putting the record straight about research on reading

Putting the record straight about research on reading

80 corrections, clarifications and comments on Ewing, R. (2018)

“Exploding SOME of the myths about learning to read: A review of research on the role of phonics”.

Sydney: NSW Teachers Federation

Dr Jennifer Buckingham, Senior Research Fellow, The Centre for Independent studies

Debateoverhowchildrenlearntoread—andhowbesttoteachthem—hasbeenragingforasmanyyearsasliteracyhasbeenperceivedasavaluable

skill,anduniversalliteracyadesirableandobtainablegoal.

Foralongtime,theacademicdebateaboutreadingwaslargelytheoreticalandphilosophical.Peopledevelopedtheoriesofreadingbasedonobservation

andanalysisofwhatskilledreadersaredoingwhentheyread.Thesetheorieslaterincludedevaluationsofthetypesoferrorschildrenmakewhentheyare

learningtoread,inordertobuildconceptualmodelsofreadingacquisitionandwhysomechildrenhaveparticulardifficultylearningtoread.

Philosophiesofreading—thepurposeandconsequencesofreading—havealsobeeninfluentialonclassroomteachingmethods.Technologyandad-

vancedscientificmethodshaveallowedamorepreciseunderstandingofthecognitiveprocessesoccurringwhenpeoplearereading,andwhentheyare

learningtoread,tobeachievedinrecentdecades.However,thisresearch-derivedevidenceisyettobecomeuniversallyaccepted.

Thetwocurrentkeycompetingtheoriesofhowchildrenlearntoreadare,broadly:

1. Meaning comes first.

Thistheorypositsthatsincethepurposeofwritingistoconveymeaning,childrencanonlylearntoreadiftheyare‘makingmeaning’,andthatthisprocess

ofmakingmeaningwilleventuallyleadthemtodiscoverhowtotranslatewritingintowordstheyrecogniseandunderstand.Proponentsofthistheory

oftenarguethatwordscannotbereadwithoutthecontextofasentence,andthatteachingtherelationshipbetweenlettersandsounds(phonics)isnon-

sensicalwithouttheirmeaning-basedcontext.

2. Code comes first (but not only).

Thismodelarguesthatreaderscannotmakemeaningfromtextiftheycannotaccuratelytranslatethewrittenword.Itisbasedontheknowledgethat

writtenEnglishisanalphabeticcodedevisedtorepresentthesoundsweusetosaywordsinspeech.Itissupportedbyextensivescientificresearchshowing

thatwhenchildrenlearntoread,theymustfirstactivatethepathwayintheirbrainthatconnectsprinttospeech.Theconversionofprinttospeech(either

aloudormentally)throughanunderstandingofphonicsallowsthemtoaccessthemeaningofthewordintheirvocabularyandeventuallytoengagethe

complexcognitiveprocessesinvolvedintextcomprehension.

Thesetwotheoriesofreadingacquisitionleadtodifferentconceptionsofeffectiveteachingpractice.Themainpointofcontentioniswhether—andhow

—toteachphonics.TheMeaningFirsttheory,whileacknowledgingthatchildrenneedtoknowthealphabeticprinciple,deniestheneedtoteachitinan

explicitandsystematicway.CodeFirstproponentsagreethatmeaningistheobjectiveofreadingbutarguethatreadinginstructionmustincludeexplicit

andsystematicphonicsinstructionifthisobjectiveistobeachievedforallchildren.

HundredsofexperimentalstudiesfrommultipledisciplinesoverthepastfourdecadeshavesupportedtheCodeFirsttheoryofreadingacquisition.Inthe

earlystagesofreadinginstruction,phonicsinstructionismosteffectivewhenitistaughtinanexplicitandsystematicway,withinabroadliteracyprogram

thatdevelopsallfiveoftheessentialcomponentsofreadinginstruction—phonemicawareness,phonics,fluency,vocabularyandcomprehension.

Themostexplicitandsystematicwaytoteachphonics,andthemethodthatismostcloselyalignedwithcognitivescienceevidenceonlearning,issystem-

aticsyntheticphonics,orSSP.Thereisatendencyforthisapproachtobecharacterisedbyitscriticsas‘phonicsonly’,or‘phonicsinisolation’;howeverthis

isdemonstrablyfalse.Noseriousresearcheroreducatorwouldclaimthatphonicsisthesolecomponentofreading—rather,itis‘necessarybutnotsuffi-

cient’.Ofcourse,childrenneedenrichedandengagingliteracyexperiencesofallkindsaswell.Thisisnotinquestion.

Teachersgetalargeamountofinformationaboutphonicsinstructioningeneral,andsystematicsyntheticphonicsinparticular,fromavarietyofsources.

Amongallthatiswrittenandsaidaboutreadinginstruction,teachersshouldbeabletoexpectthatacademicsinuniversitiesandtheirelectedrepresenta-

tivesinunionswillprovidethemwithinformationthatisfactuallycorrectandevidence-based.

Unfortunately,thatisnotalwaysthecase.AnexampleisthepaperwrittenbyRobynEwingduringhertimeasProfessorofEducationattheUniversityof

Sydney,andpublishedbytheNSWTeachersFederation.Titled‘ExplodingSOMEofthemythsaboutlearningtoread:Areviewofresearchontheroleof

phonics’,thepaperperpetuatesanumberofmisunderstandingsandmyths.Itcontains80instancesoferrors,misrepresentations,andincompleteexplana-

tions.

ThefirstpublishedversionofthereportcontainedthefalsestatementthatTheCentreforIndependentStudies—theorganisationthatproducestheFIVE

fromFIVEproject—isfundedbytheLiberal-NationalCoalition;despitethefactthattheCISstatesveryclearlyonitswebsitethatitacceptsnogovernment

orpoliticalpartyfunding,andneverhas.Thishasnowbeencorrectedbutinsteadofreplacingtheincorrectstatementwithaneutralone,myorganisation

isdescribedas‘rightwing’inaclearattempttoimbuemyevidence-basedviewswithanideologicalbias.

Engaginginadhominemcriticismsratherthanhonestlyandaccuratelydiscussingfactsandevidence,andthestrengthsandweaknessesofarguments,

preventsprogresstowardacceptanceandconsensus.Inwhatfollows,thereisnoattempttoimpugnthemotivesoftheauthororthepublishers.Ratherit

istodemonstrateinadetailedandobjectiveway,theflawsintheirargumentsandtheinaccuratepresentationofresearchtosupporttheircase.

