I. Introduction
Systematic phonics instruction is a subset of educational practice that offers children a variety of tools to help ease their ability to read. Most systematic phonics instruction programs are designed to create letter-sound relationships for children, both independently and in letter combinations (Dahl, Scharer, Larson et al.). These programs are designed to help children learn how to read with greater ease, although they can be used for learners of any age. Indeed, Adams notes that phonics instruction is used heavily when teaching English as a second language, especially to adult learners who must learn how to read properly to conduct business or go about their adult lives (Adams 68).
One of the critical roles of being an educator is deciding what type of instruction you will implement. Becoming educated in different kinds of instruction could enhance your teaching and also improve upon student achievement. The National Reading Panel recognized that research needed to be done in order to help understand best practices for reading instruction. They studied five subgroups which include: (1) Alphabetics, (2) Fluency, (3) Comprehension, (4) Teacher Education and Reading Instruction, and (5) Computer Technology and Reading Instruction (2000). The panel recognized the need for alphabetic instruction as an important piece of the unique puzzle which is reading. Classroom teachers must be versed in the best practices of instruction for teaching alphabetics, in order to nurture avid readers.
The purpose of this research synthesis is to look at the importance of a systematic word study program within a variety of different educational settings. Many studies have been done on the importance of using a systematic vs. a non –systematic word study program. Through these studies, it is clear that teaching word study is an important element that must be included when talking about reading instruction. During this synthesis the following questions will be asked and explored: first, the synthesis will determine if using a systematic word study approach more beneficial than a non-systematic approach; second, it will determine what constitute effective strategies when using a systematic word study approach; finally, the synthesis will investigate how word study helps students with comprehension, writing, and fluency.
II. Literature Synthesis
Systematic Phonics Instruction: A Primer
English is frequently taught, both to native speakers and to non-native speakers in conjunction with a phonics program. Phonics is one of the primary ways that people learn to read and write in the English language, and there are a variety of different programs available for those interested in learning to read and write using various phonics systems (Ehri, Stahl and Willows, 2001). Ehri, Stahl and Willows (2001) write: “Phonics instruction is a way of teaching reading that focuses on letter-sound relationships. During phonics instruction children are taught letter-sound correspondences and how to use them to spell and read words” (Ehri, Stahl and Willows, 2001). Mesmer and Griffith (2005) note that the growth of systematic phonics programs in the United States is arguably due to good marketing systems by textbook manufacturers. Mesmer and Griffith (2005) do not downplay the potential benefits of systematic phonics programs, but they do note that these programs are driven and constructed nearly entirely by the textbook manufacturers (Mesmer and Griffith, 2005).
Although Mesmer and Griffith (2005) are based in the United States and have an America-centric point of view in their research, it is still important to note that explicit, systematic phonics programs are largely driven by textbook manufacturers; as Mesmer and Griffith (2005) note, it is difficult to find educators who have the same idea of how to define systematic phonics instruction. Mesmer and Griffith (2005) write: “The term systematic contains two important connotations: scope and sequence. Scope includes the content of the phonics instruction, the range of letter-sound correspondences [] covered. Sequence defines an order for teaching letter-sound correspondences. First one sound and then another, and so on. If we wanted to determine if systematic instruction were taking place, a single observation in a classroom would not suffice” (Mesmer and Griffith, 2005). In short, any program that is to be considered systematic phonics instruction must be carried out explicitly and over a period of time, in some semblance of a logical order.
Systematic phonics is directly opposed to the theory of analytical or implicit phonics (Ehri, Stahl and Willows, 2001). While systematic phonics systems encourage the child or student to learn a letter sound and apply it to reading a word or words, analytical phonics encourages the student to analyze words already known to determine letter sounds (Ehri, Stahl and Willows, 2001). During this type of learning process, the instructor may inform the children that the sound of the letter “m” is like the beginning sound of “mat,” rather than having the student look closely at the word “mat” and try to determine how to read the word after learning the letter sounds /m/, /æ/ and /t/.
Although there are uses for both implicit and explicit phonics learning in the classroom, Albright and Berger (1998) note that the most effective form of phonics instruction comes from systematic and explicit phonics instruction, as it links the sound and the letter inextricably in the students’ head. Bowey (2006) suggests that empirical research in psychology and evidence-based evaluation studies that support the use of systematic synthetic phonics instruction in an early reading curriculum. The author, Judith Bowey, recognizes the importance of a systematic synthetic phonics approach, but also recognizes that there are supporters of the whole- language approach. She offers many reasons as to why it is more beneficial to use a systematic approach as compared to whole-language, backing her finding with research from numerous studies. What is interesting to note from this article is the need for research aimed at phonics instruction by the Australian Federal Government.
