From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Phonics is a method for teaching the reading and writing of an alphabetic language (such as English, Arabic and Russian). It is done by demonstrating the relationship between the sounds (phonemes) of the spoken language, and the letters (graphemes), groups of letters, or syllables of the written language. This is also known as the Alphabetic principle or the Alphabetic code.[1]

Phonics is taught using a variety of approaches, for example: a) learning individual sounds (e.g. the word cat has three letters and three sounds c - a - t, (in IPA: /k/, /æ/, /t/), whereas the word flower has six letters but four sounds: f - l - ow - er, (IPA /f/, /l/, //, /ər/), or b) learning groups of letters such as rimes (e.g. hat, mat and sat have the same rime, at), or consonant blends (e.g. bl as in black and st as in last), or syllables (e.g. pen-cil and al-pha-bet), or c) having students read books, play games and perform activities that contain the sounds they are learning.[2][3][4][5]

Reading by using phonics is often referred to as decoding words, sounding-out words or using print-to-sound relationships. Since phonics focuses on the sounds and letters within words (i.e. sublexical),[6] it is often contrasted with whole language (a word-level-up philosophy for teaching reading) and a compromise approach called balanced literacy (the attempt to combine whole language and phonics).

Phonics advocates do not suggest that phonics is all there is to reading, or that it cannot be taught in conjunction with the reading of authentic texts (i.e. good books). They only suggest that "the phonological pathway is an essential component of skilled reading" and "for most children it requires instruction, hence phonics".[7] Some recommend 20–30 minutes of daily phonics instruction in grades K-2; about 200 hours.[8]

Phonics is different from phonemic awareness (PA) the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate the individual spoken sounds - unrelated to their letters. PA, a subset of phonological awareness, is strongly related to the learner’s oral language skills and is critical in learning to read.[9] To assess PA, or teach it explicitly, learners are given a variety of exercises, such as adding a sound (e.g. Add the th sound to the beginning of the word ink), changing a sound (e.g. In the word sing, change the ng sound to the t sound), or removing a sound (e.g. In the word park, remove the p sound). The most important determinant of a child’s early reading success is their knowledge of spoken language.[10] Phonemic awareness is sometimes taught separately from phonics and at other times it is the result of phonics instruction (i.e. segmenting or blending phonemes with letters).[11][12][13]



The term phonics during the 19th century and into the 1970s was used as a synonym of phonetics. The use of the term in reference to the method of teaching is dated to 1901 by the Oxford English Dictionary. The relationship between sounds and letters is the backbone of traditional phonics.

This principle was first presented by John Hart in 1570. Prior to that children learned to read through the ABC method, by which they recited the letters used in each word, from a familiar piece of text such as Genesis.[14] It was John Hart who first suggested that the focus should be on the relationship between what are now referred to as graphemes and phonemes.

The alphabetic principle (also: The alphabetic code)[edit]

English spelling is based on the alphabetic principle. In the education field it is also referred to as the alphabetic code.[15][16][17][18] In an alphabetic writing system, letters are used to represent speech sounds, or phonemes. For example, the word pat is spelled with three letters, p, a, and t, each representing a phoneme, respectively, /p/, /æ/, and /t/.[19][20]

The spelling structures for some alphabetic languages, such as Spanish, Portuguese and especially Italian, are comparatively orthographically transparent, or orthographically shallow, because there is nearly a one-to-one correspondence between sounds and the letter patterns that represent them. English spelling is more complex, a deep orthography, partly because it attempts to represent the 40+ phonemes of the spoken language with an alphabet composed of only 26 letters (and no accent marks or diacritics). As a result, two letters are often used together to represent distinct sounds, referred to as digraphs. For example, t and h placed side by side to represent either /θ/ as in math or /ð/ as in father.

English has absorbed many words from other languages throughout its history, usually without changing the spelling of those words. As a result, the written form of English includes the spelling patterns of many languages (Old English, Old Norse, Norman French, Classical Latin and Greek, as well as numerous modern languages) superimposed upon one another.[21] These overlapping spelling patterns mean that in many cases the same sound can be spelled differently (e.g. tray and break) and the same spelling can represent different sounds (e.g. room and book). However, the spelling patterns usually follow certain conventions.[22] In addition, the Great Vowel Shift, a historical linguistic process in which the quality of many vowels in English changed while the spelling remained as it was, greatly diminished the transparency of English spelling in relation to pronunciation.

The result is that English spelling patterns vary considerably in the degree to which they follow rules. For example, the letters ee almost always represent // (e.g. meet), but the sound can also be represented by the letters e, i and y and digraphs ie, ei, or ea (e.g. she, sardine, sunny, chief, seize, eat). Similarly, the letter cluster ough represents /ʌf/ as in enough, // as in though, // as in through, /ɒf/ as in cough, // as in bough, /ɔː/ as in bought, and /ʌp/ as in hiccough, while in slough and lough, the pronunciation varies.

Although the patterns are inconsistent, when English spelling rules take into account syllable structure, phonetics, etymology and accents, there are dozens of rules that are 75% or more reliable.[23] This level of reliability can only be achieved by extending the rules far outside the domain of phonics, which deals with letter-sound correspondences, and into the morphophonemic and morphological domains.

Alternate spellings of the sounds[edit]

The following are a selection of the alternate spellings of the 40+ sounds of the English language based on General American English pronunciation, recognizing there are many regional variations. Under synthetic phonics, the spellings are taught beginning with the easiest to learn (e.g. cake before eight). And, teachers emphasis the letter sounds not the letter names (i.e. mmm not em, sss not es, fff not ef).[24][25][26]

Vowel and consonant phonics patterns[edit]

The following is an explanation of many of the phonics patterns.

Vowel phonics patterns[edit]

  • Short vowels are the five single letter vowels, a, e, i, o, and u, when they produce the sounds /æ/ as in cat, /ɛ/ as in bet, /ɪ/ as in sit, /ɒ/ or /ɑː/ as in hot, and /ʌ/ as in cup. The term "short vowel" is historical, and meant that at one time (in Middle English) these vowels were pronounced for a particularly short period of time; currently, it means just that they are not diphthongs like the long vowels.
  • Long vowels have the same sound as the names of the vowels, such as // in bay, // in bee, // in mine, // in no, and /j/ in use. The way that educators use the term "long vowels" differs from the way in which linguists use this term. Careful educators use the term "long vowel letters" or "long vowels", not "long vowel sounds", since four of the five long vowels (long vowel letters) in fact represent combinations of sounds (a, i, o, and u i.e. // in bay, // in mine, // in no, and /j/ in use) and only one consists of a single vowel sound that is long (// in bee), which is how linguists use the term. In classrooms, long vowels are taught as having "the same sounds as the names of the letters". Teachers teach the children that a long vowel "says its name".
  • Schwa is the third sound that most of the single vowel spellings can represent. It is the indistinct sound of many a vowel in an unstressed syllable, and is represented by the linguistic symbol /ə/; it is the sound of the o in lesson, of the a in sofa. Although it is the most common vowel sound in spoken English, schwa is not always taught to elementary school students because some find it difficult to understand. However, some educators make the argument that schwa should be included in primary reading programs because of its vital importance in the correct pronunciation of English words.
  • Closed syllables are syllables in which a single vowel letter is followed by a consonant. In the word button, both syllables are closed syllables because they contain single vowels followed by consonants. Therefore, the letter u represents the short sound /ʌ/. (The o in the second syllable makes the /ə/ sound because it is an unstressed syllable.)
  • Open syllables are syllables in which a vowel appears at the end of the syllable. The vowel will say its long sound. In the word basin, ba is an open syllable and therefore says /b/.
  • Diphthongs are linguistic elements that fuse two adjacent vowel sounds. English has four common diphthongs. The commonly recognized diphthongs are // as in cow and /ɔɪ/ as in boil. Three of the long vowels are also in fact combinations of two vowel sounds, in other words diphthongs: // as in "I" or mine, // as in no, and // as in bay, which partly accounts for the reason they are considered "long".
  • Vowel digraphs are those spelling patterns wherein two letters are used to represent a vowel sound. The ai in sail is a vowel digraph. Because the first letter in a vowel digraph sometimes says its long vowel sound, as in sail, some phonics programs once taught that "when two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking." This convention has been almost universally discarded owing to the many non-examples, such as the au spelling of the /ɔː/ sound and the oo spelling of the // and /ʊ/ sounds, neither of which follow this pattern.
  • Vowel-consonant-E spellings are those wherein a single vowel letter, followed by a consonant and the letter e makes the long vowel sound. The tendency is often referred to as "the silent E" or "the magic E" with examples such as bake, theme, hike, cone, and cute. (The ee spelling, as in meet is sometimes, but inconsistently, considered part of this pattern.)
  • R-controlled syllables include those wherein a vowel followed by an r has a different sound from its regular pattern. For example, a word like car should have the pattern of a "closed syllable" because it has one vowel and ends in a consonant. However, the a in car does not have its regular "short" sound (/æ/ as in cat) because it is controlled by the r. The r changes the sound of the vowel that precedes it. Other examples include: park, horn, her, bird, and burn.
  • The Consonant-le syllable is a final syllable, located at the end of the base/root word. It contains a consonant, followed by the letters le. The e is silent and is present because it was pronounced in earlier English and the spelling is historical.

