There is still little or no evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than common alternative methods of reading instruction: Response to Brooks (2023)

Jeffrey S Bowers*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

Abstract

Brooks (2023) rejects Bowers’ (2020) conclusion that there is little or no evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative teaching methods common in schools. He makes his case based on challenging my analysis of 4 or the 12 meta-analyses reviewed in Bowers (2020). I show his criticisms are flawed and conclusions are unwarranted. I also briefly review the more recent PIRLS results that have been taken to support the claim that mandated synthetic systematic phonics has improved reading comprehension in England. This conclusion is also shown to be unjustified. I conclude there is still no reliable evidence that systematic phonics is best practice, that researchers should stop making strong claims based on the current evidence, and that the field needs to explore alternative approaches.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere3432
JournalReview of Education
Volume11
Issue number3
Early online date20 Oct 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
I would like to thank Dr Patricia G. Bowers and Dr Peter N. Bowers for commenting on an earlier draft of this work.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors. Review of Education published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Educational Research Association.

Research Groups and Themes

  • Mind and Brain (Psychological Science)

Keywords

  • Phonics
  • Reading Instructions
  • Whole Language
  • PIRLS

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'There is still little or no evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than common alternative methods of reading instruction: Response to Brooks (2023)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this