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]