Consonant phonics patterns[edit]

  • Consonant digraphs are those spellings wherein two letters are used to represent a single consonant phoneme. The most common consonant digraphs are ch for //, ng for /ŋ/, ph for /f/, sh for /ʃ/, th for /θ/ and /ð/. Letter combinations like wr for /r/ and kn for /n/ are technically also consonant digraphs, although they are so rare that they are sometimes considered patterns with "silent letters".
  • Short vowel+consonant patterns involve the spelling of the sounds /k/ as in peek, // as in stage, and // as in speech. These sounds each have two possible spellings at the end of a word, ck and k for /k/, dge and ge for //, and tch and ch for //. The spelling is determined by the type of vowel that precedes the sound. If a short vowel precedes the sound, the former spelling is used, as in pick, judge, and match. If a short vowel does not precede the sound, the latter spelling is used, as in took, barge, and launch.

These patterns are just a few examples out of dozens that can be used to help learners unpack the challenging English alphabetic code. While complex, many believe English spelling does retain order and reason.

Teaching reading with phonics[edit]

Combining phonics with other literacy instruction[edit]

There are many ways that phonics is taught and it is often taught together with some of the following: oral language skills,[27][28] concepts about print,[29] phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonology, oral fluency, vocabulary, syllables, reading comprehension, spelling, word study,[30][31] [32] cooperative learning, multisensory learning, and guided reading. And, phonics is often featured in discussions about the science of reading,[33][34] and evidence-based practices.

The National Reading Panel (U.S.A. 2000) suggests that phonics be taught together with phonemic awareness, oral fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. Timothy Shanahan (educator), a member of that panel, suggests that primary students receive 60–90 minutes per day of explicit, systematic, literacy instruction time; and that it be divided equally between a) words and word parts (e.g. letters, sounds, decoding and phonemic awareness), b) oral reading fluency, c) reading comprehension, and d) writing.[35] Furthermore, he states that "the phonemic awareness skills found to give the greatest reading advantage to kindergarten and first-grade children are segmenting and blending".[36]

The Ontario Association of Deans of Education (Canada) published research Monograph # 37 entitled Supporting early language and literacy with suggestions for parents and teachers in helping children prior to grade one. It covers the areas of letter names and letter-sound correspondence (phonics), as well as conversation, play-based learning, print, phonological awareness, shared reading, and vocabulary.[37]

Effectiveness of programs[edit]

Some researchers report that teaching reading without teaching phonics is harmful to large numbers of students; yet not all phonics teaching programs produce effective results. The reason is that the effectiveness of programs depend on using the right curricula together with the appropriate approach to instruction techniques, classroom management, grouping, and other factors.[38]

Interest in evidence-based education appears to be growing.[39] In 2019, Best evidence encyclopedia (BEE) released a review of research on 48 different programs for struggling readers in elementary schools.[40] Many of the programs used phonics-based teaching and/or one or more of the following: cooperative learning, technology-supported adaptive instruction (see Educational technology), metacognitive skills, phonemic awareness, word reading, fluency, vocabulary, multisensory learning, spelling, guided reading, reading comprehension, word analysis, structured curriculum, and balanced literacy (non-phonetic approach).

The BEE review concludes that a) outcomes were positive for one-to-one tutoring, b) outcomes were positive but not as large for one-to-small group tutoring, c) there were no differences in outcomes between teachers and teaching assistants as tutors, d) technology-supported adaptive instruction did not have positive outcomes, e) whole-class approaches (mostly cooperative learning) and whole-school approaches incorporating tutoring obtained outcomes for struggling readers as large as those found for one- to-one tutoring, and benefitted many more students, and f) approaches mixing classroom and school improvements, with tutoring for the most at-risk students, have the greatest potential for the largest numbers of struggling readers.

What works clearinghouse allows you to see the effectiveness of specific programs. For example, as of 2020 they have data on 231 literacy programs. If you filter them by grade 1 only, all class types, all school types, all delivery methods, all program types, and all outcomes you receive 22 programs. You can then view the program details and, if you wish, compare one with another.[41]

Evidence for ESSA[42] (Center for Research and Reform in Education)[43] offers free up-to-date information on current PK-12 programs in reading, writing, math, science, and others that meet the standards of the Every Student Succeeds Act (U.S.A.) [44].

Sight words and sight vocabulary[edit]

Sight words (i.e. high-frequency or common words) are not a part of the phonics method. They are usually associated with whole language and balanced literacy where students are expected to memorize common words such as those on the Dolch word list and the Fry word list (e.g. a, be, call, do, eat, fall, gave, etc.). The supposition (in whole language) is that students will learn to read more easily if they memorize the most common words they will encounter, especially words that are not easily decoded (i.e. exceptions). However, according to research, whole-word memorisation is "labor-intensive", requiring on average about 35 trials per word.[45]

On the other hand, phonics advocates say that most words are decodable, so comparatively few words have to be memorized. And because a child will over time encounter many low-frequency words, "the phonological recoding mechanism is a very powerful, indeed essential, mechanism throughout reading development".[46] Furthermore, researchers suggest that teachers who withhold phonics instruction to make it easier on children “are having the opposite effect” by making it harder for children to gain basic word-recognition skills. They suggest that learners should focus on understanding the principles of phonics so they can recognize the phonemic overlaps among words (e.g. have, had, has, having, haven’t, etc.), making it easier to decode them all.[47]

Sight vocabulary is a part of the phonics method. It describes words that are stored in long-term memory and read automatically. Skilled fully-alphabetic readers learn to store words in long-term memory without memorization (i.e. a mental dictionary), making reading and comprehension easier. The process, called orthographic mapping, involves decoding, crosschecking, mental marking and rereading. It takes significantly less time than memorization. This process works for fully-alphabetic readers when reading simple decodable words from left to right through the word. Irregular words pose more of a challenge. Yet research in 2018 concluded that fully-alphabetic students learn irregular words more easily when they use a process called hierarchical decoding. In this process, students, rather than decode from left to right, are taught to focus attention on the irregular elements such as a vowel-digraph and a silent-e; such as break (b - r - ea - k), height (h - eigh - t), touch (t - ou - ch), and make (m - a- ke). Consequentially, they suggest that teachers and tutors should focus on "teaching decoding with more advanced vowel patterns before expecting young readers to tackle irregular words".[45][48]

Systematic phonics[edit]

Systematic phonics is not one specific method of teaching phonics; it is a term used to describe phonics approaches that are taught explicitly and in a structured, systematic manner. They are systematic because the letters and the sounds they relate to are taught in a specific sequence, as opposed to incidentally or on a "when needed" basis.

Phonics can be taught systematically in a variety of ways, such as: synthetic phonics, analytic phonics and analogy phonics. However, their effectiveness vary considerably because the methods differ in such areas as the range of letter-sound coverage, the structure of the lesson plans, and the time devoted to specific instructions.[49]

Systematic phonics has gained increased acceptance in different parts of the world since the completion of two major studies into teaching reading; one in the USA in 2000 [50][51] and the other in the UK in 2006.[52]

In 2009, the UK Department of Education published a curriculum review that added support for systematic phonics. In fact, systematic phonics in the UK is known as Synthetic phonics.[53] Beginning as early as 2014, several States in the USA have changed their curriculum to include systematic phonics instruction in elementary school.[54][55][56][57] In 2018, the State Government of Victoria, Australia, published a website containing a comprehensive Literacy Teaching Toolkit including Effective Reading Instruction, Phonics, and Sample Phonics Lessons.[58]

Synthetic phonics[edit]

Synthetic phonics, also known as blended phonics, is a method employed to teach students to read by sounding out the letters then blending the sounds to form the word. This method involves learning how letters or letter groups represent individual sounds, and that those sounds are blended to form a word. For example, shrouds would be read by pronouncing the sounds for each spelling, sh,r,ou,d,s (IPA /ʃ, r, , d, z/), then blending those sounds orally to produce a spoken word, sh - r - ou - d - s= shrouds (IPA /ʃrdz/). The goal of either a blended phonics or synthetic phonics instructional program is that students identify the sound-symbol correspondences and blend their phonemes automatically. Since 2005, synthetic phonics has become the accepted method of teaching reading (by phonics instruction) in the United Kingdom and Australia. In the US, a pilot program using the Core Knowledge Early Literacy program that used this type of phonics approach showed significantly higher results in K-3 reading compared with comparison schools.[59] In addition, several States such as California, Ohio, New York and Arkansas, are promoting the priciples of synthetic phonics (see synthetic phonics in the USA).

