READING, part two: What really works for readers and when?

Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone 

This post was the second of a series of 6 posts shared on the AARE Blog ‘EduResearch Matters’ in Book week 2024, and has been reproduced here. You can find the original at https://blog.aare.edu.au/reading-part-two-what-really-works-for-readers-and-when/

In our first post, titled Learning to Read, we introduced the topic of learning to read and forecast some of the questions that we would consider over the series of posts. We start today’s post with Evidence-based instruction before moving to a discussion of Phonics.  

Evidence and Phonics

The term ‘evidence-based’ is used widely and can be appealing (Mackenzie & Tassone, 2024), even if it is not clear how the evidence being referenced was collected or analysed. Reading related science is complex, and evidence coming from science needs to be viewed from different perspectives and over time, in order for the full picture to emerge. The evidence-based movement includes ‘a focus on behaviourist theory, quantitative research, randomised controlled trials, meta-analyses, hard numerical data and high stakes standardised testing’, and often ignores ‘structural inequalities in pursuit of better outcomes’ (McKnight & Morgan, 2020, p. 648). Some claim evidence to support a particular approach, while others use different evidence to claim that the same approach does not work. A common assumption is that if something works with students from one cohort it will work with all students.

Huge Differences

However, any parent who has more than one child will point out the huge differences, even between two siblings; when they walk, talk, learn to feed themselves, sleeping patterns etc, etc. Therefore, a class of 25 children who come into school together, from 25 different homes, both boys and girls and who may vary in age of up to 18 months, bring more differences than can be counted and qualified. In terms of preparedness for school, there will be a huge range of prior experiences socially and culturally and in terms of oral and written language exposure. They bring more differences than can be counted and qualified. 

In terms of preparedness for school, there will be a huge range of prior experiences socially and culturally. There will also be a huge range of experience in terms of oral and written language exposure. To assume all children should start at the same point with the same instruction is naive. (For more on EBI read EduResearch Matters posts by Nicole Brinker   and Tom Mahoney. These provided  comprehensive discussions of this vexed topic.) 

The topic that is the most talked about in the current era is that of phonics or phonemic awareness instruction. While all agree that phonics is necessary for reading, the amount and methods are up for debate. Australia’s National curriculum includes the teaching of phonics. But it also recognises that when reading, children will draw on a range of sources. That includes their knowledge of letters and sounds, what makes sense, and knowledge of how language works.

Children who can already read when they start school

Let’s start with the children who can already read when they begin school. It is important for teachers to first check that any children who arrive at school with the ability to read, are able to problem solve unknown words, within text, using phonological information. Children who can already demonstrate the ability to apply phonological information effectively should focus on a wide range of engagements with texts. 

Focused, systematic, and explicit phonics lessons should be aimed at children who are just starting to discover, or are still learning, how letters and sounds (phonemes) work in reading and writing. It may be difficult initially to identify those children who we will refer to as typically developing readers. These children make up the majority of most classrooms. Most will need daily focused phonics lessons for the first year of school. 

Those who show early signs of struggle

Assessments of children’s reading will efficiently and accurately determine what children know, what they can do. These same assessments can be used to determine when children no longer need phonics teaching for reading (Wyse & Hacking, 2024) A small group (10-15%) (Castles, 2024) may show early signs of struggle and may possibly be diagnosed as experiencing reading difficulties. These children will need more focused instruction in addition to the daily classroom program. 

While phonics is a necessary element of reading instruction, and will probably account for approximately 25-30 mins of daily instruction in the first year of school, there are different methods for teaching phonics. 

Synthetic phonics

Synthetic phonics (Davis, 2013) is a particular decontextualised, approach to teaching reading that involves teaching children how to convert letters or letter groups into sounds (phonemes) and then blending these sounds to form words and/or non-words. Commercial Structured phonics programs usually use a synthetic phonics approach.  Even the strongest supporters of a phonics first approach question the need for Synthetic Phonics.

 “In our view, the evidence is not yet sufficient to conclude that a synthetic phonics approach should be preferred over an analytic one”. (Castles, Rastle & Nation, 2018).

Analytic phonics

Analytic phonics (also referred to as analytical phonics or implicit phonics) refers to an approach that focuses on teaching the sounds (phonemes) associated with particular letter patterns within the context of a whole word. 

Embedded phonics

Embedded phonics, integrates phonics instruction into the context of reading authentic texts, rather than being taught as separate, isolated skills.  Recent research conducted in Melbourne (Scull & Lyons, 2024) illustrated the affordances of explicit phonics instruction integrated into a rich literacy environment. It showed the clear benefits for students when phonics was taught in context

Analytic and embedded methods may be described as contextualised approaches and are often integrated. All approaches to phonics instruction can be systematic and all involve explicit instruction. 

