The Annual Newsletter of the International Reading Association's Phonics Special Interest Group
Phonics Instruction
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.
Phonics instruction is a way of teaching reading that stresses the acquisition
of letter-sound correspondences and their use in reading and spelling.
The primary focus of phonics instruction is to help beginning readers
understand how letters are linked to sounds (phonemes) to form letter-sound
correspondences and spelling patterns and to help them learn how to apply
this knowledge in their reading. Phonics instruction may be provided systematically
or incidentally. The hallmark of a systematic phonics approach or program
is that a sequential set of phonics elements is delineated and these elements
are taught along a dimension of explicitness depending on the type of
phonics method employed. Conversely, with incidental phonics instruction,
the teacher does not follow a planned sequence of phonics elements to
guide instruction but highlights particular elements opportunistically
when they appear in text.
Types of Phonics Instructional
Methods and Approaches
In synthetic phonics approaches, students are taught to link an individual
letter or letter combination with its appropriate sound and then blend
the sounds to form words. In analytic phonics, students are first taught
whole word units followed by systematic instruction linking the specific
letters in the word with their respective sounds. Phonics instruction
can also vary with respect to the explicitness by which the phonic elements
are taught and practiced in the reading of text. For example, many synthetic
phonics approaches use direct instruction in teaching phonics components
and provide opportunities for applying these skills in decodable text
formats characterized by a controlled vocabulary. On the other hand, embedded
phonics approaches are typically less explicit and use decodable text
for practice less frequently, although the phonics concepts to be learned
can still be presented systematically. These distinctions are addressed
in detail in the Phonics subgroup report.
Questions Guiding the NRP
Analysis of Phonics Instruction
The NRP examined the research literature concerning phonics instruction
to answer the following questions: Does phonics instruction enhance children’s
success in learning to read? Is phonics instruction more effective at
some grade levels than others? Is it beneficial for children who are having
difficulties learning to read? Does phonics instruction improve all aspects
of reading or just decoding and word-level reading skills? Are some types
of phonics instruction more effective than others and for which children?
Does phonics instruction have an impact on children’s spelling?
To address these questions the NRP performed a literature search to identify
studies published since 1970 that compared phonics instruction to other
forms of instruction for their impact on reading ability. The initial
electronic and manual searches identified 1,373 studies that appeared
relevant to phonics instruction. Evaluation of these studies to determine
adherence to the general and specific NRP research methodology criteria
identified 38 studies from which 66 treatment-control group comparisons
were derived. Data from these studies were used in a meta-analysis, including
the calculation of effect sizes.
The meta-analysis indicated that systematic phonics instruction enhances
children’s success in learning to read and that systematic phonics
instruction is significantly more effective than instruction that teaches
little or no phonics.
Findings and Determinations
The 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. The ability to read and
spell words was enhanced in kindergartners who received systematic beginning
phonics instruction. First graders who were taught phonics systematically
were better able to decode and spell, and they showed significant improvement
in their ability to comprehend text. Older children receiving phonics
instruction were better able to decode and spell words and to read text
orally, but their comprehension of text was not significantly improved.
Systematic synthetic phonics instruction had a positive and significant
effect on disabled readers’ reading skills. These children improved
substantially in their ability to read words and showed significant, albeit
small, gains in their ability to process text as a result of systematic
synthetic phonics instruction. This type of phonics instruction benefits
both students with learning disabilities and low-achieving students who
are not disabled. Moreover, systematic synthetic phonics instruction was
significantly more effective in improving low socioeconomic status (SES)
than instructional approaches that were less focused on these initial
reading skills.
Across all grade levels, systematic phonics instruction improved the
ability of good readers to spell. The impact was strongest for kindergartners
and decreased in later grades. For poor readers, the impact of phonics
instruction on spelling was small, perhaps reflecting the consistent finding
that disabled readers have trouble learning to spell.
Although conventional wisdom has suggested that kindergarten students
might not be ready for phonics instruction, this assumption was not supported
by the data. The effects of systematic early phonics instruction were
significant and substantial in kindergarten and the 1st grade, indicating
that systematic phonics programs should be implemented at those age and
grade levels.
The NRP analysis indicated that systematic phonics instruction is ready
for implementation in the classroom. Findings of the Panel regarding the
effectiveness of explicit, systematic phonics instruction were derived
from studies conducted in many classrooms with typical classroom teachers
and typical American or English-speaking students from a variety of backgrounds
and socioeconomic levels. Thus, the results of the analysis are indicative
of what can be accomplished when explicit, systematic phonics programs
are implemented in today’s classrooms. Systematic phonics instruction
has been used widely over a long period of time with positive results,
and a variety of systematic phonics programs have proven effective with
children of different ages, abilities, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
These facts and findings provide converging evidence that explicit, systematic
phonics instruction is a valuable and essential part of a successful classroom
reading program. However, there is a need to be cautious in giving a blanket
endorsement of all kinds of phonics instruction.