Thisisnotamatterofsquabblingoverinsignificantdetail.Itisofvitalimportancethatteachersreceiveaccurateinformation.Thetablebelowidentifies,

correctsandclarifiesmanystatementsandclaimsmadeinEwing’sreport.

Page4

1 “…thesuggestionthatAustraliamightintroduceasynthetic

phonicscheckforallsix-year-olds”

INCORRECT:Itisnota‘synthetic’phonicscheck.Itissimplyaphonics

check.Itdoesnotprescribeanyparticularteachingmethods—itas-

sesseshowwellchildrenhavelearnttodecodewordsusingphonics

afteralmosttwoyearsofreadinginstruction.

2 “…actionsalreadytakeninEnglandbythegovernmentto

changethenationalcurriculuminlinewiththerecommenda-

tionsoftheRoseReport(2006)wereprematureandthis

changeinreadingpedagogyhasnotyetbeenvalidatedbyre-

search.”

INCORRECT:Thereisevidencesupportingtheuseofsyntheticphonics

instructionfromavarietyofsources.

Page5

3 “Thisreviewfocusesonreadingdefinedasasociocultural

meaning-makingprocess.”

Thisisasociologicaldefinitionthathasnorelevancetothedevelop-

mentofthecomplexcognitiveprocessesthathavebeenscientifically

establishedasbeingnecessaryforchildrentolearntoread.

4 Itmustalsobeunderstoodfromtheoutsetthatparents’edu-

cationandsocioeconomicstatus(Mullisetal,2007;OECD,

2010a)andculturalorientationstoreading(Williams,2000;

Heath,1983)haveasignificantimpactonthelikelihoodof

children’ssuccessinlearningtoread.

Otherpredictorsofreadingincludethecentralityof:

- alanguageandstory-richhomeenvironment,where

readingandwritingfordifferentpurposesismodelled

andshared(Heath,1983);

- frequentanddiverselinguistically-richparent/child

oralinteractions;

- theprovisionofarangeofbooksinthehome;

- quality,literacy-richpreschoolexperiences;and

- accesstolibraries(Krashen,etal,2012).

Thesefactorsaredistalpredictorsofreadingsuccess.Theyarenotdi-

rectlycausative.Theyaremediatedbyproximalfactorslikehereditary

predispositions,phonologicalawareness,orallanguage,vocabulary

development,andotherdirectinfluences.

Effectivepedagogiesarethosethatovercome,minimiseorcompen-

sateforchildren’sgeneticandenvironmentaldisadvantages,rather

thanusingthemasexcusesforachildnothavinglearned.

Page6

5 “…thereislittleevidencetosupportoneformofphonics

teachinginisolationfromotherstrategiesneedwhenlearning

toread.”

INCORRECT:Thereisagreatdealofevidencesupportingsystematic

andexplicitapproachesasthemosteffectiveformofphonicsteach-

ing,butno-onehaseverarguedthatitshouldbe‘inisolation’.Good

phonicsteachingisONEoftheessentialelements.

6 “Thisemphasisonisolatedphonicsintheearlystagesofread-

ing…”

STRAWMAN:‘Emphasisonisolatedphonics’isafabricatedstraw

man.Thereisnosuchthing.

7 …togetherwiththetrendtowardspseudowords…” UNFOUNDED:Thereisno‘trendtowardspseudowords’?Thisisan-

otherfabricatedstrawman.

8 “…willinfluenceyoungchildren`sunderstandingofthenature

ofliteracyandimpacttheirattitudetoreading.Itwillalsoaf-

fectparents’ideasabouthowtohelptheiryoungchildren.”

UNFOUNDED:Purespeculationbasedonafalsepremise.

9 “Thenextsectionofthepaperreviewsresearchevidence

aboutthebestwaytousephonicsintheteachingofreading.

Itdemonstratesthatsystematicphonicsinstructionisavalua-

blestrategyinhelpingchildrenlearntoread,especiallywhen

tailoredtomeetindividualstudents’needsandusedwith

otherstrategiesinabroadandrichliteracycurriculum.”

Itistruethat‘systematicphonicsinstruction’isavaluablestrategy,

butthedefinitionofsystematicphonicsinstructionemployedinthis

reviewisatoddswiththeextantreadingresearchliterature.

10 “Insummary,thisreviewofthecurrentpolicyprospects

aroundtheteachingofsyntheticphonics—togetherwith

otherreadingresearchoverthelasttwodecades—hasfound

noclearadvantageforeitherofthetwomainpsychological

modelsofphonicsacquisition:analyticorsyntheticphonics.”

Eitherincorrectorpoorlyexpressed.Thereisno‘psychologicalmodel’

ofphonicsacquisitioninresearchliterature.

However,readingresearchhasfoundaclearadvantageforsystematic

approaches,whichcantheoreticallyincludebothsyntheticandana-

lytic;butanalyticapproachesvarywidelyintheextenttowhichthey

canbedescribedassystematicorexplicit.

Page9

11 “…theLanguageandReadingResearchConsortium(2015)has

suggestedthattoooftenthesesimplemodelsofreading[re-

ferringtotheSimpleViewofReading(Gough&Tunmer

(1986)]areproblematic…”

INCORRECT:TheLaRRClongitudinalresearchprojectsupportedanex-

pandedversionoftheSimpleViewofReading,inwhichdecodingand

languagecomprehensionarestrongcomponentfactorsinreadingbut

inwhichdecodingdecreasesasapredictoraschildrenbecomebetter

readers,whichisastrengthof,ratherthanacounterto,theSimple

ViewofReading.

See:LARRC(2015).Learningtoread:shouldwekeepthingssimple?

ReadingResearchQuarterly,50,151-169.doi:10.1002/rrq.99

ALSOIMPORTANT:TheLARRCstudyalsofoundthat“decodingskill

wasbestmeasuredbywordandnon-wordreadingaccuracyinthe

earlygrades”,whichsupportstheinclusionofpseudo/non-wordsina

Year1PhonicsCheck.

Page10-11:Manyofthedefinitionsprovidedareincorrect,incompleteornotstandard,including:

12 TheAustralianCurriculum:English(2018)definesreadingas:

“Processingwords,symbolsoractionstoderiveand/orcon-

structmeaning.Readingincludesinterpreting,criticallyana-

lysingandreflectinguponthemeaningofawiderangeof

writtenandvisual,printandnon-printtexts.”

Thisdefinitionappliestoliteracyratherthanreading.

Nonetheless,inorderto‘deriveand/orconstructmeaning’fromtext,

youmustfirstbeabletoaccuratelyidentifythewords.

