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]