on studies of specific instructional programs, including the following phonic programs:
- Headsprout Early Reading. 2009; WWC Intervention Report; Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 5 pages.
- Lexia Reading. 2009; WWC Intervention Report; Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 5 pages.
- Reading Recovery. 2007; WWC Intervention Report; Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 12 pages.
- The National Right to Read Foundation
This phonics advocacy organization’s website includes a variety of related resources such as the article “The Reading Wars: Understanding the Debate over How Best to Teach Children to Read.”
Download the Full Response
If this material brings up questions of your own, please submit a new request here. If you’re interested in learning more about the Reference Desk, read about us here. And finally, share thoughts, experiences, and resources of your own by clicking on the Feedback link below.