13 “Decoding:Workingoutthemeaningofwordsintext.”

Indecoding,readersdrawoncontextual,vocabulary,gram-

maticalandphonicknowledge.Readerswhodecodeeffec-

tivelycombinetheseformsofknowledgefluentlyandauto-

matically,andself-correctusingmeaningtorecognisewhen

theymakeanerror(TheAustralianCurriculum:English).

Thisisnotastandarddefinition.

ThismaybetheAustralianCurriculumdefinitionbutitisnottheac-

ceptedorstandarddefinitionusedinacademicresearchliterature,

wheredecodingusuallymeans‘phonologicaldecoding’—using

knowledgeofletter-soundrelationshipstoreadaword.

14 “Orthography:Thewritingsystemthatrepresentsthemean-

ingofalanguage.”

INCORRECT:Orthography:Thewritingsystemthatrepresentsthe

meaningandsoundsofalanguage.

15 “Syntheticphonics:Apart-to-wholeapproachthatbegins

withfocusonindividuallettersandemphasisesteachingstu-

dentstoconvertletters(graphemes)intosounds(phonemes).

INCORRECT:Notuniversallytrue:Somesyntheticphonicsprograms

workfromsoundtoprint

16 “Embeddedphonics:Childrenaretaughtletter-soundrela-

tionshipsduringthereadingofconnectedtext.Sincechildren

encounterdifferentletter-soundrelationshipsastheyread,

thisapproachwillnotbeapreconceivedsequence,butcan

stillbethoroughandexplicit.”

INCORRECT:Embeddedphonicsdoesnotmeetthedefinitionofex-

plicitteaching.

17 “Phonology:Thesystembywhichspeechsoundsofalan-

guagerepresentmeaning.”

INCORRECT:Phonologyistherulesthatgovernthewaysoundsare

usedinspokenlanguage

18 “Recoding:Translatingsoundtoprint,withnoassociated

meaning.Comparewithdecoding,definedabove,whichin-

cludesmeaning.”

INCORRECT:Recodingisthetranslationofprinttosound.Encodingis

soundtoprint(thatis,spelling).

Page13

19 “Listeningandrespondingtostoriesbuildsvocabularyand

grammarknowledgeandencourageschildrentoreadregu-

larly,whichisbyfarthebestwayofdevelopingreadingabil-

ity,writingcompetence,grammar,vocabulary,andspelling

(Meek,1988).”

INCORRECT:Listeningtostoriesisinarguablyimportantforemergent

literacydevelopmentbutresearchconductedinthethirtyyearssince

Meek(1988)hasshownthatitisnotthebestwayofdevelopingread-

ingability.

Treiman(2018)writes:“Uncriticalacceptanceoftheideathatreading

tochildreniswhatcountsinmakingthemgoodreadershascontrib-

utedtofailurestorecognizethevalueofdirectteaching.”[Treiman,R.

(2018).PsychologicalScienceinthePublicInterest,19,1-4.]

20 “Whatchildrenattendtoinreadinglessonsdependsonwhat

theyandthosearoundthemthinkreadingisforandhowit

canbeused.”

UNFOUNDED:Thereisnoevidenceforthisclaim.

Page14

21 “Whileconstrainedskillsarenecessary,theyareinsufficient

forthedevelopmentofcomplexreading(Stahl,2011).”

INCOMPLETE:Stahl(2011)alsosaysthatconstrainedskillsshouldbe

taughttoautomaticityusingexplicit,systematicinstruction.

22 “Stahlalsopointsoutthatifhighlyconstrainedskillsareover-

emphasised,unconstrainedskillscanbecompromised.”

MISREPRESENTATION:Stahl(2011)wasmakingthispointinrelation

toinstructionaltime;shewasnotsuggestingthatteachingchildrento

decodewordsphoneticallyadverselyimpactsonvocabularyandcom-

prehensiondevelopment.

Page15

23 “Becomingafluentandaccuratereadermeanslearningtouse

allthecuesystems:semantic,graphophonicandsyntactic

cues,aswellashavinganunderstandingofFreebodyand

Luke’s(1990,1999)readerroles(codebreaker,participant,

userandanalyst).”

INCORRECT:Whilemultiplecuesarehelpfulfordeterminingthepre-

cisemeaningofaword,thereisnoevidencethatsemanticandsyn-

tacticcuesshouldbeusedwhenattemptingtoreadunknownwords.

Torgersenetal(2018):“Usingsemanticandsyntacticcuesis‘little

betterthanguessingsincetheyoftenleadtolearnersproducing

wordsotherthanthetargetword”[ResearchPapersinEducation

(2018),DOI:10.1080/02671522.2017.1420816]

FreebodyandLuke’s‘readerroles’applytotheoriesofliteracy,not

modelsofhowchildrenlearntoread.

24 “Graphologicalandphonologicalaspectsofdecodingprintare

apartofthereadingprocess,notthefirstorthemostorleast

important.”

INCORRECT:Grapho-phonologicaldecodingofprintisthefirstpartof

learningtoread.

Nation(2017)writes:‘Thereisaclearconsensusandabundantevi-

dencethat…phonologicaldecodingisatthecoreoflearningtoread

words’.[ScienceofLearning,2,DOI:10.1038/s41539-017-0004-7].

Therearemultiplestudiesshowingthatwordreadingbeginswiththe

translationofprinttosound(withattentionpaidtoalllettersinthe

word)whichthenengagesthesemanticmemory.

Seeforexample:Grainger,J.(2008).Crackingtheorthographiccode:

Anintroduction.LanguageandCognitiveProcesses,23,1-35.

25 “Itmustalsobeemphasisedthatreadersofdifferentlan-

guagesusedifferentpathwaysforreadingdifferentscripts

(forexample,ChineseandEnglish),andthesedifferentpath-

waysareusedinthesamebrain.”

INCORRECT:Neuroscientificresearchhasconsistentlyshownalarge

degreeofuniversalityintheneuralbasesoflanguagesystems;read-

inginChineseandEnglishusesthesameareasofthebrain.Thediffer-

encesareinthedominanceofdifferentareas.

Seeforexample:Cao&Perfetti(2016).Neuralsignaturesoftheread-

ing-writingconnection:GreaterinvolvementofwritinginChinese

readingthanEnglishreading,PLOSONE,DOI:10.1371/jour-

nal.pone.0168414

26 “Initial,intensiveandisolatedphonicsinstructionhaslong

beenproposedasastartingpointinthereadingprocess.”

