My last post was mainly about the problems that the Machin et al. study has caused by classifying something as synthetic phonics (s.p.) which was not Clackmannanshire-style s.p. I want to make it clear that in spite of those problems, I don’t regard Machin et al. as ‘phonics detractors’. In fact, th...

More thoughts.... The fact that neither Glazzard nor Krashen mentioned the 2018 Torgerson et al. tertiary review made me wonder if any contributor other than Clark mentioned it. I found that only Jeff McQuillan did, but rather in passing, as his main focus is the 2016 Machin et al. study. I commente...

This thread has apparently been at least partly responsible for the appearance of another book edited by Margaret Clark. In Chapter 1 she writes that ‘A negative tone is now appearing in a few reviews in England and being widely circulated on the Reading Reform Foundation Discussion Forum stimulated...

Warwick Mansell is just one of many people who are very critical of Nick Gibb. They could do with realising that what Gibb and the Conservatives have done is to put some extra weight behind initiatives originally introduced by a Labour government – e.g. the Rose review (2006) and Letters and Sounds ...

A fellow RRFer has alerted me to this: https://www.teachers.org.uk/education-policies/research/synthetic-phonics Oh dear.... It gives a link to the abstract of the Torgerson, Brooks, Gascoine and Higgins tertiary review, published in January 2018. I have the full article, and one thing that worried ...

Sad news - thanks for letting us know.

Jenny C.

In my first post in this thread, I mentioned Johnston and Watson’s critiques of the 2006 Torgerson, Brooks and Hall review (‘A systematic review of the research literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling’). The review itself is available on line, but the Johnston and Wa...

Nick Gibb remains in post:

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/nick-gibb-rem ... reshuffle/

Jenny C.

An RRFer recently drew my attention to this: https://debrakidd.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/and-now-good-news-for-reading/ In its original form, it contained inaccurate statements about the Clackmannanshire 7-year longitudinal study, but corrections were made after I posted comments pointing this out. T...

I’ve now noticed something else in Dombey’s chapter in the ‘Reading the Evidence’ book: she misrepresents an article by Cunningham and Stanovich (American Educator, Spring/Summer 1998) by citing it as support for her statement that ‘Children who do not feel interested or involved, who respond in a p...

As I've said, what I've written her about this book doesn't really amount to a review. I've been googling to see if I can find reviews, but have had little success. I found this, however, in connection with a book launch organised by the Australian Literacy Educators' Association (ALEA): 'ALEA Perth...

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I'm sure it's appropriate to say 'Take a bow, Sue Lloyd'!

Jenny C.

I hope many people will read the book themselves and not just take my word for what it says.

Jenny C.

Thanks, Debbie. What I've written doesn't really amount to a 'review' - all I've done is to pick out some points which strike me as particularly crucial for us at the present time.

Jenny C.

Re. people seeing only what they want to see: one of the things that has always irritated me about those who favour mixed methods or a whole language type of approach is that they predict that an early synthetic phonics approach will have a negative impact on children’s comprehension, enjoyment of r...