It is important to recognize that the goals of phonics instruction are
to provide children with key knowledge and skills and to ensure that they
know how to apply that knowledge in their reading and writing. In other
words, phonics teaching is a means to an end. To be able to make use of
letter-sound information, children need phonemic awareness. That is, they
need to be able to blend sounds together to decode words, and they need
to break spoken words into their constituent sounds to write words. Programs
that focus too much on the teaching of letter-sound relations and not
enough on putting them to use are unlikely to be very effective. In implementing
systematic phonics instruction, educators must keep the end in mind and
ensure that children understand the purpose of learning letter sounds
and that they are able to apply these skills accurately and fluently in
their daily reading and writing activities.
Of additional concern is the often-heard call for “intensive, systematic”
phonics instruction. Usually the term “intensive” is not defined.
How much is required to be considered intensive? In addition, it is not
clear how many months or years a phonics program should continue. If phonics
has been systematically taught in kindergarten and 1st grade, should it
continue to be emphasized in 2nd grade and beyond? How long should single
instruction sessions last? How much ground should be covered in a program?
Specifically, how many letter-sound relations should be taught, and how
many different ways of using these relations to read and write words should
be practiced for the benefits of phonics to be maximized? These questions
remain for future research.
Another important area is the role of the teacher. Some phonics programs
showing large effect sizes require teachers to follow a set of specific
instructions provided by the publisher; while this may standardize the
instructional sequence, it also may reduce teacher interest and motivation.
Thus, one concern is how to maintain consistency of instruction while
still encouraging the unique contributions of teachers. Other programs
require a sophisticated knowledge of spelling, structural linguistics,
or word etymology. In view of the evidence showing the effectiveness of
systematic phonics instruction, it is important to ensure that the issue
of how best to prepare teachers to carry out this teaching effectively
and creatively is given high priority.
Knowing that all phonics programs are not the same brings with it the
implication that teachers must be themselves educated about how to evaluate
different programs to determine which ones are based on strong evidence
and how they can most effectively use these programs in their own classrooms.
It is therefore important that teachers be provided with evidence-based
preservice training and ongoing inservice training to select (or develop)
and implement the most appropriate phonics instruction effectively.
A common question with any instructional program is whether
“one size fits all.” Teachers may be able to use a particular
program in the classroom but may find that it suits some students better
than others. At all grade levels, but particularly in kindergarten and
the early grades, children are known to vary greatly in the skills they
bring to school. Some children will already know letter-sound correspondences,
and some will even be able to decode words, while others will have little
or no letter knowledge. Teachers should be able to assess the needs of
the individual students and tailor instruction to meet specific needs.
However, it is more common for phonics programs to present a fixed sequence
of lessons scheduled from the beginning to the end of the school year.
In light of this, teachers need to be flexible in their phonics instruction
in order to adapt it to individual student needs.
Children who have already developed phonics skills and can apply them
appropriately in the reading process do not require the same level and
intensity of phonics instruction provided to children at the initial phases
of reading acquisition. Thus, it will also be critical to determine objectively
the ways in which systematic phonics instruction can be optimally incorporated
and integrated in complete and balanced programs of reading instruction.
Part of this effort should be directed at preservice and inservice education
to provide teachers with decision making frameworks to guide their selection,
integration, and implementation of phonics instruction within a complete
reading program.
Teachers must understand that systematic phonics instruction is only
one component—albeit a necessary component—of a total reading
program; systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other
reading instruction in phonemic awareness, fluency, and comprehension
strategies to create a complete reading program. While most teachers and
educational decision makers recognize this, there may be a tendency in
some classrooms, particularly in 1st grade, to allow phonics to become
the dominant component, not only in the time devoted to it, but also in
the significance attached. It is important not to judge children’s
reading competence solely on the basis of their phonics skills and not
to devalue their interest in books because they cannot decode with complete
accuracy. It is also critical for teachers to understand that systematic
phonics instruction can be provided in an entertaining, vibrant, and creative
manner.
Systematic phonics instruction is designed to increase accuracy in decoding and word recognition skills, which in turn facilitate comprehension. However, it is again important to note that fluent and automatic application of phonics skills to text is another critical skill that must be taught and learned to maximize oral reading and reading comprehension. This issue again underscores the need for teachers to understand that while phonics skills are necessary in order to learn to read, they are not sufficient in their own right. Phonics skills must be integrated with the development of phonemic awareness, fluency, and text reading comprehension skills.