Benefits and Issues!

Here we look at some of the positives and negatives of using both synthetic and analytic phonics instruction.

A commonly discussed benefit of synthetic phonics – which seems to be the most valued and frequently used technique in today’s education system (Wyse and Goswami 2010) - is the speed at which this is taught. Typically, a total of around 6 sounds (phonemes) are taught per week, which means that there is constant growth and progression shown and ensures that the teachers have a firm structure to follow (Mesmer and Griffith 2011) – enabling them to effectively scaffold the children’s previous learning and ensure no areas are missed. This technique also ensures a firm understanding of the alphabet and the phonemes that correspond to each letter, that is provided through explicit instruction, before introducing full words. Because of this, it can be a lot easier for the children to grasp and retain the ideas of sounding and blending, and has been shown to be particularly beneficial to children with special needs (Finnegan 2012). Equal importance is also designated to each individual letter which help to create a well-rounded, comprehensive understanding that will hopefully be transferable when introducing texts. Knowing and understanding these phoneme-grapheme relationships thoroughly will subsequently enable the children to break down new words in their reading independently, and has also been proven to improve their overall writing and spelling skills (Weiser and Mathes 2011). Teachers might also opt to use this method as there are very few exceptions to the rules that dictate letter-sound relationships - which means the children will not need to just guess the word as the skills they have developed will enable them to work it out properly every time. This is beneficial as removing this element of guessing can remove unnecessary mistakes and ensures that the children actually get it. This method is decontextualized, which means children should be able to decipher the words, even if they are not embedded in text as they are not relying on clues from the surrounding sentences or paragraphs. Finally, children are taught that the alphabetic principle is reversible; that is - if you can read it, you can spell it (Ehri 1987). This can therefore produce stronger writing skills too. A main downfall, is that it is teaching children to separate every individual letter and sound it out in order to read it, which could really slow down their reading and impact their fluency (Connelly, Johnston and Thompson 2001). Synthetic phonics instruction also does not aid the child’s comprehension of what the words actually mean, simply how to spell and read it (Davis 2013). There is also a lot of pressure on teachers to really know their content and terminology - for example, correctly pronouncing phonemes and being able to discuss what each blended sound is called. Any inaccuracies would create confusion and could lead to errors in the children’s reading and gaps in their knowledge.
To compare, the analytic approach – which begins with whole words and teaches children to segment and decode them and is often referred to as the ‘implicit approach’ – seems to be the original technique that was adopted by teachers (Stahl 2001). A benefit of this is that it begins with discussion surrounding the meaning of words. This focus on making meaning could lead to really good understandings of texts. Contrarily however, a study that was conducted in Clackmannanshire showed that children who had been taught phonics through the analytic approach were in fact a significant 7 months behind synthetically taught children in reading, and 8 or 9 months behind in spelling (Johnston and Watson 2005). Nevertheless, individual words will be split into onsets and rimes, and children will be taught to identify the patterns that these follow and use that to identify new ones, hopefully broadening their vocabulary (Kirtley et al. 2004). The children are also learning whilst doing, and get to engage with many different books, which could keep them more engaged. By focusing on words with comparable onset/rime pronunciations children are also naturally made aware of each phonemic distinction within the word, without actually needing to pronounce them in isolation – speeding up the process. Common full words in their reading will likely become identifiable just through sight as a result of this training (Otto and Chester 2015) and having a bank of these sight words are said to build confidence in reading, provide context clues to help make meaning and ultimately will become a basis for reading new, more difficult words (Whitaker et al. 2006). However, while sight words are said to be beneficial, they also encourage memorisation and fail to prioritise full understanding of the many rules within language and texts (Ehri 2009), which is something we must be mindful of. There are many other criticisms of the analytic approach that we have unearthed in our research. For one, unlike the synthetic approach, this tends produce results quite slowly (McGeown, Johnston and Medford 2012). This could be because there is typically less structure to it, or maybe is due to the fact that children, particularly of younger ages, tend to find the more abstract ideas boring and somewhat confusing – especially since there are many exceptions to the rules that they must learn (Lindsey, Kuehl and Mesmer 2020). It is also said to not be appropriate for those students who are struggling as it provides much less guidance that the synthetic approach (Jolliffe 2020). Another issue that is discussed is that not all sounds are of equal importance in the analytic approach – meaning that the children may know one section of the word and simply guess the rest. This would mean an overall lack of understanding and ultimately holes in their knowledge. Manipulating phonemes may also be of difficulty to those taught this way, as it is not as explicit in its instruction as the synthetic method.
Although our research seems to prove that an explicit, systematic, synthetic approach to phonics instruction is the most beneficial, the necessity for an in depth understanding of all concepts has been made obvious (Bowers and Bowers 2018). While the previously discussed benefits of synthetic phonics do seem plentiful, there are clearly some instances when an analytical approach may be the most effective. A pluralistic approach might even be necessary to account for anomalies and nonphonemic words (Robinson 2016). Also, it is worth remembering that all these techniques must all be used synchronously with other teaching strategies to ensure all children, regardless of ability and phonemic or phonological awareness, have a bank of methods to draw from when encoding and decoding texts (Malik, Waqar and Bokhari 2017). This includes the promotion of analogies, automatic recall, orthography and context to help children with their word identification (Miles and Ehri 2019). Consideration must also be paid to the downfalls of using phonics instruction. If it is done incorrectly or inefficiently this could create misunderstandings and create a gap in crucial knowledge which could really hinder a child’s progress with reading, writing and overall comprehension of texts; for example, if a teacher were to mispronounce a phoneme, or teach phonemes-grapheme relationships in an order than does not make sense to the children. However, although a pluralistic approach may be the approach we strive for, the overriding consensus seems to be that any phonics instruction is better than none; and in fact, the more crucial element is that it is done systematically (Ehri et al. 2020). This is something that we plan to take onboard when we begin our teaching careers. In order to gain further insight into the real-life application of these techniques, we interviewed a former teacher. To see her answers, keep reading:  

