a systematic review of the research literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling

Participants Intervention/control Sample size Outcome measures used in calculation of effect sizes by the reviewers: word reading accuracy reading comprehension; spelling Effect size,

A Systematic Review of the Research

Literature on the Use of Phonics in the

Teaching of Reading and Spelling

Carole J Torgerson * Greg Brooks **

 

5 Previous research (2): The Ehri et al (2001) systematic review and

the Camilli et al (2003) replication

Participants Intervention/control Sample size Outcome measures used in

calculation of effect sizes

by the reviewers: word reading accuracy (reading comprehension; spelling)

Effect size, as calculated by the reviewers (mean of word recognition and word attack measures; also mean of comprehension measures, mean of spelling measures, and synthetic versus analytic, where applicable),

& confidence interval

 

Table 1: Characteristics of the included RCTs, cont

Author, date Study

design

Participants Intervention/control Sample size Outcome measures used in

calculation of effect sizes

by the reviewers: word reading accuracy (reading comprehension; spelling)

Effect size, as calculated by the reviewers (mean of word recognition and word attack measures; also mean of comprehension measures, mean of spelling measures, and synthetic versus analytic, where applicable),

& confidence interval

 

Table 1: Characteristics of the included RCTs, cont

Author, date Study

design

Participants Intervention/control Sample size Outcome measures used in

calculation of effect sizes

by the reviewers: word reading accuracy (reading comprehension; spelling)

Effect size, as calculated by the reviewers (mean of word recognition and word attack measures; also mean of comprehension measures, mean of spelling measures, and synthetic versus analytic, where applicable),

& confidence interval

 

Table 2: Quality assessment of the included RCTs

method of allocation

Sample size justi- fication

Intention

to teach analysis

Blinded assessment

et alet al

et al.The pooled estimate of effect size for these four trials using

the fixed effects model was 0.24 but this was not statistically significant 13  



 

 

Table 3: Details of instructional time and of instruction received by the intervention groups

Author, date Amount of instructional time in experiment Information about what other literacy instruction participants were receiving, including

whether or not the interventions included spelling instruction

Total instructional time = Not known. All reading instruction

Reading and spelling:

 

Table 3: Details of instructional time and of instruction received by the intervention groups, cont

Author, date Amount of instructional time in experiment Information about what other literacy instruction participants were receiving, including

whether or not the interventions included spelling instruction

Additional treatment programme – 

N/S – whether supplementary or additional or part replacement etc

Spelling not mentioned







Total instructional time = 1.6 hours to 2.1 hours.

in addition to regular reading instructional time





Reading and spelling (p.165)



       Total instructional time = 5 hours

N/S – whether supplementary or additional or part replacement etc

Spelling not mentioned

N/S – whether supplementary or additional or part replacement etc

Spelling not mentioned



Figure 2: Main meta-analysis subdivided by learner characteristics

Standardised mean difference Favours Control Favours Phonics

 







Figure 3: Main meta-analysis subdivided by ITT or no-ITT

Standardised mean difference Favours Control Favours Phonics



               





 

Table 4: Summary of findings, by research question, answer, quality of evidence, strength of effect, statistical significance, and

implications for teaching

 

Table 4: Summary of findings, by research question, answer, quality of evidence, strength of effect, statistical significance, and

implications for teaching, cont

Research question Answer Quality of

 







   Sound Sense: the phonics element of the National Literacy Strategy A

report to the Department for Education and Skills f  



A randomised trial of

computer software in education, using CONSORT guidelines

Teaching Children to Read

Education Policy Analysis Archives



   Learning to Read: The Great Debate.    



Reading Reform Foundation Newsletter

Perspectives on the Teaching and Learning of Phonics

 

Review of Educational Research

How in the World do Students Read?

 Comparability of National Tests

over time: Key Stage test standards between 1996 and 2001



Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal

The National Literacy Strategy: the first four years 1998-2002 

British Journal of Psychology

   Measuring Standards in English Primary Schools 



          

Journal of Educational Psychology



 There should be an initial phase in which children exercise their phonic skills only on letters,

then single words, before attempting to apply them to words in text (including books).