Analytic phonics[edit]

Analytic phonics does not involve pronouncing individual sounds (phonemes) in isolation and blending the sounds, as is done in synthetic phonics. Rather, it is taught at the word level and students learn to analyze letter-sound relationships once the word is identified. For example, students analyze letter-sound correspondences such as the ou spelling of // in shrouds. Also, students might be asked to practice saying words with similiar sounds such as ball, bat and bite. Furthermore, students are taught consonant blends (separate, adjacent consonants) as units, such as break or shrouds. [60]

Analogy phonics[edit]

Analogy phonics is a particular type of analytic phonics in which the teacher has students analyze phonic elements according to the speech sounds (phonograms) in the word. For example, a type of phonogram (known in linguistics as a rime) is composed of the vowel and the consonant sounds that follow it (e.g. in the words cat, mat and sat, the rime is "at".) Teachers using the analogy method may have students memorize a bank of phonograms, such as -at or -am, or use word families (e.g. can, ran, man, or may, play, say).[61][62]

Embedded phonics with mini-lessons[edit]

Embedded phonics, also known as Incidental phonics, is the type of phonics instruction used in whole language programs. It is not systematic phonics. Although phonics skills are de-emphasised in whole language programs, some teachers include phonics "mini-lessons" when students struggle with words while reading from a book. Short lessons are included based on phonics elements the students are having trouble with, or on a new or difficult phonics pattern that appears in a class reading assignment. The focus on meaning is generally maintained, but the mini-lesson provides some time for focus on individual sounds and the letters that represent them. Embedded phonics is different from other methods because instruction is always in the context of literature rather than in separate lessons about distinct sounds and letters; and skills are taught when an opportunity arises, not systematically.[63][64][65]

The Reading Wars - Phonics vs. Whole language[edit]

A debate has been going on for decades about the merits of phonics vs. whole language. It is sometimes referred to as the Reading Wars.[66][67]

Until the mid-1800's, phonics was the accepted method in the United States to teach children to read. Then, in 1841 Horace Mann, the Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, advocated for a whole-word method of teaching reading to replace phonics. Others, such as Rudolf Flesch, advocated for a return to phonics in his book Why Johhny Can't read (1955). The whole-word method received support from Kenneth J. Goodman who wrote an article in 1967 entitled Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game.[68] Although not supported by scientific studies, the theory became very influential as the whole language method.[69][70] Since the 1970's some whole language supporters such as Frank Smith (psycholinguist), are unyielding in arguing that phonics should be taught little, if at all.[71]

Yet, other researchers say instruction in phonics and phonemic awareness are "critically important" and "essential" to develop early reading skills.[7][72][73] In 2000, the National Reading Panel (U.S.A.) identified five ingredients of effective reading instruction, of which phonics is one; the other four are phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.[74] Reports from other countries, such as the Australian report on Teaching reading (2005) [75] and the U.K. Independent review of the teaching of early reading (Rose Report 2006) have also supported the use of phonics.

More recently, some educators have advocated for the theory of balanced literacy purported to combine phonics and whole language yet not necessarily in a consistent or systematic manner. It may include elements such as word study and phonics mini-lessons, differentiated learning, cueing, leveled reading, shared reading, guided reading, independent reading and sight words.[76][77][78][79]

Some phonics supporters assert that balanced literacy is merely whole language by another name.[80] And critics of whole life and sceptics of balanced literacy, such as neuroscientist Mark Seidenberg, state that struggling readers should not be encouraged to skip words they find puzzling or rely on semantic and syntactic cues to guess words.[81] [82][83]

Over time a growing number of countries and States have put greater emphasis on phonics and other evidence-based practices. (see Phonics practices by country).

The simple view of reading[edit]

The simple view of reading is a scientific theory about reading comprehension. The creators of the theory hoped it would help to end the reading wars. According to the theory, in order to comprehend what they are reading students need both decoding skills and language comprehension ability; neither is enough on their own. Students are not reading if they can decode words but do not understand their meaning. Similarly, students are not reading if they cannot decode words that they would ordinarily recognize and understand if they heard them spoken out loud.[84][85]

Phonics practices by country[edit]

Phonics in Australia[edit]

On 30 November 2004 Brendan Nelson, Minister for Education, Science and Training, established a National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy in Australia. The Inquiry examined the way reading is taught in schools, as well as the effectiveness of teacher education courses in preparing teachers for reading instruction. In the resulting report in 2005, Teaching Reading, the first two recommendations make clear the Committee's conviction about the need to base the teaching of reading on evidence and the importance of teaching systematic, explicit phonics within an integrated approach.[75]

The executive summary states, "The evidence is clear ... that direct systematic instruction in phonics during the early years of schooling is an essential foundation for teaching children to read. Findings from the research evidence indicate that all students learn best when teachers adopt an integrated approach to reading that explicitly teaches phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary knowledge and comprehension." The Inquiry Committee also states that the apparent dichotomy between phonics and the whole-Language approach to teaching "is false". However, it goes on to say "It was clear, however, that systematic phonics instruction is critical if children are to be taught to read well, whether or not they experience reading difficulties."[86]

In the executive summary it goes on to say the following:

"Overall we conclude that the synthetic phonics approach, as part of the reading curriculum, is more effective than the analytic phonics approach, even when it is supplemented with phonemic awareness training. It also led boys to reading words significantly better than girls, and there was a trend towards better spelling and reading comprehension. There is evidence that synthetic phonics is best taught at the beginning of Primary 1, as even by the end of the second year at school the children in the early synthetic phonics programme had better spelling ability, and the girls had significantly better reading ability."

As of October 5, 2018, The State Government of Victoria, Australia, publishes a website containing a comprehensive Literacy Teaching Toolkit including Effective Reading Instruction, Phonics, and Sample Phonics Lessons.[87][88][89] It contains elements of synthetic phonics, analytical phonics, and analogy phonics.

In 2016 Australia ranked 21st in the PIRLS reading achievement for fourth grade students.[90]

Phonics in Canada[edit]

In Canada, public education is the responsibility of the Provincial and Territorial governments. As in other countries there has been much debate on the value of phonics in teaching reading in English; however, phonics has become evident. In fact, the curriculum of all of the Canadian provinces include some of the following: phonics, phonological awareness, segmenting and blending, decoding, phonemic awareness, graphophonic cues, and letter-sound relationships.[91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100] In addition, systematic phonics and synthetic phonics receive attention in some publications.[101][102][103] [104]

In 2016, amongst 50 countries, Canada ranked 23rd in the PIRLS reading achievement for forth grade students.[105]

Phonics in Finland[edit]

Before the beginning of compulsory education a Finnish child must participate in one year of preprimary education, and compulsory education usually starts at age 7. Some suggest that most Finnish children are reading before they start school.[106]

In grades one and two, students in Finland develop their reading skills by practicing techniques in the areas of sound–letter correspondence (phonics); breaking down speech into words, syllables, and sounds; word recognition; spelling; daily reading and writing; and comprehension strategies.[107]

In 2016, amongst 50 countries, Finland ranked 5th in Reading Achievement for forth-graders according to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).[108]

Phonics in France[edit]

There has been a strong debate in France on the teaching of phonics ("méthode syllabique") versus whole language ("méthode globale"). After the 1990s, supporters of the later started defending a so-called "mixed method" (also known as Balanced literacy) in which approaches from both methods are used. France is home to some of the most influential researchers in psycho-pedagogy, cognitive sciences and neurosciences, such as Stanislas Dehaene [109] and Michel Fayol. These researchers have studied the problem from the perspective of their sciences and put their heavy scientific weight on the side of phonics.

More recently, with the appointment of the academic Jean-Michel Blanquer as minister of education, the ministry created a science educational council[110] chaired by Dehaene. This council openly supported phonics. In April 2018, the minister issued a set of four guiding documents[111] for early teaching of reading and mathematics and a booklet[112] detailing phonics recommendations. Teachers unions and a few educationalists were very critical of his stances,[113] and classified his perspective as "traditionalist", trying to bring the debate to the political sphere. But Blanquer has openly declared that the so-called mixed approach is no serious choice.[114]

In 2016, France is slightly above average in Reading Achievement for forth-graders according to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).[115]

Phonics in Ireland[edit]

The school curriculum in Ireland focuses on ensuring children are literate in both the English language and the Irish language. In 2011, the Department of Education and Skills (Ireland) developed a national strategy to improve literacy and numeracy.[116] The 2014 teachers’ Professional Development guide [117] covers the seven areas of attitude and motivation, fluency, comprehension, word identification, vocabulary, phonological awareness, phonics, and assessment. It recommends that phonics be taught in a systematic and structured way and is preceded by training in phonological awareness.