Interview With a Former Teacher

• Tell us about you as a teacher?  
Primary teacher (PGCE) – late starter! Taught for 16 years after Probation year, till retirement. Worked entire career in same school in largely poor catchment area.

• What experience have you had with phonics instruction?
Taught P2, P1 and P2/1 for first 6 years or so. Used phonics especially in those years, but also later needed and used knowledge of it for older pupils with additional needs, in P5/P6 mainly.

• Which approaches did you use (synthetic/analytic/mixed method)? Why?
I used a mixture of all those methods, as I found each child responded differently, and so I used whatever worked best for each, as best I could. I used whole word sight methods as well, as found mixture of all approaches was best.

• How did you utilise Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) to effectively plan for, and teach phonics?
Things have been updated since I last taught phonics, but I found CfE somewhat confusing at the time and not detailed enough. More recently the benchmarks have been of more use, and school-based, collegiate planning has helped staff to teach phonics more effectively.

• Did your most recent school have any further policies regarding your phonics instruction? If so, what were they (broadly) and why do you think they wanted this to be implemented?
Yes, my school most recently uses Read, Write Inc (RWI), (it was introduced across the Council – bad idea in my view as one size does not fit all) and teachers seem to have mixed feelings about having to use it in such a regimented way. I am personally quite pleased not to have had to use any such a restricted programme. (We used Jolly Phonics as main resource, but were free then to adapt and add other aspects as we felt necessary). I think schools worry so much about the foundations of literacy, but can be rather tentative about trusting teachers’ professionalism to teach phonics in the way they see fit. Mixed messages also come from inadequate/poor In-Service provision.

• Can you give two examples of interactive lessons you have used and found to be particularly beneficial to the children’s learning?
Nowadays it is useful to use some of the excellent on-line multi-media resources, as children are familiar with screen-based activities and seem to respond well to them. But I also found using concrete resources worked well, eg forming letters/sounds in sand, or paint in sealed polly-wallets; magnetic letters; magnetic whole words to rearrange to make sentences; play-doh; sewing cards etc. Children also responded well to any rhyming activities.

• What issues did you face when teaching phonics? What didn’t work?
Biggest issue was children having poor language levels on entry to P1. Very limited vocabulary, poor verbal pronunciation, knowing very few nursery rhymes/stories etc and little awareness of language in general. Always had to focus on oral and aural work and try to foster general interest in stories etc before beginning phonics at all. Mistake to try to teach sounds when children not aware enough of spoken language. Better to wait, and foster basics first before teaching sounds. Very important to foster love of literacy and reading in any way possible, all through school.

