Scientific Studies of Reading · 2009 · 92 citations · 18 references
Language DevelopmentAtypical Language DevelopmentEducationEarly Childhood EducationLanguage LearningLanguage InstructionInstructional DesignChild LiteracyLanguage AcquisitionReading DifficultiesReadingPrimary EducationLanguage StudiesAlphabet KnowledgeSystematic-phonics InstructionSystematic Phonics InstructionControl GroupReading FailureClassroom InstructionPhonological AwarenessInstructional ProgramInstructionElementary Literacy ProcessesPhonemic AwarenessEarly Childhood LiteracyPhonicsLanguage ComprehensionLiteracy Teaching
Systematic phonics instruction is more effective than nonsystematic phonics for teaching reading. Both systematic and nonsystematic phonics were delivered through computer programs teaching Dutch grapheme‑phoneme correspondences, and both phonics groups showed similar gains in letter‑sound knowledge relative to a control group. The systematic phonics group made greater gains in phonemic awareness, spelling, and reading than the nonsystematic phonics group and the control group.
Systematic-phonics instruction appears to be more effective than nonsystematic phonics instruction for teaching reading (Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001 Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A. and Willows, D. M. 2001. Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panels meta-analysis.. Review of Educational Research, 71: 393–447. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). In the present study, a systematic phonics approach was directly compared with a nonsystematic phonics approach for kindergarten children. Both approaches were delivered using computer programs teaching the same Dutch grapheme–phoneme correspondences. Both phonics-trained groups progressed to the same extent on productive letter-sound knowledge compared to the control group. However, on measures of phonemic awareness, spelling, and reading, the systematic phonics group made more progress than the nonsystematic phonics group and the control group.
18