In 2016, amongst 50 countries, Ireland achieved the 4th highest score in Reading Literacy for fourth graders according to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).[118]

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) for 2018 showed Ireland’s 15 year old students were significantly above average in reading, science and mathematics.[119]

The 2019 Primary Language Curriculum specifies that reading outcomes must include phonics, phonological awareness, and phonemic awareness.[120]

Phonics in New Zealand[edit]

As of 2018, the Ministry of Education in New Zealand has online information to help teachers to support their students in years 1-3 in relation to sounds, letters, and words. It has specific suggestions in the areas of oral language, phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonemes and phonics. There are also examples and recommended books concerning phonics instruction, hearing sounds in spoken words, sylables, phoneme blending, onset and rime, and sounds and letters (initial, ending and medial). In its introduction it states that phonics instruction "is not an end in itself" and it is not necessary to teach students "every combination of letters and sounds".[121]

New Zealand's score (523) in the 2016 PIRLS report on the reading achievement of fourth grade students was above the average of 500 and below other English speaking countries such as Canada (543), U.S.A. (549), England (559), Northern Ireland (565) and Ireland (567).[122]

Phonics in Northern Ireland[edit]

In 2007 the Department of Education (DE) in Northern Ireland was required by law to teach children foundational skills in phonological awareness and the understanding “that words are made up of sounds and syllables and that sounds are represented by letters (phoneme/grapheme awareness)”.[123] In 2010 the DE went further by outlining a new strategy with standards requiring that teachers receive support in using evidence-based practices to teach literacy and numeracy. It outlined ten requirements, including a “systematic programme of high-quality phonics” that is explicit, structured, well-paced, interactive, engaging, and applied in a meaningful context.[124]

In 2016, amongst 50 countries, Northern Ireland achieved the 7th highest score in Reading Literacy for fourth graders according to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).[125]

In 2018, Northern Ireland placed 18th out of 26 countries in the PISA Reading Performance of 15-year-old students.[126]

Phonics in Norway[edit]

Norwegian is Norway’s main language and English is taught beginning in grade one. [127] Children enter first grade in August of the year they turn age 6. The majority of students are enrolled in public school as opposed to private school.

In the Norwegian curriculum, basic skills include "decoding and comprehension of simple texts" (i.e. phonics). At the end of grade two students are expected to demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between "speech sound and letter". [128]

In 2016, amongst 50 countries, Norway achieved the 8th highest score in Reading Literacy for fourth graders according to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).[129], and 20th out of 78 for 15 year-olds in PISA 2018.[130]

Phonics in Poland[edit]

The national curriculum of Poland considers reading to be the main goal of primary education, defining it as the technical skill of "decoding graphemes into phonemes and understanding, using, and processing written texts" (i.e. phonics).[131] Instruction often consists of telling students how things should be done instead of letting them experiment for themselves and experience the results. According to researchers, teachers seldom use the internet and other digital technologies during reading instruction. Polish schools do not have trained reading specialists, however speech and educational therapists are available to assist students with special needs or learning disabilities. In 1998 a national campaign was introduced to encourage parents to read aloud to their children for 20 minutes every day.[132]

In 2014, 10.6% of 15 year-olds had underachievement in reading, lower than the EU average of 17.8%.[133] Beginning in 2014, a program to provide free schoolbooks was introduced gradually across Poland. Students’ socioeconomic background was a matter of concern in 2015, and six year-olds commenced compulsory schooling in that year.

According to the 2000 International Student Assessment (PISA) 15‑year‑old Polish students read significantly below the OECD average. However, with a renewed emphasis on reading, by 2018 Poland made the most progress in reading since 1994 and Poles ages 16 to 19 exceeded their European peers in reading (10th out of 72 countries in PISA).

Poland ranked 6th in the 2016 PIRLS 4th grade reading achievement.[134]

Phonics in Portugal[edit]

During the late 1990s the whole language approach gained popularity in Portugal, but in a non-explicit form. Emphasis was placed on meaning, reading for pleasure, and developing a critical approach to the texts. Explicit phonemic awareness and explicit training for reading fluency were considered outdated by some teachers' organizations.[135]

Poor results in international comparisons led parents and schools to react to this approach and to insist on direct instruction methods. Later, during minister Nuno Crato’s tenure (2011–2015), who is known to be a vocal critic of constructivist approaches and a supporter of cognitive psychology findings, new standards ("metas") were put in place.[136] The ministry convened a team led by a well-known specialist in reading, José Morais.[137] This team introduced an explicit phonics teaching approach, putting emphasis on decoding and reading fluency.

Later, international evaluations TIMSS and PISA showed a sharp improvement in the areas of math, reading and science from 2006 to 2015. Portuguese students results raised to above OECD and IEA [138] averages, attaining the best results ever for Portugal. The PISA reading results moved from 472 to 498, above the USA at 497. However, by 2018 Portugal had dropped slightly to 492 and the USA had increased to 505. Some analysts explain these advances by the educational measures Portugal put in place: a more demanding curricula, the emphasis on direct teaching, standardized testing, less ability streaming, and explicit fluency training in reading and mathematics.[139]

In 2016, amongst 50 countries, Portugal achieved the 30th highest score in Reading Literacy for fourth graders according to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).[140]

Phonics in the Russian Federation[edit]

Phonics is widely used to teach reading in the Russian Federation.[141] It is based on a method developed in the 1960s by Soviet psychologist and educator Daniil Borissowitsch Elkonin,[142] well known as the pioneer of the Elkonin boxes that are used in Russia and other countries to teach phonological awareness. Children are taught the phonetic system of the Russian language by learning the sequence and characteristics of the sounds in a word, before studying the Russian alphabet.

According to one report, there is some debate in the Russian Federation about phonics vs. whole language, however Olga Viktorovna Pronina, an author and teacher in Moscow, said “Today, most teachers in Russia would tell you they use phonics”.[143]

Amongst 50 countries, the Russian Federation achieved the highest score (581) in Reading Literacy for fourth graders according to the 2016 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).[144][145] By the 4th grade it is assumed that children know how to read, so the PIRLS Reading Literacy has two components: Literary (reading narrative fiction), and Informational (reading informational text with facts, lists, charts, graphs, and diagrams, etc).

Phonics in Singapore[edit]

Singapore has a diverse language environment with four official languages including English which is the language of education and administration. Bilingualism is the "cornerstone" of the education system where students learn both English and their own mother tongue language in school.[146] 99% of children attend preschool education (as early as 18 months of age) although it is not compulsory in Singapore.[147]

The 2001 English Language Syllabus of Singapore advocated "a balance between decoding and meaning-based instruction … phonics and whole language". However, a review in 2006 advocated for a "systematic" approach. The subsequent syllabus, in 2010, had no mention of whole language and recommended a balanced, interactive and comprehensive reading programme. It refers to Learning to Read: The Great Debate by Jeanne Chall (1967) and the National Reading Panel (2000) both of which supported systematic phonics; and the International Literacy Association (2005) that supported balanced instruction saying phonics is "necessary but insufficient".

The syllabus for 2010 advocates for a balance between "systematic and explicit instruction" and "a rich language environment". It called for increased instruction in oral language skills together with phonemic awareness and the key decoding elements of synthetic phonics, analytic phonics and analogy phonics. Specifically, it advocated for instruction in phonic's areas such as word families and rimes (e.g. jumps and jumped; bite and kite), segmenting and blending (e.g. /k/, /æ/, /t/= cat), vowels, consonants and syllables. And finally, it called for instruction in word study, grammar, vocabulary, writing and comprehension.[148]

Singapore received the second highest reading score (576) after the Russian Federation (581) in the 2016 PIRLS report on grade four students.[149]

Phonics in Sweden[edit]

Since the 1860’s it was "taken for granted" that phonics is a major part of reading instruction in the first school years in Sweden. However, in the 1990s the National Agency for Education (Sweden) encouraged teachers to try other methods, including whole language.

Sweden’s performance in the international forth grade reading assessments (PIRLS) dropped by 19 points from 2001 (561) to 2011 (542) and recovered by 13 points in 2016 (555), still lower than the 2001 results.[150]

Some suggest that the lower scores are related to the increase in immigration.[151]

In 2016 the European Literacy Policy Network (ELINET) [152] published a report on literacy in Sweden saying there is an “urgent need” to address decreases in performance as measured by PIRLS and PISA.[153]

Phonics in the United Kingdom[edit]

There has been a resurgence of interest in synthetic phonics in recent years, particularly in the United Kingdom. As of 2013, all (local-authority-maintained) primary schools in England have a statutory requirement to teach synthetic phonics in years one and two. In addition, any pupil who is struggling to decode words properly by year three must "urgently" receive help through a "rigorous and systematic phonics programme".[154]

Prior to that, synthetic phonics was promoted by a cross-party group of Parliamentarians, particularly Nick Gibb MP. A report by the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee called for a review of the phonics content in the National Curriculum. Subsequently, the Department for Education and Skills announced a review into early years reading, headed by Sir Jim Rose, former Director of Inspection for Ofsted (responsible for the education standards in the UK).[155] The review, entitled Independent review of the teaching of early reading (Rose Report 2006), addresses the question of why children's reading and writing (especially for boys) have not been meeting expectations. Paragraph 3.25 of the Final Report states "This suggests that it is far more often the nature of the teaching than the nature of the child which determines success or failure in learning the 'basic' skills of reading and writing.” It goes on to say it is not suggesting teachers are unable or unwilling to develop the required expertise, only that there has been systematic confusion and conflicting views about phonics. It also makes it clear that, when it comes to the wider knowledge and skills required for reading and writing, phonics work is "necessary but not sufficient".[156] It concludes by suggesting the challenge will be resolved as research continues to support systematic phonics, and that teacher training and systematic phonics programs will produce "good results for children".[157] "[158]

By November 2010, a government white paper contained plans to train all primary school teachers in phonics.[159] The 2013 curriculum[160] has "statutory requirements" that, amongst other things, students in years one and two be capable in using systematic synthetic phonics in regards to Word Reading, Reading Comprehension, Fluency, and Writing. This includes having skills in "sound to graphemes", "decoding", and "blending". Following this, Ofsted updated their guidance for school inspectors in 2014 to include tips on how schools should teach reading with systematic phonics, including "Getting them Reading Early". It includes a description of the simple view of reading as the word recognition processes (recognizing the words on the page, free of context and using phonics) and the language recognition processes (understanding the meaning of the language). It also includes some videos to illustrate its principles.[161][162]

In 2015, the Carter Review of Initial Teacher Training (published by the Department for Education calls for evidence-based teaching to be part of the framework for initial teacher training.[163] It gives an example of a case study in which "trainees on the Early Reading placement are required to work alongside a literacy specialist to plan and teach a phonics lesson to a group, evaluate the lesson and deliver a second lesson in light of their evaluation".