• How did you ensure it was appropriate for different levels?
Very difficult, but becomes easier with practice. Start with basics and then give extra to those finding it easier. Cannot move on unless basics really solid. Some children need lots of over-learning, but others can move on and do lots of extension work. Is very hard though with large classes of wide abilities. Some group teaching across stage partners can help, as can using any SLAs/Classroom Assistants to extend work with faster learners. (Teacher should always work with poorest ability, to my mind, and SLAs take on faster learners).

• How can you tell if children have missed out certain parts of phonics instruction?
Regular ongoing checks and very careful observation in language lessons of what specific difficulties are. This is why it is so important not to just assume phonics has been ‘done’ in early years. Many children still need phonics help/revision right up the school.

• Did you draw upon any theoretical principles to create your lessons?
Wide range of reading on the subject is very useful, but strongly feel that no one single theoretical principle is ‘the’ one to follow. Have always found that mixture of methods should be available, that collegiate working/planning in each school is vital, and that teachers’ professionalism and in-depth knowledge of their own class should be the deciding factor in how best to teach phonics/literacy.

References

Bald, J. (2007) Using Phonics to Teach Reading & Spelling. 1st ed. London: SAGE Publications. Available: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/stir/reader.action?docID=370540&ppg=5 [Accessed: 11 October 2020].

Bowers, J. S. and Bowers, B. N. (2017) Beyond Phonics: The Case for Teaching Children the Logic of the English Spelling System. Educational Psychologist, 52 (2), pp. 124-141. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1288571 [Accessed: 7 October 2020].

Bowers, J. S. and Bowers, B. N. (2018) Progress in Reading Instruction Requires a Better Understanding of the English Spelling System. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27 (6), pp. 407-412. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418773749 [Accessed: 14 October 2020].

Connelly, V., Johnston, R. and Thompson, G. B. (2001) The effect of phonics instruction on the reading comprehension of beginning readers. Reading and Writing, 14, pp. 423–457. Available: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011114724881 [Accessed: 7 October 2020].

Davis, A. (2013) To read or not to read: decoding Synthetic Phonics. IMPACT: Philosophical Perspectives on Educational Policy, 20, pp. 1-38. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/2048-416X.2013.12000.x [Accessed: 14 October 2020].

de Graaff, S., Bosman, A.M.T., Hasselman, F. and Verhoeven, L. (2009) Benefits of Systematic Phonics Instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13 (4), 23 September 2020-318-333. doi: 10.1080/10888430903001308. 

Dymock, S. and Nicholson, T. (2017) To what extent does children’s spelling improve as a result of learning words with the look, say, cover, write, check, fix strategy compared with phonological spelling strategies? Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 22 (2), 171-187. doi: 10.1080/19404158.2017.1398766 [Accessed: 14 October 2020]. 

Ehri, L. C. (1987) Learning to Read and Spell Words. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19 (1), pp. 5-31. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968709547585 [Accessed: 14 October 2020].

Ehri, L. C. (2009) Learning to Read Words: Theory, Findings, and Issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, pp. 167-188. Available: https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4 [Accessed: 1 October 2020].

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R. Stahl, S. A. and Willows, D. M. (2020) Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71 (3), pp. 393-447. Available: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393 [Accessed: 7 October 2020].

Finnegan, E. G. (2012) Two Approaches to Phonics Instruction: Comparison of Effects with Children with Significant Cognitive Disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47 (3), pp. 269-279. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23879964 [Accessed: 14 October 2020].

Henbest, V. S. and Apel, K. (2017) Effective Word Reading Instruction: What Does the Evidence Tell Us? Communication Disorders Quarterly, 39 (1), pp. 303-311. Available: https://doi-org.ezproxy-s2.stir.ac.uk/10.1177/1525740116685183 [Accessed: 23 September 2020].

Johnston, R. S., and Watson, J. (2005) The effects of synthetic phonics teaching on reading and spelling attainment, a seven-year longitudinal study. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Executive Education Department. Available: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/14793/1/0023582.pdf [Accessed: 14 October 2020].

