To read or not to read: decoding Synthetic Phonics

Abstract

In England, current government policy on children's reading is strongly prescriptive, insisting on the delivery of a pure and exclusive form of synthetic phonics, where letter sounds are learned and blended in order to ‘read’ text. A universally imposed phonics ‘check’ is taken by all five year olds and the results are widely reported. These policies are underpinned by the claim that research has shown systematic synthetic phonics to be the most effective way of teaching children to read. Andrew Davis argues that there is a basic problem with this claim. Whatever it is that empirical researchers take themselves to be doing when they investigate synthetic phonics, they are not investigating a specifiable method of teaching reading. This is for two reasons. First, there are no such things as specifiable methods of teaching. Teaching is a vastly complex human activity involving contextual and reactive practical judgments that are responsive to the myriad contingencies of classroom life. The idea that teachers might proceed by way of prescribed methods rather than practical judgments is simply a fantasy. Second, teaching children to correlate letter combinations with sounds, and to blend sounds into sequences, is not teaching them to read. Reading is a matter of grasping meaning conveyed by text. While sustained attention to letter‐sound correspondences can be helpful to some novice readers, we should neither assume that it is helpful to all nor confuse mastery of such correspondences with the ability to read. Davis's challenge to government policy on the teaching of reading, and to the empirical research that supposedly underpins it, is timely, radical and compelling. The zeal with which synthetic phonics is championed by its advocates has been remarkably effective in pushing it to the top of the educational agenda; but we should not mistake zeal for warrant.

Freedoms and Perils: Academy Schools in England

“…In teaching there are also prescriptive strategies for curriculum delivery. This technically rational exercise can be seen in required pedagogy, such as how to teach numeracy and literacy (see, for example, Davis, , on synthetic phonics), and also in curricular demands, such as that of a specific ‘tradition’ to be transmitted, of key events or dates in history or of canonical texts in English literature (see also Reiss and White, ). Ironically, working to procedures and rules and not being able to use individual judgement can often have a poor effect on ‘performance’.…”

Decoding the phonics screening check

“…Interim reports conducted by the National Foundation of Educational Research (NFER) demonstrate that the majority of teachers describe the check as unnecessary, considering it as providing no new valuable information about their pupils’ reading abilities and suggesting it will make minimal impact on the standards of reading in schools (Walker et al ., , , ). In addition, the worth and content of the check has been criticised (NAHT, ), with concerns over the inclusion of pseudo words as well as the lack of emphasis on comprehension (Davis, ; see also Walker et al ., , ).…”

“…These concerns have raised questions about the validity and value of the check, with reservations expressed about its content and whether it assesses what it claims to measure (Davis, ; Clark, ). Firstly as suggested by Davis (), given that the aim of the PSC is only to assess children's decoding skills success or failure on the task must only be dependent on children's ability to decode phonically, which means that they should not be required to use any additional skills to pass the check. Equating decoding with early reading has particular implications for decoding the real words within the check, as children should not be required to draw on meaning to help them identify the correct pronunciation of a word.…”

“…Equating decoding with early reading has particular implications for decoding the real words within the check, as children should not be required to draw on meaning to help them identify the correct pronunciation of a word. Opponents of the check suggest that this approach simplifies the complex link between decoding and meaning (Davis, , ) and ignores the importance of vocabulary knowledge when decoding (e.g. Nation & Snowling, ; Tunmer & Chapman, , ; Cain et al ., ), particularly when reading unfamiliar words with irregular spellings (e.g.…”

A Problem for Cognitive Load Theory—the Distinctively Human Life‐form

“…With extensive practice, readers can derive meaning from print with minimal conscious effort (Sweller et al., 1998, pp. 255–258).’ Davis (2013) has explained some of the problems with reductive approaches to reading.…”