MISREPRESENTATION:Theuseoftheword‘isolated’heresuggests

thatphonicsistaughtintheabsenceofothercomponentsofreading

instruction.Thisisaninaccuratecharacterisationofargumentsforthe

inclusionofsystematicandexplicitphonicsinacomprehensiveearly

literacyprogram.

Page16

27 “Initially,themeaningofthewordsareregardedasirrelevant

andinconsequential—hencetheuseofnonsensewordsin

theUKphonicscheck.”

INCORRECT:Insyntheticphonics,childrenlearnaboutthemeaningof

thewordstheyarelearningtoread.Meaningisnotregardedas‘irrel-

evantandinconsequential’.Nonsensewordsareusedprimarilyforas-

sessment(forvalid,evidence-basedreasons).

28 “AsyntheticphonicstesthasbeeninplaceforYear1students

inEnglandsince2012.AllYear1childrenareaskedto“read”

40wordsonacomputerscreenwithnocontext.”

INCORRECT:Thewordsarepresentedinaprintedbooklet,notona

computerscreen.

29 “Nonsensewords,suchas“thrand”,“poth”and“froom”en-

surethechildrenarenotusingmeaningtodecodethe

words.”

INCORRECT:Thepurposeofnonsenseorpseudowordsareistoen-

suretheycannotbereadfrommemoryassightwords—theymust

bephoneticallydecoded.

30 “In2018,theUnitedKingdom’ssyntheticphonicscheckisbe-

ingtrialledinSouthAustralia.

INCORRECT:ThePhonicsCheckwastrialledinSouthAustraliain2017,

andwasimplementedinallthestate’sgovernmentschoolsin2018.

Evaluationreportofthe2017trial:https://www.educa-

tion.sa.gov.au/teaching/curriculum-and-teaching/numeracy-and-liter-

acy/phonics-screening-check

Page18

31 RE.Clackmannanshirestudy

‘Readingcomprehensionwasalsonotsignificantlyimproved

bythesyntheticphonicsapproach.’

INCORRECT:Therewasastatisticallysignificantadvantageinreading

comprehensioninYear7.[SeeJohnson&Watson(2005)p.27]

Furthermore,attheendofthestudytherewerenodifferencesin

readingcomprehensionbetweendisadvantagedandadvantagedchil-

dren.ThatistherewasnoreadinggapassociatedwithSES.

[SeeJohnson&Watson(2005)p.39]

32 Re.Clackmannanshirestudy:

“Further,theparticipantchildren’ssocioeconomicback-

groundswerenotassessed,norwastheirpriordevelopment

andachievementsbeforethestudycarefullyrecorded.”

INCORRECT:ItisclearlyexplainedinJohnsonandWatson(2005)that

SESandpriorattainmentwereassessedandconsidered.

SES:

- Anindexofdeprivationwasassignedtoeachschool.

- Aquestionnairecollecteddataonparenteducationlevel,atti-

tudestoliteracylearning,anduseofbooksandlibraries

PRIORDEVELOPMENT:

- Pre-testsweregivenon:1.letterknowledge;2.emergent

reading;3.wordreading;4.spelling;5.phonemesegmenta-

tion;6.generatingrhyme

33 Re.Clackmannanshirestudy:

“Acloselookatthestudyraisesseriousconcernsandsuggests

thereareanumberoflimitationsinitsdesignandtheanalysis

offindings,andthereforelimitationsintheconclusions(for

example,WyseandStyles,2007;WyseandGoswami,2008).

OMITTED:Johnson&Watsonrespondtothesecriticismsoftheir

methodologyinJohnson&Watson(2016).‘Thetrialsandtribulations

ofchanginghowreadingistaughtinschools:syntheticphonicsand

theeducationalbacklash’,inKDurkin&HRSchaffer(Eds)(2016)The

WileyHandbookofDevelopmentalPsychologyinPractice:Implemen-

tationandImpact.Wiley:London.

Page19

34 “Scottisheducationpolicymakersdidnotproceedwithasyn-

thetic-phonics-firstapproachtoliteracyfollowingthestudy.”

OMITTED:LiteracyhasbeendeclininginScotland.Thepercentageof

studentsachievingbelowtherequiredlevelintheScottishSurveyof

LiteracyandNumeracyincreasedfrom16%to22%from2012to

2016.https://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/05/7872/downloads

InternationalcomparisonsarenotpossiblebecauseScotlandwith-

drewfromparticipationfromtheProgressinReadingLiteracyStudy

(PIRLS)after2011,howeverEngland’sperformanceinPIRLShasim-

proved,andstudentperformanceintheKeyStageandSATliteracy

testshasimprovedsincesyntheticphonicswasimplemented.

35 Re.RoseReview

“Itassertedthatteachingearlyreadingtochildrenagedfive

oryoungershouldfocusontheabilitytodecode,withthis

shiftingtocomprehensiononlywhenchildrenhadmastered

thealphabeticcode…”

INCORRECT:TheRoseReviewextensivelydiscussedtheimportanceof

broadandrichlanguageandliteracyexperiences.

Specifically,itrecommended:“Phonicworkshouldbesetwithina

broadandrichlanguagecurriculumthattakesfullaccountofdevelop-

ingthefourinter-dependentstrandsoflanguage:speaking,listening,

readingandwritingandenlargingchildren’sstockofwords.”p.70

36 Theideathatchildrenyoungerthanfivewillbenefitfroma

systematicsyntheticphonicsprogrammeisarguablyoneof

themostcontroversialrecommendationsoftheRoseReport.

ItisworthnotingthatmanychildreninotherEuropeancoun-

tries,includingFinland,donotstartformalreadinginstruction

untiltheyaresevenoreight.”

UNFOUNDED:Thisrecommendationisnon-controversialwhencon-

sideringthefollowingfactors:

- ThesearetheagesatwhichchildreninEnglandandFinland

startfull-timeschool.

- TheEnglishwritingsystemismorecomplexandtakeslonger

tomasterthanFinnish.MostFinnishchildrencanreadbythe

endofthefirstyearofschool.ThirtypercentofFinnishchil-

drencanreadbeforetheystartschool.[Olson,Evans&Keckler

(2006),JournalfortheEducationoftheGifted

https://doi.org/10.4219%2Fjeg-2006-260]

- AlmostallFinnishchildrenhavebeeninfull-timeformalchild

caresincetheageoftwo,whichincludesliteracyteaching.