Johnston, R. S., McGeown, S., & Watson, J. E. (2012). Long-term effects of synthetic versus analytic phonics teaching on the reading and spelling ability of 10 year old boys and girls. Reading and Writing, 25(6), pp.1365-1384. doi: 10.1007/s11145-011-9323-x  [Accessed: 11 October 2020].  

Jolliffe, W. (2020) 5 Phonics for Reading and Writing. In: D. Waugh, W. Jolliffe and Allott, K, eds. Primary English for Trainee Teachers. 3rd ed. London: Learning Matters/SAGE. Available: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2dC8DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed: 14 October 2020].

Kirtley, C., Bryant, P., MacLean, M. and Bradley, L. (2004) Rhyme, rime, and the onset of reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48 (2), pp. 224-245. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(89)90004-0 [Accessed: 14 October 2020].

Lindsey, J.B., Kuehl, R. and Mesmer, H.A. (2020) What’s Hot in Literacy? Phonics and Phonemic Awareness. In: E. Ortlieb, S. Grote-Garcia, J. Cassidy and E. H. Cheek, eds. What’s Hot in Literacy: Exemplar Models of Effective Practice. 11th ed. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 159-180. Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/S2048-045820200000011016 [Accessed: 14 October 2020].

Malik, N. F., Waqar, Y. and Bokhari, T. B. (2017) Impact of Reading Strategies on Reading of Kindergarten and Nursery Students: A Case Study. International Journal of English and Education, 6 (2), pp. 168-175. Available: http://www.ijee.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/13.9650022.pdf [Accessed: 7 October 2020].

McGeown, S. P., Johnston, R. S. and Medford, E. (2012) Reading instruction affects the cognitive skills supporting early reading development. Learning and Individual Differences, 22 (3), pp. 360-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.01.012 [Accessed: 14 October 2020].

Mesmer, H. A. E. and Griffith, P. L. (2011) Everybody's Selling It—But Just What Is Explicit, Systematic Phonics Instruction? The Reading Teacher, 59 (4), pp. 366-376. Available: https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.4.6 [Accessed: 14 October 2020].

Miles, K. P. and Ehri, L. C. (2019) Orthographic Mapping Facilitates Sight Word Memory and Vocabulary Learning. In: D, Kilpatrick, R. Joshi., R. Wagner, eds. Reading Development and Difficulties. Springer: Cham, pp 63-82. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26550-2_4 [Accessed: 14 October 2020}.

Otto, W. and Chester, R. (2015) Sight Words for Beginning Readers. The Journal of Educational Research, 65 (10). Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1972.10884372 [Accessed: 14 October 2020].
Robinson, K. (2016) Creative Approach to Teaching Spelling: The what, why and how of teaching spelling, starting with phonics. London, New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Shapiro, L. R. and Solity, J. (2015) Differing effects of two synthetic phonics programmes on early reading development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (2), pp. 182-203. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12097 [Accessed: 23 September 2020]. 

Stahl, S. A. (2001) Teaching phonics and phonological awareness. In: S. B. Neuman and D. K. Dickinson, eds. Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New York and London: The University Press.

Watts. Z. and Gardner. P. (2012) Is systematic synthetic phonics enough? Examining the benefit of intensive teaching of high frequency words (HFW) in a year one class. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 41 (1), pp. 100-109. Available: https://doi-org.ezproxy-s2.stir.ac.uk/10.1080/03004279.2012.710105 [Accessed: 23 September 2020].

Weiser, B. and Mathes, P. (2011) Using Encoding Instruction to Improve the Reading and Spelling Performances of Elementary Students At Risk for Literacy Difficulties: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 81 (2), pp. 170-200. Available: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310396719 [Accessed: 14 October 2020].

Whitaker, S. D., Harvey, M., Hassell, L. J., Linder, T. and Tutterrow, D. (2006) The Fish Strategy: Moving from Sight Words to Decoding. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38 (5), pp. 14-18. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990603800502 [Accessed: 14 October 2020].

Wyse, D. and Goswami, U. (2010) Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading. British Educational Research Journal, 34 (6), pp. 691-710. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802268912 [Accessed: 14 October 2020].