The 2016 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) awarded England its best results since the studies began in 2001. Nick Gibb attributes this success to the use of systematic synthetic phonics.[164] In March of that year the Secretary of State for Education released a report entitled Educational Excellence Everywhere. The report states that in 2010 33% percent of primary school students did not achieve the expected standard in reading, however "since the introduction of the phonics reading check in 2012", that number is down to 20%. The report goes on to say they still have much do do, particularly with students who are disadvantaged.[165]

In 2016 the London School of Economics published a paper supporting the teaching of synthetic phonics to disadvantaged children because it helps to close the literacy gap.[166][167]

In 2018 Ofsted, as part of its curriculum research, has produced a YouTube video on Early Reading. It states "It is absolutely essential that every child master the phonic code as quickly as possible ... So, successful schools firstly teach phonics first, fast and furious." [168]

In January, 2019 Ofsted published a report entitled Education inspection framework: overview of research that further supports systematic synthetic phonics together with phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. [169]

While there has been concern expressed about the phonics screening test at the end of year one, some report that phonics is especially valuable for poor readers and those without English as a first language.[170]


Synthetic phonics in Scotland has its roots in the Clackmannanshire Report, a seven-year study that was published in 2005. It compared analytic Phonics with synthetic Phonics and advantaged students with disadvantaged children. The report found that, using synthetic phonics, children from lower socio-economic backgrounds performed at the same level as children from advantaged backgrounds in primary school (whereas with analytic phonics teaching, they did significantly less well.); and boys performed better than or as well as girls.[171]

A five-year follow-up of the study concluded that the beneficial effects were long-lasting, in fact the reading gains increased.[172]

Subsequently, Education Scotland concluded that explicit, systematic phonics programs, usually embedded in a rich literacy environment, give an additional four months progress over other programs such as whole language, and are particularly beneficial for young learners (aged 4–7). There is evidence, though less secure, that synthetic phonics programs may be more beneficial than analytic phonics programs; however it is most important to teach systematically.[173]

In the PISA 2018 reading results of 15 year old students, Scotland's score was above average, 504 as compared to the OECD average of 487.[174] Scotland does not participate in PIRLS.

Phonics in the United States[edit]

As a matter of interest, in 2016 amongst 50 countries, the USA achieved the 15th highest score in Reading Literacy for fourth graders according to the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).[175] Of 78 countries, the USA ranked 14th in reading for the international PISA study for 15 year old students.[176]

More than a century of debate has occurred over whether English phonics should or should not be used in teaching beginning reading.

The use of phonics in education in the United States dates at least to the work of Favell Lee Mortimer, whose works using phonics includes the early flashcard set Reading Disentangled (1834)[177] and text Reading Without Tears (1857). Despite the work of 19th-century proponents such as Rebecca Smith Pollard, some American educators, prominently Horace Mann, argued that phonics should not be taught at all. This led to the commonly used "look-say" approach ensconced in the Dick and Jane readers popular in the mid-20th century. Beginning in the 1950s, however, inspired by a landmark study by Dr. Harry E. Houtz,[178] and spurred by Rudolf Flesch's criticism of the absence of phonics instruction (particularly in his book, Why Johnny Can't Read- 1955) and Jeanne Chall (the author of Learning to Read the Great Debate - 1967-1995 [179] phonics resurfaced as a method of teaching reading.

In the 1980s, the "whole language" approach to reading further polarized the debate in the United States. Whole language instruction was predicated on the principle that children could learn to read given (a) proper motivation, (b) access to good literature, (c) many reading opportunities, (d) focus on meaning, and (e) instruction to help students use semantic, syntactic and graphophonic cues to "guess" the pronunciation of unknown words. Also, in practice children are often taught to use pictures to guess a word. For some advocates of whole language, phonics was antithetical to helping new readers to get the meaning; they asserted that parsing words into small chunks and reassembling them had no connection to the ideas the author wanted to convey.[180]

The whole language emphasis on identifying words using context and focusing only a little on the sounds (usually the alphabet consonants and the short vowels) could not be reconciled with the phonics emphasis on individual sound-symbol correspondences. Thus, a dichotomy between the whole language approach and phonics emerged in the United States causing intense debate. Ultimately, this debate led to a series of Congressionally-commissioned panels and government-funded reviews of the state of reading instruction in the U.S.

In 1984, the National Academy of Education commissioned a report on the status of research and instructional practices in reading education, Becoming a Nation of Readers.[181] Among other results, the report includes the finding that phonics instruction improves children's ability to identify words. It reports that useful phonics strategies include teaching children the sounds of letters in isolation and in words, and teaching them to blend the sounds of letters together to produce approximate pronunciations of words. It also states that phonics instruction should occur in conjunction with opportunities to identify words in meaningful sentences and stories.

In 1990, Congress asked the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to compile a list of available programs on beginning reading instruction, evaluating each in terms of the effectiveness of its phonics component. As part of this requirement, the ED asked Dr. Marilyn J. Adams to produce a report on the role of phonics instruction in beginning reading. This resulted in her 1994 book Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print.[182] In the book, Adams asserted that existing scientific research supported that phonics is an effective way to teach students the alphabetic code - building their skills in decoding unknown words. By learning the alphabetic code, she argued, students can free up mental energy used for word analysis and devote this mental effort to meaning, leading to stronger comprehension. Furthermore, she suggested that students be encouraged not to skip words they find difficult. Instead they should take the time to study the challenging words and to reread sentences after they have succeeded in decoding them.

She also concluded that while phonics instruction is a necessary component of reading instruction, it is not sufficient by itself. Children should also have practice reading text provided they do not make too many mistakes. Inspite of her study, the argument about how to teach reading eventually known as "the Great Debate," continued unabated.

The National Research Council re-examined the question of how best to teach reading to children (among other questions in education) and in 1998 published the results in the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children.[183] The National Research Council's findings largely matched those of Adams. They concluded that phonics is a very effective way to teach children to read at the word level, more effective than what is known as the "embedded phonics" approach of whole language (where phonics was taught opportunistically in the context of literature). They found that phonics instruction must be systematic (following a sequence of increasingly challenging phonics patterns) and explicit (teaching students precisely how the patterns worked, e.g., "this is b, it stands for the /b/ sound").[184]

In 1997, Congress asked the Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the National Institutes of Health, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to convene a national panel to assess the effectiveness of different approaches used to teach children to read. The National Reading Panel examined quantitative research studies on many areas of reading instruction, including phonics and whole language. The resulting report Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction was published in 2000 and provides a comprehensive review of what is known about best practices in reading instruction in the U.S.[185] The panel reported that several reading skills are critical to becoming good readers: phonemic awareness, phonics for word identification, fluency, vocabulary and text comprehension. With regard to phonics, their meta-analysis of hundreds of studies confirmed the findings of the National Research Council: teaching phonics (and related phonics skills, such as phonemic awareness) is a more effective way to teach children early reading skills than is embedded phonics or no phonics instruction.[186] The panel found that phonics instruction is an effective method of teaching reading for students from kindergarten through 6th grade, and for all children who are having difficulty learning to read. They also found that phonics instruction benefits all ages in learning to spell. They also reported that teachers need more education about effective reading instruction, both pre-service and in-service.