 At each stage, phonics for reading must precede phonics for spelling.





             

only.

 

APPENDIX C: More details on the systematic review methods used

Screening and quality assurance: procedures

Figure 4 Funnel plot of randomized trials from the systematic review of systematic

phonics instruction, showing possible presence of publication bias



0125

Figure 5: Funnel plot of effect sizes of the 12 individual RCTs in the current review

Begg's funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits

de-No

included at first stage

Unobtainable

or not received

No of RCTs included at second stage

APPENDIX F: Method of retrieval of the 20 included RCTs



Method of retrieval Included

et al.

 et al.

et al.et al.

et al.et al.

et al.et al.

 

APPENDIX J: Data extraction tables for all studies included in the meta-analyses



Berninger, V.W et al (2003) Comparison of three approaches to supplementary reading

instruction for low-achieving 2 nd grade readers, Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools,

 Supplemental reading instruction – children

‘did not miss any work for the regular reading program’ (p.105) ‘Overall, in the regular reading program, the children appeared to receive background reading instruction that included both word recognition and reading comprehension’ (p.108) – balanced reading instruction.

 

APPENDIX J: Data extraction tables for all studies included in the meta-analyses, cont



Brown, I.S and Felton, R.H (1990) Effects of instruction on beginning reading skills in children at

risk for reading disability, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(3): 223-41

 Included ‘at risk’ children ‘At risk’ status required child to obtain, on at

least three of the research measures, scores of one or more Standard Deviations below the group mean, or to be in the bottom 16 th percentile for the sample          

 

APPENDIX J: Data extraction tables for all studies included in the meta-analyses, cont



Greaney, K.T., Tunmer, W.E and Chapman, J.W (1997) Effects of rime-based orthographic

analogy training on the word recognition skills of children with reading disability, Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4): 645-51

 Subjects received 30 minutes of individual instruction three or four times per

week for 11 weeks

 

APPENDIX J: Data extraction tables for all studies included in the meta-analyses, cont



Haskell, D.W., Foorman, B.R and Swank, P (1992) Effects of three orthographic/phonological

units on first-grade reading, Remedial and Special Education, 13(2): 40-49

 

APPENDIX J: Data extraction tables for all studies included in the meta-analyses, cont



Johnston, R.S and Watson, J.E (2004) Accelerating the development of reading, spelling and

phonemic awareness skills in initial readers, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,

 Children referred for remedial reading instruction, aged 8 to 13 years

Inclusion criteria: evidence of specific underachievement in reading in context

of at least low average intelligence

 

APPENDIX J: Data extraction tables for all studies included in the meta-analyses, cont



O’Connor, R.E and Padeliadu, S (2000) Blending versus whole word approaches in first grade

remedial reading: Short-term and delayed effects on reading and spelling words, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13(1-2): 159-82

 

APPENDIX J: Data extraction tables for all studies included in the meta-analyses, cont



Skailand, D.B (1971) A comparison of four language units in teaching beginning reading,

Paper presented at Annual Meeting American Educational Research Association, New York, 7 February 1971

 children who obtained lowest combined scores on letter naming task and

phoneme elision task (screening battery) and who had an estimated verbal intelligence score above 75

 

APPENDIX J: Data extraction tables for all studies included in the meta-analyses, cont



Umbach, B., Darch, C and Halpin, G (1989) Teaching reading to low performing first graders in

rural schools: A comparison of two instructional approaches, Journal of Instructional Psychology,

 

Appendix K: Raw data (means, standard deviations and numbers): studies included in main analysis and secondary analysis

Mean accuracy scores

 

Synthetic vs analytic scores

Copies of this publication can be obtained from: DfES Publications

© The University of Sheffield 2006

Produced by the Department for Education and Skills ISBN 1 84478 659 5

Ref No: RR711

www.dfes.go.uk/research