37 England’sDepartmentforEducationandSkills(DfES)commis-

sionedasystematicreviewofapproachestotheteachingof

reading(Torgersonetal,2006).

OMITTED:Thereisamorerecentversionofthismeta-analysis,pub-

lishedpriortotheEwingreport:Torgersonetal(2018).‘Phonics:

Readingpolicyandtheevidenceofeffectivenessfromasystematic

‘tertiary’review’,ResearchPapersinEducation,DOI:

10.1080/02671522.2017.1420816

Itcomestothesameoverallconclusionasthepreviousversionbut

alsoexplainsthattheapproachtoinstructionisnotclearinmanyof

thestudiesinthereviewandthereforethecomparisondoesnothave

ahighdegreeofcertainty.

IMPORTANT:Torgersenetal(2018)alsostatesthatusingsemantic

andsyntacticcuestoreadunfamilarwordsis‘littlebetterthanguess-

ingsincetheyoftenleadtolearnersproducingwordsotherthanthe

target.’

Page20

38 “WyseandGoswami’s(2008)analysisofarangeofEnglish

studiesledthemtoconcludeitwasprematuretostatethat

reliableempiricalevidencesupportstheclaimthatsynthetic

phonicsinstructionisthebestearlyreadinginstructionfor

mostchildren.Theypointedoutthatthedatasupportap-

proachesarebasedonsystematictuitioninphonicsandthat

contextualisedsystematicphonicsinstructioniseffective.”

OMITTED:WyseandGoswami(2008)’sdefinitionof‘contextualised

systematicphonicsinstruction’includestheimportantcriteriathatit

shouldcontainthekeyfeaturesofphonics(learninggrapheme–pho-

nemecorrespondences,learningtosegmentandblend).Thesearein

factthekeyfeaturesofsyntheticphonics.

39 “Itisarguedthattheuseofpseudowordsworksagainstor

confusesthesmallnumberofchildrenwhoarealreadyread-

inginYear1.”

UNFOUNDED:Thereisnoevidencethatpseudowords‘confuse’chil-

drenwhoare‘alreadyreading’.Incontrast,Walkeretal(2015),which

iscitedelsewhereintheEwingreport,statesthat‘Overthecourseof

thestudyasmallnumberofrespondentshaveexpressedconcerns

thattheCheckdisadvantageshigherachievingreaders.However,as

reportedinChapter2,theanalysisoftheNPDdatafoundnoidentifia-

blepatternofpoorerperformanceontheCheckthanexpectedin

thosechildrenwhoarealreadyfluentreaders.’(p.10).(Myemphasis)

40 “Sincethenationalrollout,thePSChasbeenstronglycriti-

cisedbymanyteacherswhoassertthecheckprovidesthem

withlittlefurtherinformationabouttheirstudents’reading

andisthereforeanunnecessaryexpense(forexample,ADa-

vis,2012).”

UNFOUNDED:Thisreferenceisforapaperpublishedinthefirstyear

oftheCheckinEngland.Inthatyear,only58%ofstudentsachieved

theexpectedstandard,soactuallythisimpliesthatteacherswere

awaretheirstudentshadpoorphonologicaldecodingskills.

Page21

41 “ThefinalreportfromtheNationalFoundationforEduca-

tionalResearch(NFER),fundedbytheDepartmentforEduca-

tion(DfE)andundertakenbyWalker,Sainsbury,Worth,Bam-

forthandBetts(2015).

EntitledPhonicsScreeningCheckEvaluation:FinalReport,it

revealed:“Therewerenoimprovementsinattainmentorin

progressthatcouldbeclearlyattributedtotheintroductionof

thecheck,noranyidentifiableimpactonpupilprogressinlit-

eracyforlearnerswithdifferentlevelsofpriorattainment”

(page67).

IMPORTANT:The2015NFER‘final’reportwaswrittenafterthePhon-

icsCheckhadbeeninplaceforonly3years.

Itwasanaturalexperiment,ratherthanacontrolledonewithacom-

parisongroup;soinferencesaboutcausalrelationshipscanonlyever

becautious.However,theevaluationalsofoundthatteachersad-

justedtheirteachingpracticeinresponsetostudentresultsonthe

Check.

42 “ThesyntheticphonicscheckinEnglandhasnotdeliveredim-

provementsinlongtermreadingcapabilities.”

MISREPRESENTATION:ThePhonicsCheckhasbeenimplementedsix

times.Thefirstcohortisonlynowattheendofprimaryschool.Any

positiveimpactoftheCheckwillarisefromchangestoinstructionin-

formedbytheCheck’sfindingsandresults.Thesechangestopractice,

iftheyoccur,willtaketimetohaveanimpactoninitialliteracyout-

comesandlongerstilltoshowresultsinlateryears.Thefirstcohortto

dothePhonicsCheckparticipatedinthemostrecent(2016)Year4

PIRLSassessmentandtheirresultswerehistoricallyhigh.

43 “OtherresearchinEngland(forexample,Ellis,2016)sug-

gestedthatalthoughYear1childrenhadimprovedtheirabil-

itytopassthephonicstest/checkby23percentsinceitwas

introducedin2012,todateithadnotsignificantlyimproved

comprehension.”

UNFOUNDED:Ellis(2016)isnotincludedinthereferencelist.How-

ever(asnotedelsewhere),in2015,thepercentageofstudents

achievingattheexpectedstandardinYear2readingcomprehension

hadimprovedby5percentagepointsafteralmostadecadeofstagna-

tion.

44 “HowardGibsonandJenniferEngland(2016)…foundnoevi-

dencethattheabilitytoreadnonsensewords,suchas“yune”

and“thrand”,isareliablepredictoroflaterreadingsuccess.”

INCORRECT:GibsonandEngland(2016)concludedthatreading

pseudowordsisnomorepowerfulasapredictorthanreadingreal

words,NOTthatitisanunreliablepredictor.

However,inreachingtheirconclusionGibsonandEnglanddonot

mentionstudiessuchasFienetal(2010)SchoolPsychology:“Strong

positiverelationswerefoundbetweenNonsenseWordOralFluency

gainsandOralReadingFluencyandReadingComprehensionscores

forstudentswhobegantheyearwithlowtomoderateandrelatively

highdecodingskills”.

45 “Awellknownandinterdisciplinaryteam,Goodman,Friesand

Strauss(2016),addresscommonmisconceptionsaboutread-

ingandaccuratewordrecognition.”