The Australian Federal Government initiated a panel of researchers whom they called the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. The NITL concluded that there is a need for systemic instruction of synthetic phonics in early reading instruction (NITL, 2005a) . The United States also created a panel, the National Reading Panel (NRP), which studied the teaching of phonics instruction and the importance of this instruction in primary grades. The NRP concluded in its findings, “meta-analysis revealed that systematic phonics instruction produces significant benefits for students in kindergarten through 6th grade and for children having difficulty learning to read.” (NICHHD, 2000) These similarities between the finding of the NITL and the NRP are clear, systematic phonics instruction is needed for an effective word-study program.
Fluency and Systematic Phonics Instruction
Encouraging a new reader to learn phonics is not the end goal of any early reading program, according to De Graaff, Bosman, Hasselman and Verhoeven (2009). Instead, the phonics program is designed to be a starting point for the acquisition of reading fluency, both silent reading and audible reading (De Graaff, Bosman et al., 2009). De Graaff, Bosman, Hasselman and Verhoeven (2009) note that fluency is often overlooked by instructors in favor of extensive focus on phonics. Phonics and learning phonics in a systematic manner is designed to give the early reader the context for building fluency in his or her reading, not for removing the emphasis on reading fluently entirely.
With enough practice and careful instruction, research suggests that systematic phonics instruction will help students improve their literacy and their fluency when reading aloud (Dahl, Scharer, et al., 1999). Research suggests also that phonics helps with word recognition for words that students may know but not recognize written down, which means that reading will be more fluent, especially in young, first-language readers (Dahl, Scharer et al., 1999). There may be times when fluency is affected by learning phonics, and spelling may indeed be affected by phonics when words are spelled in a manner that is not phonetic, but overall, the use of systematic, explicit phonics programming helps the early reader recognize and pronounce words more readily and with greater ease (Adams, 2001).
There are ways that systematic phonics education can offset the problem of fluency and focus in reading, but the instructor must pay special attention to fluency in the classroom, building fluency practice into reading along with phonics and comprehension. Dahl, Scharer, Lawson and Grogan (1999) suggest that there are a number of ways that an educator can model fluency for students, and that fluency is tied in closely with phonics instruction in successful classrooms. Like modeling phonics, modeling fluency involves instructor participation and knowledge of student education level (Dahl, Scharer et al., 1999). For instance, Dahl, Scharer, Lawson and Grogan (1999) suggest having students orally read from texts that are easy for them but contain unfamiliar words, to allow them to practice both their phonics and their fluency in the classroom.
Potential Ill Effects from Systematic Phonics Instruction
English is a difficult language to learn phonetically. Those who begin to learn to read from a young age are at an advantage over those who begin later in life, according to Ehrl, Stahl, and Willows (2005). However, Ehrl, Stahl and Willows (2005) note that although the benefits of phonics education are greatest when the student is young, systematic phonics education is helpful for students of all ages and all reading levels.
There are drawbacks to using systematic phonics systems to teach reading to students, however, and not everyone is a proponent of phonics systems. English is a language that, more often than not, does not conform to grammar or spelling rules; Mesmer and Griffith (2005) note that there are multilayered English spelling and grammar rules that are complex and difficult for new readers to understand. Notably, Mesmer and Griffith (2005) give the example of “sign” and “signal” as two words that share a common root but a different sound.
In addition, highly systematic phonics systems require serious instructor involvement for success. Even with younger students who are more likely to get good impacts from the phonics system in question, there is still the issue of instructor involvement that must be achieved for the student to reap the benefits of the program. Krashen (2004) notes that in all the studies done on the effect of systematic phonics instruction in the classroom, the sample sizes have been relatively small, and also notes that the school systems that use phonics programs seem to have fallen victim to the hype surrounding phonics, rather than following research (Krashen, 2004).
Albright and Berger (1998) note that children do not learn to read the same way that they acquire language; they note that the process of learning to read is an involved one, and takes input from instructors to be carried out effectively. Albright and Berger (1998) do not claim that phonics instruction should not be used because of the potential difficulties of the program, but instead claim that teacher involvement in the students and the classroom is important for successful phonics programs. Albright and Berger (1998) also note that the process of learning to read in English is a difficult one, and multisyllabic words are more difficult to read than others; the process of learning phonetic reading is long and time-consuming.