In 1996 the California Department of Education took an increased interest in using phonics in schools.[187] And in 1997 the department called for grade one teaching in concepts about print, phonemic awareness, decoding and word recognition, and vocabulary and concept development.[188] Then, in 2014 the Department stated "Ensuring that children know how to decode regularly spelled one-syllable words by mid-first grade is crucial". It goes on to say that "Learners need to be phonemically aware (especially able to segment and blend phonemes)".[189] In grades two and three children receive explicit instruction in advanced phonic-analysis and reading multi-syllabic and more complex words.[190]

The State driven Common Core State Standards Initiative was developed in 2009, because of a lack of standardization of education principles and practices.[191] The site has a comprehensive description of the specific details of the English Language Arts Standards that include the areas of the Alphabetic Principle, Print Concepts, Phonological Awareness, Phonics and Word Recognition, and Fluency.[192] It is up to the individual States and School Districts to develop plans to implement the standards. As of 2020, 41 States had adopted the standards, and in most cases it has taken three or more years to have them implemented.[193] For example, Wisconsin adopted the standards in 2010, implemented them in the 2014–2015 school year, yet in 2020 the state Department of Public Instruction was in the process of developing materials to support the standards in teaching phonics.[194][195]

The State of Mississippi passed the Literacy-Based Promotion Act in 2013 in part because of the States' poor showing in the National Assessment of Educational Progress.[196][197] The Mississippi Department of Education provides resources for teachers in the areas of phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension and reading strategies.[198] In 2019 Mississippi made a bigger advance in reading than any other State.[199][200]

In 2015 the New York State Public School system began a process to revise its English Language Arts Learning Standards. The new standards call for teaching involving "reading or literacy experiences" as well as phonemic awareness from prekindergarten to grade 1 and phonics and word recognition from grade 1 to grade 4.[201]

In 2015 the Ohio Legislature set minimum standards requiring the use of phonics as a technique in teaching reading. It includes guidelines for teaching phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.[202][203][204]

In 2016 the What Works Clearinghouse [205] and the Institute of Education Sciences, an independent and non-partisan arm of the U.S. Department of Education, published an Educator's Practice Guide (with evidence) on Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade.[206] It contains four recommendations to support reading: 1) Teach students academic language skills, including the use of inferential and narrative language, and vocabulary knowledge, 2) Develop awareness of the segments of sounds in speech and how they link to letters (phonemic awareness and phonics), 3) Teach students to decode words, analyze word parts, and write and recognize words (phonics and synthetic phonics), and 4) Ensure that each student reads connected text every day to support reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. Some universities have created additional material based on this guide [207][208]

In 2016, Colorado Department of Education updated their Elementary Teacher Literacy Standards with a comprehensive outline including standards for development in the areas Phonology; Phonics and Word Recognition; Fluent Automatic Reading; Vocabulary; Text Comprehension; and Handwriting, Spelling, and Written Expression.[209]

In 2017, research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology has shown that learning to read by sounding out words (i.e. phonics) has a dramatic impact on the accuracy of reading aloud and comprehension.[210] It concludes that early literacy education should focus on the systematic approach in "print-to-sound relationships" in alphabetic languages, rather than teaching "meaning-based strategies", in order to enhance both reading aloud and comprehension of written words.

In 2018 The Association for Psychological Science published an article entitled Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert. The purpose of the article is to fill the gap between the current research knowledge and the public understanding about how we learn to read, and to explain "why phonics instruction is so central to learning in a writing system such as English".[211]

In 2018 the Arkansas Department of Education, Literacy Support Unit, published a report about their new initiative known as R.I.S.E., Reading Initiative for Student Excellence, that was the result of The Right to Read Act, passed in 2017.[212] The first goal of this initiative is to provide educators with the in-depth knowledge and skills of "the science of reading" and evidence-based instructional strategies.[213] This includes a change of focus to research-based instruction on phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. Specific requirements are that reading instruction be systematic and explicit, and include decoding techniques.[214] Part of the instruction involves the use of a book and study guide entitled Essentials of Assessing, Preventing and Overcoming Reading Difficulties, by David Kilpatrick.[215]

In 2018 the Minnesota Reading Corps (MRC) [216] published impact evaluation reports of their reading programs for children in pre-kindergarten to grade three (2017–2018). MRC is a participating organization under Americorps in which volunteers tutor at-risk students who need extra support in reading and math. The tutors are trained to use research-based literacy activities and interventions as identified by the National Reading Panel, including phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The reports, presented by NORC at the University of Chicago, compare the results of students in the MRC program with students in control groups. They found that MRC kindergarten students achieved significantly higher scores in letter-sound fluency, and MRC first grade students achieved significantly higher scores in both nonsense word fluency and oral reading fluency.[217]

In 2019 the Minnesota Department of Education introduced standards requiring school districts to "develop a Local Literacy Plan to ensure that all students have achieved early reading proficiency by no later than the end of third grade" in accordance with a Statute of the Minnesota Legislature requiring elementary teachers to be able to implement comprehensive, scientifically based reading and oral language instruction in the five reading areas of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.[218][219]

In 2019 the International Literacy Association released a report entitled Meeting the Challenges of Early Literacy Phonics Instruction [220] The report clearly supports the use of phonics instruction that is explicit and systematic, stating that "phonics instruction is helpful for all students, harmful for none, and crucial for some". It also offers an opinion on the ten most common causes of Phonics Instructional Failure, namely: inadequate time devoted to mastering a new phonics skill such as blending (4–6 weeks recommended); lack of application to real reading instruction; inappropriate reading material to practice the skills; too much teacher instruction, and too little reading by the student; lost time during instructional transitions; the teacher's attitude and knowledge of phonics instructional material; lessons that are not fast-paced and rigorous; lack of assessments over an extended period of time; waiting too long to transition to multi-syllable words; and over emphasis of phonics drills at the expense of other aspects such as vocabulary.