IMPORTANT:ThisbookbyGoodmanetaldismissesorignoresthe

cognitivescienceresearchonreadingdevelopmentandevenpro-

posesthatreadingandwritingshouldnotbetaughtinschool—it

willallegedlysimplydevelopinthecourseoflearningothersubjects.

46 “Todate,theadministrationofthephonicstesthasnotim-

provedreadingcomprehensionscores(DepartmentforEdu-

cation,2016).”

UNFOUNDED:AsexplainedabovereKS1readinglevels

47 “MargaretClarke’s…researchandwritingshowshowanor-

malisedpublicmeasureof“pass”and“fail”inthephonics

checkdoesnottakeintoaccountdifferentstartingpointsfor

youngchildren’sjourneysinbecomingreaders.”

INCORRECT:Clarke’sresearchisnotsystematicorobjective.Itisa

combinationofspeculation,personalanecdote,andsurveysofthe

viewsofteachers,parentsandchildren.

Page22

48 “…manyoftheyoungestchildren,particularlyboys,arela-

beledreadingfailuresearlyintheirschoolcareer”

UNFOUNDED:Thereisnoevidenceofthis.

49 “Someofthosechildrenconfusedbythepseudowordshave

beenthosewhocouldalreadyread,orhaveattemptedto

maketheseintorealwords.”

INCORRECT:TheevaluationbyWalkeretal(2015)citedinEwing’sre-

portfoundthatthiswasisnotthecase.Itismorelikelythatthe

PhonicsCheckmayhaverevealedthatchildrenwhoteachersbelieved

tobe‘goodreaders’actuallyhadweaknessesindecoding.

50 “Darnell,SolityandWall(2017)…foundthatchildrencan

achievethepassgradeof32from40withonlylimitedphonic

knowledge.”

IMPORTANT:Ifitisindeedpossibletoachievethepassgradewith

onlylimitedphonicknowledge,whydidonly58%ofchildrenachieve

thepassgradeinthefirstyearoftheCheck?Theymustnothaveeven

had‘limitedphonicknowledge’.Theproportionachievingthepass

gradeisnow81%soaccordingtothisstatement,1/5childrenstilldo

notevenhavelimitedphonicknowledge.

51 “Adoniou(2017aandb)alsopointsoutthatastheEnglishtest

onlytestssinglesyllablewordswithregularphonicpatterns…”

INCORRECT:ThePhonicsCheckdoesnottestonlysinglesyllable

words(eg.fromthe2018Check—delay,modern,saucers,charm-

ing).TheCheckonlycontainswordswithregularphonicpatternspre-

ciselybecauseitisaPHONICScheckforchildreninYear1.

Page23

52 “DespitetheEnglishresearch,inAustraliatheFederalMinis-

terforEducation,theHonSimonBirminghamappointedan

“expertpanel”,chairedbyDrJenniferBuckingham,Centrefor

IndependentStudies.Itshouldbenotedthatthepanelwas

notrepresentativeofarangeofreadingexperts.”

INCORRECT:Thepanelincludedpeoplewithpost-graduatequalifica-

tionsinreadinginstructionandallieddisciplines,aswellasexperi-

encededucators.

53 “Whole-languageexpertssuchasKenGoodman(1995)agree

thatchildrenhavetoacquiretheabilitytodecode.”

INCORRECT:KenGoodmandescribesreadingasa‘psycholinguistic

guessinggame’,andwrotethatmatchingletterswithsounds“isaflat-

earthviewoftheworld,onethatrejectsmodernscienceaboutread-

ing".

See:Goodman,K.(1986)What’sWholeinWholeLanguage?New

Hampshire:Heinneman.p.37.

54 Re.NSWCESEreportoneffectivereadinginstructioninthe

earlyyearsofschool:

“Itexaminesonlyfiveelementsinthelearningtoreadprocess

(phonemicawareness,phonics,fluency,vocabularyand

comprehension),omittingsomeoftheotherimportantpre-

dictorsofsuccessdescribedearlierinthisreview.”

UNFOUNDED:ThisisaninvalidcriticismoftheCESEreport.There-

portfocussedonthefactorsassociatedwithin-schoolteachingprac-

ticesthathavebeenshowntobeeffectiveinreadingachievement.A

child’sSESandhomeliteracyenvironmentarenotwithintheinflu-

enceofteachers.

Page24

55 RE.CESEreport

“Disappointingly,thisreportdefinesreadingsimplisticallyand

onlyconsidersevidenceinoneresearchparadigm.”

UNFOUNDED:TheCESEreportcorrectlyreliesonresearchevidence

fromstudieswithsoundexperimentalmethodologies

56 “SouthAustraliaannouncesatrialoftheEnglishphonics

check.”

INCORRECT:TheSouthAustraliantrialofthePhonicsCheckwasan-

nouncedinFebruary2017andconductedinAugust2017.In2018the

SAgovernmentannouncedthePhonicsCheckwouldbeimplemented

state-wideinAugustthatyear.

57 “Thecheckhasproventobenomoreaccuratethanteachers’

judgementsinidentifyingchildrenwithreadingdifficulties.”

INCORRECT:Thisclaimismadetwiceinthisreportwithoutevidence.

TheevaluationoftheSAtrialfoundthat“Numerousrespondentsre-

portedfeelingsurprisedanddisappointedbytheresultsbasedonstu-

dents’knownreadingabilitiesandresultsontheRunningRecord.”

58 “Perhapsmostconcerningisthatthisemphasisonisolated

phonicsintheearlystagesofreading,togetherwithanew

emphasisonpseudowords,willinfluenceyoungchildren’s

understandingofthenatureofliteracyandimpacttheiratti-

tudetoreading.”

UNFOUNDED:Syntheticphonicsisnot‘isolated’andthereisnoen-

couraged‘emphasisonpseudowords’.Noevidenceisprovidedthata

phonicscheckwould‘influenceyoungchildren`sunderstandingofthe

natureofliteracyandimpacttheirattitudetoreading’.

59 “Therelationshipbetweenoralandwrittenlanguage,theim-

portanceofstoryandbeingreadto,andtheplaywithwords

areallignoredinfocusingsolelyonsyntheticphonics.”

MISREPRESENTATION:Nobodysuggestsafocus‘solelyonsynthetic

phonics’.Thisisa‘strawman’argument.

Page25

60 Sectiontitled:“Phonicsinstructionneedstobeembeddedina

broadliteracycurriculum”

Thisisnotdisputedandisnotacounterargumenttosystematic,ex-

plicitphonicsinstructionwithinabroadliteracycurriculum.