III. Discussion
There is no doubt that phonics instruction helps early readers develop their skills. Although Kershan (2004) is adamant that no systematic phonics instruction has been shown to be particularly useful overall in the classroom, even a minor improvement in the ability of students to learn to read is good, considering how difficult it is for students to learn to read English at all. Indeed, newer research has indicated that there are benefits to utilizing a good systematic phonics instructional program in the classroom. Ehrl, Stahl and Willows (2005) write:
The overall effect of phonics instruction on reading was moderate Effects persisted after instruction ended. Effects were larger when phonics instruction began early Phonics benefited decoding, word reading, text comprehension, and spelling in many readers Synthetic phonics and larger-unit systematic phonics programs produced a similar advantage in reading. Delivering instruction to small groups and classes was not less effective than tutoring. Systematic phonics instruction helped children learn to read better than all forms of control group instruction In sum, systematic phonics instruction proved effective and should be implemented as part of literacy programs to teach beginning reading (Ehrl, Stahl and Willows, 2005)
The only case where systematic phonics instruction did not help those struggling to learn to read is in the case of students struggling with cognitive limitations. While this is certainly a limitation for systematic phonics instructional systems that should be taken into account in the classroom, it does not discredit systematic phonics instructional systems for all the other cases of students trying to learn to read.
Overall, the research demonstrates that systematic, explicit phonics systems are excellent long-term methods for reading instruction, especially when combined with programs that encourage fluency in oral reading and sight-word recognition for words that do not follow traditional phonetic rules. Teaching alphabetics to young readers is particularly important, as a good foundation in this area can lead to a student who loves to read; a poor foundation insofar as reading and phonics are concerned can easily lead to a student that dislikes reading and has difficulty completing educational tasks that involve large amounts of reading later in their educational careers. Bowey (2006) suggests that there is significant empirical research that can be relied upon to imply that there are benefits to systematic phonics instruction-- benefits that cannot be gleaned in any other manner by any other phonics instruction program.
References
Adams, M. (2001). Alphabetic anxiety and explicit, systematic phonics instruction: A cognitive science perspective. Handbook of early literacy research, 1 66--80.
Albright, L. & Berger, S. (1998). Systematic Phonics Instruction at the Middle Elementary Grades.
Bowey, J. A. (2006). Need for systematic synthetic phonics teaching within the early reading curriculum. Australian Psychologist, 41(2), 79-84
Dahl, K., Scharer, P., Lawson, L. & Grogan, P. (1999). Phonics instruction and student achievement in whole language first-grade classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 34 (3), 312--341.
De Graaff, S., Bosman, A., Hasselman, F. & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Benefits of systematic phonics instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13 (4), 318--333.
Denton, C. & Hasbrouck, J. (2000). " Systematic Phonics Instruction" from Teaching Students with Disabilities To Read. PEER Literacy Resource Brief\# 2. PEER Project Literacy Series.. ERIC.
Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Stahl, S. & Willows, D. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 71 (3), 393--447.
Groff, P. (1998). Commentary: Where's the Phonics? Making a Case for Its Direct and Systematic Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 52 (2), 138--141.
Hargis, C (2012). Are We Hooked on Phonics?.
Krashen, S. (2004). False claims about literacy development. Educational Leadership, 61 (6), 18--21.
Levels, P. (2006). The Research Basis for the Hooked on Phonics\textregistered Learn to Read.
Mesmer, H. & Griffith, P. (2005). Everybody's Selling It—But Just What Is Explicit, Systematic Phonics Instruction?. The Reading Teacher, 59 (4), 366--376.
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 (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. (2005a) Teaching reading: Report and recommendations. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Nicholson, T. & Ng, G. (2006). The case for teaching phonemic awareness and simple phonics to preschoolers. Handbook of orthography and literacy, 637--48.
Pflaum, S., Walberg, H., Karegianes, M. & Rasher, S. (1980). Reading instruction: A quantitative analysis. Educational Researcher, 9 (7), 12--18.
Smith, F. (1999). Why systematic phonics and phonemic awareness instruction constitute an educational hazard. Language Arts, 77 (2), 150--155.
Stahl, S. (1992). Saying the" p" word: Nine guidelines for exemplary phonics instruction. The Reading Teacher, 45 (8), 618--625.
Stuebing, K., Barth, A., Cirino, P., Francis, D. & Fletcher, J. (2008). A response to recent reanalyses of the National Reading Panel report: Effects of systematic phonics instruction are practically significant.. Journal of educational psychology, 100 (1), 123.
Villaume, S. & Brabham, E. (2003). Phonics Instruction: Beyond the Debate.. Reading Teacher, 56(5), 478--82.