Phonics instruction through writing (Wyse & Hacking, 2024) is often overlooked and yet provides the potential for children to explore letter sound relationships from a different perspective than when reading. Instead of going from letter to sound they go from sound to letter. What can I hear? What letters could I use to make that sound? 

A concern expressed by some, is how long focused phonics or phonemic awareness (PA) instruction should continue. 

The goal is to read

The goal of teaching children to read is reading, not phonemic awareness.

We know learning to read does not require being able to identify 44 phonemes or demonstrate proficiency on phoneme deletion and substitution tasks. How do we know that? Because until very recently no one who learned to read had to do these things. Instruction in sub-skills such as phonemic awareness is justified to the extent it advances the goal of reading, not for its own sake (Seidenberg, 2023).

Problems with the way phonics is sometimes referred to by advocates of the Science of Reading have also been identified (more on the SoR in a future post).

The idea that a certain level of PA is prerequisite for reading, and that PA training should continue until the student becomes highly proficient at PA tasks regardless of how well they are reading is emblematic of problems that have arisen within the Science of Reading approach. It is an over-prescription that reflects a shallow understanding of reading development, yet has become a major tenet of the “science of reading”. (Seidenberg, 2023)

An integrated approach

In 2000, The National Reading Panel (NRP) in the USA suggested systematic phonics instruction, although they also argued that it was important that it, “should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a balanced reading program”. The NRP even warned against phonics becoming a dominant component in a reading program.  The 2005  Rowe Report on the Australian National Inquiry into the Teaching of Reading stated the importance of systematic phonics instruction. But it also noted it was equally important that . . .

Teachers should provide an integrated approach to reading that supports the development of oral language, vocabulary, grammar, reading fluency, comprehension and the literacies of new technologies.(National Reading Panel, 2000).

More recently, Wyse and Hacking (2024) have argued that the teaching of phonics to typically developing readers should be “contextualised in whole texts, including a focus on comprehension and including the teaching of writing within reading lessons”. This claim is well supported by a seminal 1990 study which compared de-contextualised phonics teaching with contextualised phonics teaching and a ‘business as usual’ control group.

Recent research conducted in Melbourne also showed that a contextualised phonics intervention was more effective than de-contextualised phonics because it bridged the learning about phonemes, with input on reading more generally, in order to promote broader transfer of skills.

It’s all about context

Has this started you thinking and perhaps questioning what you may have read about phonics and evidence-based instruction in the media? In post 3 we explore the Simple View of Reading and how it has influenced much of the reading research over recent times.

References

Castles, A. (2024). From language to literacy: understanding dyslexia. Journal & Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales Pages: 49-52

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Association for Psychological science, 19(1), 5-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271

Compton‐Lilly, C., Spence, L. K., Thomas, P. L., & Decker, S. L. (2023). Stories grounded in decades of research: what we truly know about the teaching of reading. The Reading Teacher, 77(3), 392-400.

Cunningham, A. E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50(3), 429-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(90)90079-N

Dantas, T., Mangas-Vega, A., Goméz-Díaz, R., & Cordón-García, J. A. (2017). Reading research and digital reading research: An overview of the current scientific scenario. Informação & sociedade, estudos, 27(2), 117-131.

Davis, A. (2013). To read or not to read: decoding Synthetic Phonics. Impact, 2013(20), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/2048-416X.2013.12000.x

Houston SM, Lebel C, Katzir T, Manis FR, Kan E, Rodriguez GG, & ER., S. (2014). Reading skill and structural brain development. Neuroreport, 25(5), 347-352. doi:

Mackenzie, N.M., & Tassone, M. (2024). Reading Research: beyond the media hype. Hot Topic, Australian Literacy educator’s Association.

McKnight, L., & Morgan, A. (2020). A broken paradigm? What education needs to learn from evidence-based medicine. Journal of Education Policy, 35(5), 648-664. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.1578902

National Reading Panel Report (NRPR) Teaching Children to Read, (2000) https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf

Scull, J., & Lyons, D. (2024). Teaching phonics in context—stories of teachers’ practice and students’ outcomes. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44020-024-00058-6

Seidenberg, M. (2023). About the science in the “Science of Reading”. Reading Matters. https://seidenbergreading.net/2023/03/31/about-the-science-in-the-science-of-reading/

Wyse, D., & Hacking, C. (2024). The Balancing Act: An Evidence-Based Approach to Teaching Phonics, Reading and Writing. Routledge.