Page26

61 Sectiontitled:“Readingpedagogyneedstobetailoredto

meetindividualstudentneeds”

Thissectionisbuiltaroundthefalsepremisethatsystematicsynthetic

phonics=onlyphonicsandnothingelse.Noneoftheresearchpre-

sentedinthissectionprovidesacountertotheevidencesupporting

systematicandexplicitphonicswithinahighqualitycomprehensive

literacyprogram.

Page27

62 “TseandNicholson(2014)”foundthatcomparedtobig-book

readingandphonics-aloneprograms,combinedembeddedin-

structionappearedtohavenocomparativedisadvantages,

butithadconsiderableadvantagesinsupportinglowsocioec-

onomicstudents’literacy.

IMPORTANT:Thetwomosteffectivestrategieswerethosethathada

systematicphonicscomponent.The‘BigBook’elementONLYworked

whencombinedwithphonics.Thephonicselementworkedwithout

theBigBookelementbutworkedbetterwithit.

63 “Hattam,Comber,KerkhamandThomson…describedthe

“uncommonpedagogies”ofsuccessfulteacherswhowere

abletosupporttheliteracylearningofat-riskstudentswitha

richrepertoireofteachingstrategiesweremostsuccessfulin

improvingtheirstudents’literacies.Theywereabletobuild

ontheknowledgeandexperiencesthatstudentshad,con-

nectingthesetoschoollearning,designingopen-endedtasks

thatrequiredcomplexthinkinganduseoflanguage,aswellas

providingopportunitiestocontemplatesignificantlifeissues

throughengagingwithauthentictexts.Thisstudyresonates

withLoudenetal’s(2005)researchreportedmorethanadec-

adeearlier.”

OMITTED:BillLouden’smuchmorerecent2015studyofhighper-

formingprimaryschoolsinPerth,whichfoundthatalltheschoolsin

thestudytaughtsyntheticphonics,isnotcitedinEwing’sreport.

https://www.education.wa.edu.au/docu-

ments/43634987/44524721/High+performing+primary+schools+-

+what+they+have+in+common.PDF/efe31f7e-59df-581b-d072-

a58490917082

Page28

64 “Givingyounglearnersthemessagethatwrittenlanguage

canonlybecomprehendedwhenconvertedintoaudibleor

inaudiblespeechtowhichthereader“listens”mayencourage

someyounglearnerstogiveupthesearchformeaningand

concentrateongettingthesoundsright,thuscreatingexcel-

lent

recoders(ratherthandecoders)becausetheycannotunder-

standwhattheyhaverecoded.”

INCORRECT:Thatbeginningreadersmakeprimaryuseofthevisual-

phonologicalneurologicalpathwaybeforeengagingthesemantic

memoryisnota“message”.Itiswhatscientificresearchhasestab-

lishedasthecognitiveprocessinlearningtoread.Younglearnerscan-

notaccess(‘searchfor’)meaningofawordiftheydon’tknowwhat

thewordis.

Nation(2017):“Thereisclearconsensusandabundantevidence

thatinalphabeticlanguages,phonologicaldecodingisatthecore

oflearningtoreadwords͟.”

[NaturenpjScienceofLearning2(3)]

NOTE:Inthevastmajorityofresearch,“decoding”isashorthand

termfor“phonologicaldecoding”orsometimesphonologicalrecod-

ing.Thatis,print-soundtranslation(whichthenactivatesmeaningif

thewordisknown).

65 “Goswamisuggestedthattryingtoteachreadingtooearlycan

becounterproductiveforsomechildren.”

INCORRECT:ThissuggestionisnotintheGoswami(2005)papercited.

Goswami(2005)wrote:“Thechildneedstoacquirethesystemfor

mappingdistinctivevisualsymbolstounitsofsound(phonology)”and

“Visualorholisticlearningdoesnotrepresentaviablealternativeto

phonologicalrecoding.”

Thesestatementsdirectlycontradicttheargumentmadebytheau-

thor.

Page29

66 “StraussandAltwerger(2007)arguethatthelogographicna-

tureoftheEnglishalphabet,togetherwithneuroimagingre-

search,doesnotdistinguishthephonologicalprocessing

modelofreadingfromthegraphophonicprocessingofa

meaningcenteredmodel.”

INCORRECT:TheEnglishalphabetandwritingsystemisnotlogo-

graphic.Also,thissentencedoesnotmakesense.

67 “10–15percentofchildrenexperiencingreadingdifficulties

whocompleteintenseremedialphonologicalinstructioncon-

tinuetostruggle.”

MISREPRESENTATION:Thisisanexpectedepidemiologicalfinding.

Evenwiththemosteffectiveinstructionandintervention,somechil-

dren—especiallythosewithdisabilitiesorlearningdifficulties—will

continuetoneedsupport.Theobjectiveisminimisethenumberof

childrenwhostruggleandtoreducetheseverityoftheirdifficulties.

68 “Anotherareaofinvestigationiseyemovementresearch(for

example,ManteiandKervin,2016;PaulsonandFreeman,

2003),whichtracksthereader’sactualeyemovementduring

thereadingprocess.Experiencedreaderslookatonly20-70

percentofthewordsinaline.”

INCORRECT:Whilethisstatisticitselfisdebatable(PaulsonandFree-

manisnotincludedinthereferencelist),thelargerpointis:evenif

true,itappliestoexperiencedreaders,whosecognitiveprocessesare

dissimilartothecognitiveprocessesfornovicereaders.

Othereye-trackingstudiesandresearchontheeffectofletterposi-

tiononreadingrateshowthatbothnoviceandskilledreadersattend

toallthelettersinawordwhenreading.

See:Grainger,J.2008.Crackingtheorthographiccode:Anintroduc-

tion.LanguageandCognitiveProcesses,23,1-35;Rayner,K,White,SJ

&Liversedge,SP.2006.Raedingwrodswithjubmledlettres:Thereis

acost.PsychologicalScience,17,192-193.

69 “ManteiandKervin(2016)studiedchildrenwhowereexperi-

encingdifficultywithreadingbookswhentheirreadingre-

sponsediffersfromwhatisonthepage.”

INCORRECT:ManteiandKervin(2016)isacasestudyofonechild.

Page30

70 “CanadianresearchersOuelletteandSenechal(forexample,

2008,2012,2017)…haveconsistentlydemonstratedacausal

relationshipbetweenchildren’sguidedinventedspellingand

successinlearningtoreadoverandabovealphabetic

knowledgeandphonologicalawareness.”

