Does systematic phonics instruction help children learn to read more effectively than nonsystematic phonics instruction or instruction teaching no phonics? The NRP (NICHD, 2000) analyses showed that “systematic phonics instruction makes a more significant contribution to children’s growth in reading than do alternative programs providing unsystematic or no phonics instruction” (chapter 2, p. 132). The overall effect size for this variable was considered moderate.
Are some types of phonics instruction more effective than others? Are some specific phonics programs more effective than others? The NRP (NICHD, 2000) compared synthetic programs, larger unit phonics programs, and other phonics programs that were considered systematic in nature. The effect size for synthetic phonics was larger than the other two, but not significantly so (all were in the moderate range). The NRP called for more comparative studies examining the issue about “what works best.”
Is phonics taught more effectively when students are tutored individually or when they are taught in small groups or when they are taught as classes? The NRP (NICHD, 2000) found the largest effect size for tutoring as compared to small group and whole class instruction; however, all were in the moderate range in terms of effects and did not differ significantly from one another. “This supports the conclusion that systematic phonics instruction is effective when delivered through tutoring, through small groups, and through teaching classes of students” (NRP, chapter 2, p. 132).
Is phonics instruction more effective when it is introduced to students not yet reading, in kindergarten or 1st grade, than when it is introduced in grades above 1st after students have already begun to read? The conclusion drawn by the NRP (NICHD, 2000) was that systematic phonics instruction produced the greatest gains when instruction began in kindergarten or first grade as compared to beginning in the second through sixth grades. Effect sizes were in the moderate range for K-1 and near the small range of effects for grades 2-6.
Is phonics instruction beneficial for children who are having difficulty learning to read? Is it effective in preventing reading failure among children who are at risk for developing reading problems in the future? Is it effective in remediating reading difficulties in children who have been diagnosed as reading disabled and children who are low-achieving readers? Phonics instruction did produce substantial changes in reading achievement for kindergarteners (moderate effect) and first graders (large effect). However, for older students who were lower-level readers, phonics instruction failed to show a significant impact on reading (near zero level effects were shown). The NRP speculated as to why this was the case, noting that: (a) instruction was not sufficiently intense, (b) difficulties were not phonics related but due to poor comprehension, or (c) too few cases (8 total) were studied, leaving questions as to how representative the studies actually were.
Does systematic phonics instruction improve children’s reading comprehension skill as well as their decoding and word-reading skills? The NRP (NICHD, 2000) found that systematic phonics instruction was most effective in improving skills in decoding regularly spelled (e.g., cat) and non-words (e.g., glaf), with moderate effects noted. Phonics programs also produced changes in children’s skill in reading irregular words (e.g., said)—the effect size was significantly lower, but still between the small and moderate range of effects. Further, systematic phonics instruction produced greater growth than non-phonics instruction in K/1 in reading comprehension (moderate effect size was noted). However, the effects for older readers (above first grade) were mixed with significant (between small to moderate effects) noted for readers with disabilities. It is less clear “whether growth in reading comprehension is produced generally in students above 1st grade” when systematic phonics instruction is utilized (NRP, chapter 2, p. 134).
Does systematic phonics instruction have an impact on children’s growth in spelling? Systematic phonics instruction contributed more than non-phonics instruction in improving spelling skills for kindergarteners and first graders (effect size between the moderate to large range). For those students above first grade, little change was noted in spelling. The NRP (NICHD, 2000) speculated as to why this was the case: (a) younger students received “credit” for using phonics-based knowledge, whereas older students did not; (b) more words are irregular and more complex as students progress through the grades—this is typically not covered in a systematic phonics program; and (c) the majority were poor readers who are known to have trouble in learning to spell words.
Is phonics instruction effective with children at different SES levels? Systematic instruction in phonics was found to be beneficial, regardless of socioeconomic status. Larger effect sizes (moderate to large range) were noted for low-SES students, with small to moderate effects noted for middle-class students; however, these did not differ significantly from one another.
Does the type of control group used to evaluate the effectiveness of phonics instruction make a difference?The NRP (NICHD, 2000) found that regardless of the control group used (i.e., basal program, regular curriculum, whole language, whole word, or miscellaneous programs), the effect sizes always favored systematic phonics instruction. Effect sizes ranged from small to moderate and all were significantly greater than zero.
Were studies reporting the largest effects of phonics instruction well designed or poorly designed experiments? That is, was random assignment used? Were the sample sizes sufficiently large? Might results be explained by differences between treatment and control groups that existed prior to the experiment rather than by differences produced by the experimental intervention? The NRP (NICHD, 2000) found that the most rigorous studies showed systematic phonics instruction to be superior to control group instruction. Significant effects were not evident in the weakest investigations.
Is enough known about systematic phonics instruction to make recommendations for classroom implementation? If so, what cautions should be kept in mind by teachers implementing phonics instruction? “Many teachers are teaching phonics systematically and explicitly and have been doing so for years. Their results, along with the findings of three decades of research, confirm the importance and effectiveness of systematic phonics instruction, particularly in kindergarten and first- and second-grade classrooms” (Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2006c, p. 14)