Challenges to 'research' basis for SSP promotion in England

Whether or not you are using the Phonics International Programme, feel free to visit this informal 'Chat' forum!
Here you will find all sorts of interesting articles, links to research and developments - and various interesting topics! Do join in!
Post Reply
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Challenges to 'research' basis for SSP promotion in England

Post by debbie »

Here in England, over and again various people challenge the research basis for successive governments increasingly promoting the need for systematic SYNTHETIC phonics to teach reading and spelling instruction - the 'technical' elements of reading and spelling.

Systematic Synthetic Phonics is now embedded in the statutory National Curriculum in England (Sept, 2014).

Susan Godsland addressed this persistent doubt about 'the research' with the following message to me and others. I was aware of Diane McGuinness's review of the Torgerson et al research review but not the parliamentary inquiry by the Science and Technology select committee.

Susan wrote:

I’m almost certain that the follow-up research people refer to is the DCSF commissioned Torgerson et al research review. It’s commonly used to put down Synthetic Phonics and cause uncertainty because its conclusion was that there was no strong evidence, 'that any one form of systematic phonics is more effective than another'. The review carried little weight with the Rose Report team (Final Report, March 2006). The reasons for this are explained in a report by Parliament's Science & Technology Committee, produced after they had examined the evidence base of the Rose report -see paras.22,23,24:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200 ... 00we24.htm

Professor Diane McGuinness examined the Torgerson et al review closely.

See http://www.syntheticphonics.com/article ... rticle.pdf for her ‘pulling no punches’ analysis.
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

It is very common for people to attack the Clackmannanshire studies which are known to have influenced Government-thinking on the advantages of synthetic phonics versus analytic phonics.

Here, the authors of the studies, Rhona Johnston and Joyce Watson, address the 'myths' that have arisen around the Clackmannanshire studies:


http://www.rrf.org.uk/archive.php?n_ID= ... eNumber=59
Fact and Fiction about the Synthetic Phonics Study in Clackmannanshire

Rhona Johnston & Joyce Watson

Since our study of synthetic phonics in Clackmannanshire (Johnston and Watson, 2004) has been widely discussed, though perhaps not widely read, a remarkable number of myths have been circulating.

Hall (2006, page 12) argues that in our research in Clackmannanshire ‘analytic phonics was set up for failure’. Actually, as we are scrupulously careful researchers, our very first study set out to find out exactly how analytic phonics was taught. Definitions of analytic phonics are rarely very explicit; below is one of the more detailed ones that we have found.
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

Here I've linked to another thread about attacks on Government promotion of Systematic Synthetic Phonics in England.

This time the attacks have come from some academics in Scotland - where many teachers remain unaware about the advantages and approach of systematic synthetic phonics - and where the Scottish 'Curriculum for Excellence' barely gives a nod to phonics:


http://phonicsinternational.com/forum/v ... .php?t=707
Debbie Hepplewhite
User avatar
debbie
Posts: 2596
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: UK

Post by debbie »

In any event, another 'attack' on Systematic Synthetic Phonics in classrooms in England, is the perpetuation of the discredited 'multi-cueing reading strategies' (30 years of research findings discredit this approach to reading instruction and yet still it persists) which amount to using various cues to 'guess' the words to lift them off the page, and dilution of SSP according to various weak practices.

I created a graphic to illustrate this issue and to help teachers to identify possible reasons as to why their Year One children might not be faring so well with the statutory Year One Phonics Screening Check:

The Simple View of Schools' Phonics Provision:

http://www.phonicsinternational.com/for ... .php?t=847
Debbie Hepplewhite
Post Reply