In 2019 the Best Evidence Encyclopedia,[221] part of Johns Hopkins University, release a review of research on 61 studies of 48 different programs for struggling readers in elementary schools.[222] The vast majority were done in the USA, the programs are replicable, and the studies, done between 1990 and 2018, had a minimum duration of 12 weeks. Many of the programs used phonics-based teaching and/or one or more of the following: cooperative learning, technology-supported adaptive instruction (see Educational technology), metacognitive skills, phonemic awareness, word reading, fluency, vocabulary, multisensory learning, spelling, guided reading, reading comprehension, word analysis, structured curriculum, and balanced literacy (non-phonetic approach). Significantly, table 5 (pg. 88) shows the mean weighted effect sizes [223] of the programs by the manner in which they were conducted (i.e. by school, by classroom, by technology-supported adaptive instruction, by one-to-small-group tutoring, and by one-to-one tutoring). Table 8 (pg. 91) lists the 22 programs meeting ESSA standards for strong and moderate ratings, and their effect size. The review concludes that 1) outcomes were positive for one-to-one tutoring, 2) outcomes were positive but not as large for one-to-small group tutoring, 3) there were no differences in outcomes between teachers and teaching assistants as tutors, 4) technology-supported adaptive instruction did not have positive outcomes, 5) whole-class approaches (mostly cooperative learning) and whole-school approaches incorporating tutoring obtained outcomes for struggling readers as large as those found for one- to-one tutoring, and benefitted many more students, and 6) approaches mixing classroom and school improvements, with tutoring for the most at-risk students, have the greatest potential for the largest numbers of struggling readers.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ "National reading panel, pg. 2-89, (USA)" (PDF).
  2. ^ "Explaining Phonics Instruction, An Educator's Guide, International Literacy Association, p.1, 2018" (PDF).
  3. ^ "Explaining Phonics Instruction, Reading Rockets".
  4. ^ "National Reading Panel (NRP) – Publications and Materials – Reports of the Subgroups". National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). 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: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 2000. Archived from the original on 2010-06-11.
  5. ^ Rose, Jim (2006). "Independent review of the teaching of early reading" (PDF). Department for Education and Skills, p.17. Retrieved 2011-08-24.
  6. ^ "Sublexical: the parts of a word (i.e. letters, phonemes & graphemes), Cues to Stress Assignment in Reading Aloud, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2018".
  7. ^ a b Seidenberg, Mark (2017). Language at the speed of sight, p. 126. New York, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1715-5.
  8. ^ "Dr. Timothy Shanahan, Reading Rockets".
  9. ^ "National Reading Panel, USA" (PDF).
  10. ^ Seidenberg, Mark (2017). Language at the speed of sight, p. 16 & 106. New York, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1715-5.
  11. ^ "The ultimate guide to phonological awareness, Essex County Council, UK" (PDF).
  12. ^ "Phonological awareness, Victoria State Government, Australia".
  13. ^ "National Reading Panel, USA, Page 2-2" (PDF).
  14. ^ Hart, John (1570). "A methode or comfortable beginning for all vnlearned, whereby they may be taught to read English in a very short time, vvith pleasure: so profitable as straunge, put in light, by I.H. Chester Heralt". Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  15. ^ "Teaching the alphabetic code, Reading rockets".
  16. ^ "The English Alphabetic Code, Phonics international" (PDF).
  17. ^ "National reading panel, pg. 2-89, (USA)" (PDF).
  19. ^ "Alphabetc principle, University of Oregon, USA".
  20. ^ Cox, Robyn; Feez, Susan; Beveridge, Lorraine (2019). The Alphabetic Principle and Beyond: Surveying the Landscape. Australia: Primary English Teaching Association. ISBN 9781925132472.
  21. ^ McGuinness, Diane (2004). Early reading instruction: what science really tells up about how to teach reading. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-13438-5.
  22. ^ Wren, Sebastian. "Exception Words", Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2007-10-11. Retrieved 2007-10-18.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link), September 30, 2007.
  23. ^ Abbott, Mary (2000). "Identifying reliable generalizations for spelling words: The importance of multilevel analysis". The Elementary School Journal. 101 (2): 233–245. doi:10.1086/499666. JSTOR 1002344.
  24. ^ "The national curriculum in England, 2013" (PDF).
  25. ^ "English Language Arts/ English Language Development Framework, figure 3.10, California Department of Education, 2014" (PDF).
  26. ^ "Common core standards, figures 8 & 9, USA" (PDF).
  27. ^ "Oral language interventions, Education endowment foundation, UK".
  28. ^ "Exploring interventions for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs: A study of practice, UK Government" (PDF).
  29. ^ "Concepts of print-'how print works', Education, Victoria, AU".
  30. ^ "Word Study Instruction:Enhancing Reading Comprehension, 03-09-2010, Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, ON".
  31. ^ "Word Study Instruction in the K-2 Classroom, Reading Rockets".
  32. ^ "Morphology Works, Queen's University, Canada" (PDF).
  33. ^ "Exploding some of the myths about learning to read, NSW Teachers Federation, AU".
  34. ^ "What Is the Science of Reading? Timothy Shanahan, Reading Rockets 2019-05-29".
  35. ^ "Foundational reading skills, Timothy Shanahan, Shanahan on literacy".
  36. ^ "THE NATIONAL READING PANEL REPORT: Practical Advice for Teachers, page 9, Timothy Shanahan, University of Illinois at Chicago, Learning Point Associates 2005" (PDF).
  37. ^ "Supporting early language and literacy #37" (PDF).
  38. ^ "Science of reading, Robert Slavin's blog".
  39. ^ "".
  40. ^ "A Quantitative Synthesis of Research on Programs for Struggling Readers in Elementary Schools, Best Evidence Encyclopedia, April 24, 2019" (PDF).
  41. ^ "What works clearinghouse, Literacy".
  42. ^ "Evidence for ESSA".
  43. ^ "Center for Research and Reform in Education (CRRE)".
  44. ^ "Every student succeeds act, US Dept. of Education".
  45. ^ a b Murray, Bruce; McIlwain, Jane (2019). "How do beginners learn to read irregular words as sight words". Journal of Research in Reading. 42 (1): 123–136. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12250. ISSN 0141-0423.
  47. ^ Seidenberg, Mark (2017). Language at the speed of sight, pg. 147. New York, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1715-5.
  48. ^ "Orthographic mapping, Reading rockets".
  49. ^ "Independent review of the teaching of early reading, Rose report, 2006, UK, pg. 2-89" (PDF).
  50. ^ "Complete report - National Reading Panel" (PDF).
  51. ^ "Findings and Determinations of the National Reading Panel by Topic Areas". Archived from the original on 2008-07-05.
  52. ^ "Independent review of the teaching of early reading, Final Report, Jim Rose, March 2006" (PDF).
  53. ^ "Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum" (PDF).
  54. ^ "English Language Development Framework for California Public Schools K-12, July 9, 2014" (PDF).
  55. ^ "NY English Language Arts (ELA) & Literacy Standards, 2017".
  56. ^ "Rules for Phonics, Ohio, 2015".
  57. ^ "Reading Initiative for Student Excellence,, 2018".
  58. ^ "Effective Reading instruction, The State Government of Victoria".
  59. ^ Core Knowledge Early Literacy Pilot in NYC
  60. ^ "National Reading Panel, USA, page 2-89" (PDF).
  61. ^ "Analogy based phonics, LD Online".
  62. ^ "National Reading Panel, USA, page 2-89" (PDF).
  63. ^ "Put reading first booklet, Partnership for reading, National institute for literacy, 3rd ed" (PDF).
  64. ^ "What is phonics? National literacy trust, UK".
  65. ^ "Understanding Terminology of Grammar and Phonics, Learning diffeculties, Australia".
  66. ^ "Ending the reading wars, Psychological sciences, 2018-07-11".
  67. ^ "Reading wars rage again as Australian Government pushes to introduce phonics test,, 2019-06-29".
  68. ^ Goodman, Kenneth J. (1967). "Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game". Journal of the Reading Specialist. 6 (4): 126–135. doi:10.1080/19388076709556976.
  69. ^ Reading at the Speed of Light: How we Read, why so many can't, and what can be done about it, 2017, pages 267-271, Mark Seidenberg ISBN 978-1-5416-1715-5
  70. ^ "Reading Matters: Connecting science and education".
  71. ^ "Frank Smith, 2004,Understanding Reading".
  72. ^ "Science of Reading: Can We Get Beyond Our 30-Year Pillar Fight, Robert Slavin, page 2, 2020-03-26".
  73. ^ "HOW PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE INFORMS THE TEACHING OF READING, American Psychological Society, page 1, 2001" (PDF).
  74. ^ "National reading panel," (PDF).
  75. ^ a b "Teaching Reading" (PDF). Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training.
  76. ^ "Reading is more than sounding out words and decoding, The, 2019-11-11".
  77. ^ "Teaching phonics builds balanced literacy, District administration, FL".
  78. ^ "3 Ways to Make Better Use of Reading Science,, 2020-02-14".
  79. ^ "4 reasons to use balanced literacy".
  80. ^ "Whole language high jinks: How to tell when scientifically based reading instruction isn't" (PDF). Louisa Moats on Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-12-29.
  81. ^ Seidenberg, Mark (2017). Language at the speed of sight, pages 267 & 300-304. New York, NY: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-1715-5.
  82. ^ "Unbalanced Comments on Balanced Literacy, Timothy Shanahan, 2014-10-31".
  83. ^ "Whole Language Lives On: The Illusion of Balanced Reading Instruction - LDOnline".
  84. ^ Castles, Anne; Rastle, Kathleen; Nation, Kate (11 June 2018). "Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 19 (1): 27. doi:10.1177/1529100618772271. PMID 29890888.
  85. ^ "Simple view of reading, Reading rockets".
  86. ^ "Executive Summary" (PDF). Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-04-22.
  87. ^ "Foundation phonics scope, Victoria, AU".
  88. ^ "Sample phonics lessons, The State Government of Victoria".
  89. ^ "Foundation skills".
  90. ^ "PIRLS reading achievement 2016".
  91. ^ "British Columbia Department of Education".
  92. ^ "Alberta Department of Education".
  93. ^ "Saskatchewan Department of Education".
  94. ^ "Manitoba Department of Education".
  95. ^ "Ontario Department of Education".
  96. ^ "Quebec Department of Education" (PDF).
  97. ^ "New Brunswick Department of Education".
  98. ^ "Prince Edward Island Department of Education".
  99. ^ "Nova Scotia Department of Education" (PDF).
  100. ^ "Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education".