INCORRECT:Ouellette&Senechal’sfindingsextendratherthanchal-

lengetheresearchevidenceforsystematicphonicsinstruction.Ouel-

lette&Senechalfoundthatinventedspellingmakesauniquecontri-

butiontopredictivemodelsofreading,thatis,itisdependenton

phonicknowledge,butitisnotsimplyaproxyforit.

Otherresearchershaveestablishedthatthestrongestprecursorsfor

inventedspellingarephonologicalawarenessandletter-sound

knowledge:childrencanonlyinventphoneticallyplausiblespellingsif

theyhavesomeknowledgeofletter-soundcorrespondences.

71 Animportantemergingareaofresearch,ledbyBowersand

Kirby(2010)andBowersandBowers(2017),examinesEnglish

asamorpho-phonemicsystemandsuggeststhattheprivileg-

ingofphonicswithoutmeaningisinsufficient.”

INCOMPLETE:Itiswidelyacceptedthatteachingmorphologyandety-

mologyisimportantforreadingandwritingdevelopment.Thereisde-

bate,however,howearlytheseelementsshouldbeintroduced.

Giventhatmorphemesarecomprisedofphonemes,thereisastrong

argument,andevidence,thatabasicmasteryofphonicsisnecessary

beforemorphemicanalysisisintroduced.Thisevidenceshowsthat

novicereadersengageaphonologically-mediatedpathwaytoaccess

meaning,thatis,meaningisactivatedbythesoundoftheword.

Taylor,DavisandRastle(2017)andRastle&Taylor(2018)describere-

searchshowingthat“whileenhancementstomeaning-basedinstruc-

tioncanassistpupilstoinferthemeaningofunfamiliarwords,these

methodsactuallydisadvantagelong-termlearningofthosewords.

Theirresearchindicatesthatreadinginstructionshouldhavean“em-

phasisonspelling-soundregularitiesintheinitialstageoflearningto

read,andincreasingemphasisonspelling-meaningregularitiesaschil-

drengainexperiencewithtext”.

[Taylor,Davis&Rastle(2017).http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000301;

Rastle&Taylor(2018).doi:10.1177/1747021818775053]

Page31

72 “Threeinternationalreadinginquiriesoftenquotedasrecom-

mendingsyntheticphonicsdonotprivilegesyntheticphon-

ics.”

INCORRECT:Oneofthesereviews—the‘Rosereview’in2006—

foundstronglyinfavourofsyntheticphonics.

Furthermore,theexplicitandsystematicteachingmethodsfavoured

intheothertwoinquiriesandreviews—theUSNationalReading

Panelin2000andtheAustralianNationalInquiryintoTeachingLiter-

acyin2005—mostcloselyresemblewhatisnowgenerallyreferred

toas‘syntheticphonics’.

73 "Infact,overusingphonicsinstructioncanimpedereadingfor

meaning.”

UNFOUNDED:‘Overuse’ofphonicsisnotdefinedandnoevidenceis

citedtosupportthisclaim.

74 “…itisalsoaccuratethatsomechildrenwillneedexplicitin-

structionindecodingtodevelopthis.Yetanestimated75-80

percentofchildrendonotneedthis(Adoniou,2017).”

UNFOUNDED:TherearetwoAdoniou(2017)citationsintherefer-

encelist.Neitherofthemcontainsthisstatistic.

75 “IfsyntheticphonicsislegislatedinAustralia,therewillbe

manyconsequences.

Notleastoftheseisthatwewillreturntotheuseofcontrived

readerstoensurechildrenpracticetheirphonicknowledge.”

MISREPRESENTATION:Therearenoseriousdiscussionsoflegislating

syntheticphonics.

MISREPRESENTATION:‘Contrivedreaders’areusedinallschools,

howeverthemostcommontypeis‘levelledreaders’(usuallylevelled

againstnon-evidencebased‘PMbenchmarks’).Thesebookseries

startwithpredictabletextthatencourageschildrentoguessunknown

wordsratherthanusephonicskillstodecodethem.

Page32

76 “Thereisnoevidencetosupportphonicsinstructioninisola-

tionastheonebestmethodforearlyreading.”

MISREPRESENTATION:Nobodyhasclaimedthat‘phonicsinisolation

istheonebestmethodforearlyreading’.Phonicsisoneessential

componentofearlyreadinginstruction,andthemosteffective

methodofteachingphonicsissystematicallyandexplicitly.

77 “Whiledetermininghowtobesthelpstudentsstrugglingwith

thereadingprocessisanimportantareaofresearch,itis

highlyinappropriatetosuggestitsrelevanceforallchildren.”

INCORRECT:Manychildren‘strugglingwiththereadingprocess’are

strugglingbecausetheirearlyreadinginstructionwasineffective.High

qualityinitialclassroomteachingreducesthenumberofchildren

needinginterventionandisthereforerelevant.

78 “Manycurrentdiscussionsaroundlearningtoreadfailtotake

intoaccountthecomplexityofEnglishorthography.TheEng-

lishlanguagedoesnothaveaone-to-onevisualrepresenta-

tionofallspokensounds,makingitadifficultcodeforsome

youngchildrentobreak.”

INCORRECT:Proponentsforsystematicandexplicitphonicsinstruc-

tionprovidedetailedaccountsofthecomplexityoftheEnglishor-

thography.Thisiscomplexityispreciselywhysystematicandexplicit

instructioninthephonologyandorthographyofwrittenEnglishisso

important,itisnotanargumentagainstit.

[Eg.LouisaMoats(1998),TeachingDecodinghttps://www.ldaus-

tralia.org/client/documents/Teaching_decoding_moats.pdf]

79 “Processingletterbyletter,blendbyblendorwordbywordis

veryslowandnotacharacteristicofexperiencedreaders.”

INCORRECT:Thisiswhatbeginningreadersdo,andwhatskilledread-

ersdowhentheyencounteraneworunfamiliarword.

Page33

80 “…frequentassertionsthatteachereducatorsarenotteach-

ingpre-serviceteacherstousetherangeofreadingstrategies

whenteachingevidence,includingsyntheticphonicsthatena-

blechildrentolearntoread,iswithoutbasis.”

INCORRECT:Multiplestudieshavefoundthatpre-serviceandgradu-

ateteachersdonotknowthebasiclanguagetermsandconcepts

thatunderpinevidence-basedreadinginstruction,includingbutnot

onlysystematicphonics.

[SeeforexampleStarketal(2015)DOI:10.1007/s11881-015-0112-0]