  101. ^ "Reading: Breaking Through the Barriers, A Discussion Guide, Catherine Abraham and Joyce Gram , BC, Canada, 2009" (PDF).
  102. ^ "Early Reading Strategy – The Report of the Expert Panel on early Reading in Ontario, 2005" (PDF).
  103. ^ "Supporting Early Literacy Learning Through Play, By Dr. Jeffrey Wood, Laurentian University, April 2017" (PDF).
  104. ^ "Supporting Early Language and Literacy, What works? Research into practice, Dr. Janette Pelletier OISE, University of Toronto, October 2011" (PDF).
  105. ^ "PIRLS reading achievement 2016".
  106. ^ "When should reading instruction begin, Shanahan on literacy, 2019-10-26".
  107. ^ "PIRLS 2016, Language/Reading Curriculum in the Fourth Grade, Finland".
  108. ^ "Distribution of Reading Achievement, exhibit 1.1, PIRLS 2016".
  109. ^ "Youtube, How the Brain Learns to Read – Prof. Stanislas Dehaene, October 25, 2013".
  110. ^ "Conseil scientifique de l'Éducation nationale". Wikipédia (in French). 2018-03-24.
  111. ^ nationale, Ministère de l'Éducation. "4 priorités pour renforcer la maîtrise des fondamentaux". Ministère de l'Éducation nationale (in French). Retrieved 2018-05-06.
  112. ^ nationale, Ministère de l'Éducation. "4 priorités pour renforcer la maîtrise des fondamentaux". Ministère de l'Éducation nationale (in French). Retrieved 2018-05-06.
  113. ^ "Apprentissage de la lecture : opposer méthode syllabique et méthode globale est archaïque". Le (in French). Retrieved 2018-05-06.
  114. ^ « Entre quelque chose qui ne marche pas – la méthode globale – et quelque chose qui fonctionne – la syllabique – il ne peut y avoir de “compromis” mixte. Ce sujet ne relève pas de l’opinion, mais de faits démontrés par la recherche. C’est très clair. »
  115. ^ "Distribution of Reading Achievement, exhibit 1.1, PIRLS 2016".
  116. ^ "Literacy and Numeracy Strategy (2011–2020): Interim Review 2011–2016; New Targets 2017–2020" (PDF).
  117. ^ "PDST, The Reading Process, A Guide to the Teaching and Learning of Reading, Dublin, 2014" (PDF).
  118. ^ "Exhibit 3.1: Achievement in Reading Purposes, PIRLS 2016" (PDF).
  119. ^ "PISA is the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment, 2018".
  120. ^ "The Primary Language Curriculum, Department of Education and Skills, 2019" (PDF).
  121. ^ "Sound Sense, Ministry of Education, New Zealand, 2018" (PDF).
  122. ^ "PIRLS student reading achievement, 2016".
  123. ^ "Statute2007 No. 46, Northern Ireland, pgs. 4–6" (PDF).
  124. ^ "Count Read: Succeed, pg 25, N. Ireland, 2010" (PDF).
  125. ^ "PIRLS reading achievement 2016".
  126. ^ "PISA 2018 Table I.4.4" (PDF).
  127. ^ "PIRLS 2016".
  128. ^ "Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, framework for basic skills" (PDF).
  129. ^ "PIRLS reading achievement 2016".
  130. ^ "PISA Norway 2018" (PDF).
  131. ^ "PIRLS 4th grade reading curriculum".
  132. ^ "All of Poland reads to kids".
  133. ^ "European Commission Education and Training Monitor 2015" (PDF).
  134. ^ "PIRLS student achievement 2016".
  135. ^ "Associação de Professores de Português: APP".
  136. ^ "Metas e Programas de Português".
  137. ^ "José Morais".
  138. ^ "International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement".
  139. ^ "Reforming education slow and hard, eminently possible, The Economist. 2016-12-10. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2020-04-30".
  140. ^ "PIRLS reading achievement 2016".
  141. ^ "Language/Reading Curriculum in the Fourth Grade, Russia, PIRLS 2016 Encyclopedia".
  142. ^ "Daniil Elkonin,".
  143. ^ "Russia has phonics debate, Baltimore Sun, 1998-03-04".
  144. ^ "Exhibit 3.1: Achievement in Reading Purposes , 2016 PIRLS Encyclopedia" (PDF).
  145. ^ "PIRLS 2016: Russia's reading success, Teacher Magazine, 2018-07-30".
  146. ^ "Singapore reading instruction, primary grades, PIRLS 2016".
  147. ^ "Overview of educucation system in Singapore, PIRLS 2016".
  148. ^ "2010 English language syllabus, Minister of Education, Singapore" (PDF).
  149. ^ "PIRLS 2016 student achievement".
  150. ^ "PIRLS Trends".
  151. ^ "Immigrant children in Sweden blamed for country's poor test scores, Independent, 2016-03-16".
  152. ^ "European Literacy Policy Network (ELINET)".
  153. ^ "LITERACY IN SWEDEN, 2016" (PDF).
  154. ^ "National curriculum in England primary".
  155. ^ "Ofsted".
  156. ^ "Independent review of the teaching of early reading, 2006, p 4" (PDF).
  157. ^ Wyse, Dominic; Goswami, Usha (2008). "Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading". British Educational Research Journal. 34 (6): 691–710. doi:10.1080/01411920802268912. ISSN 0141-1926.
  158. ^ "Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum: Final Report" (PDF).
  159. ^ Collins, Nick (20 November 2010). "Education White Paper key points explained". London: The Daily Telegraph []. Retrieved 20 November 2010.
  160. ^ "UK Primary National Curriculum, 2013" (PDF).
  161. ^ "Getting them Reading Early, OFSTED, 2014".
  162. ^ "Synthetic Phonics, Mr. T's phonics, 2010".
  163. ^ "Carter review of initial teacher training, DFE, 21015-01-19".
  164. ^ Turner, Camilla (4 December 2017). "Reading standards in England are best in a generation, new international test results show". The Telegraph. Retrieved 11 December 2017. The international study of nine to ten year-olds’ reading ability in 50 countries showed that England has risen to joint 8th place in 2016, thanks to a statistically significant rise in our average score
  165. ^ "Educational Excellence Everywhere, pages 5-6, Department for Education, England, March 2016" (PDF).
  166. ^ "Phonics helps to close the attainment gap:The Guardian".
  167. ^ "Teaching to teach literacy" (PDF).
  168. ^ "YouTube video, Early Reading, Bradley Simmons, Regional Director, South West at Ofsted, UK, 2018".
  169. ^ "Education inspection framework: overview of research, page 19, Ofsted, January 2019, No. 180045" (PDF).
  170. ^ "How phonics took over English schools, The Economist, 2019-07-18".
  171. ^ "Clackmannanshire Report, a seven-year study that was published in 2005,".
  172. ^ "Accelerating Reading and Spelling with Synthetic Phonics: A Five Year Follow Up, Johnston & Watson" (PDF).
  173. ^ "National Improvement Hub:Phonics".
  174. ^ "PISA results, 2018 Table 1.4.4" (PDF).
  175. ^ "PIRLS reading achievement 2016".
  176. ^ "USA in PISA, 2018" (PDF).
  177. ^ The Clumsiest People in Europe: Or, Mrs. Mortimer's Bad-Tempered Guide to the Victorian World, Favell Lee Mortimer, foreword by Todd Pruzan, 2006 edition, p. 5
  178. ^ "Literacy & Education, Ryker Kirk 2018, page 232".
  179. ^ Jeanne S. Chall. Learning to Read: The Great Debate, 1967-1995. ISBN 0155030809.
  180. ^ Goodman, Kenneth S. (1967). "A psycholinguistic guessing game". Journal of the Reading Specialist. 6 (4): 126–135. doi:10.1080/19388076709556976.
  181. ^ Becoming a Nation of Readers, National Academy of Education, Center for the Study of Reading, 1984
  182. ^ Adams, Marilyn Jager (1994). Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51076-9.
  183. ^ Snow, Catherine E., Susan Burns, Peg Griffin, eds. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998 ISBN 0-309-06418-X
  184. ^ Ziegler JC, Goswami U (January 2005). "Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory". Psychol Bull. 131 (1): 3–29. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3. PMID 15631549.
  185. ^ "National reading panel," (PDF).
  186. ^ Findings and Determinations of the National Reading Panel by Topic Areas
  187. ^ "NY Times 1996, California Leads Revival Of Teaching by Phonics".
  188. ^ "English–Language Arts Content Standards for California Public Schools" (PDF).
  189. ^ "English–Language Arts, Transitional Kindergarten to Grade 1, California Public Schools" (PDF).
  190. ^ "English–Language Arts, Pedagogy Grades Two and Three, California Public Schools" (PDF).
  191. ^ "Common Core State Standards Initiative".
  192. ^ "English Language Arts Standards, Reading – Foundational Skills, K-5".
  193. ^ "Standards in your state".
  194. ^ "DPI endorses 'explicit phonics instruction' as critical component of reading instruction, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2020-01-22".
  195. ^ "Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction".
  196. ^ "Literacy-Based Promotion Act, Mississippi Senate Bill 2157,2016-04-20".
  197. ^ "OPINION PAGE: Literacy and phonics are, and should be, among America's top issues".
  198. ^ "Professional Development and Resources for Teachers, Mississippi".
  199. ^ "Nations report card".
  200. ^ "Opinion, Mississippi schools, NT Times, 2019-12-05".
  201. ^ "2015 New York State Next Generation English Language Arts Learning Standards".
  202. ^ "Rules for Phonics, Ohio".
  203. ^ "Reading Competencies, Ohio".
  204. ^ "Third grade reading guarantee, Ohio".
  205. ^ "What Works Clearinghouse".
  206. ^ "What works clearinghouse: Educator's Practice Guide on Foundational Skills to Support Reading for Understanding in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade, 2016, Institute of Education Sciences" (PDF).
  207. ^ "Youtube, Overview of the Foundational Reading Skills Practice Guide and PLC Webinar, Florida State University, 2018".
  208. ^ "Teaching Foundational Reading Skills MOOC-Ed, NC STATE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION".
  209. ^ "Elementary Teacher Literacy Standards, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 2016".
  210. ^ Taylor, J. S.; Davis, M. H.; Rastle, K. (2017). "Comparing and validating methods of reading instruction using behavioural and neural findings in an artificial orthography. Taylor JSH, Davis MH, Rastle K." Journal of Experimental Psychology. General. 146 (6): 826–858. doi:10.1037/xge0000301. PMC 5458780. PMID 28425742.
  211. ^ Castles, Anne; Rastle, Kathleen; Nation, Kate (2018). "Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert, The Association for Psychological Science, 2018". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 19 (1): 5–51. doi:10.1177/1529100618772271. PMID 29890888.
  212. ^ "A New Chapter for Arkansas Students, 2018 Report" (PDF).
  213. ^ "The Science of Reading, RISE, Arkansas" (PDF).
  214. ^ "It's all About Meaning,, 2018".
  215. ^ "Essentials of Assessing, Preventing and Overcoming Reading Difficulties, David Kilpatrick,," (PDF).
  216. ^ "Minnesota Reading Corp, Our Work".
  217. ^ "Final Report, Impact Evaluation of the Minnesota Reading Corps K-3 Program (2017–18)" (PDF).
  219. ^ "MN Department of Education Academic Standards (K-12), 2019".
  220. ^ "Meeting the challenges of early Literacy Phonics Instruction, International Literacy Association, 2019" (PDF).
  221. ^ "Best Evidence Encyclopedia".
  222. ^ "A Quantitative Synthesis of Research on Programs for Struggling Readers in Elementary Schools, Best Evidence Encyclopedia, April 24, 2019" (PDF).
  223. ^ "How Methodological Features Affect Effect Sizes in Education, Best Evidence Encyclopedia, September 2015" (PDF).

External links[edit]