'Reading the Evidence: Synthetic Phonics and Literacy Learning' (ed. M. Clark)

[chew8]

A new article by Kevin Wheldall and colleagues has appeared:

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/T5ut ... 9.1635500

This is relevant in view of the criticism of the Phonics Screening Check expressed in the Clark book and elsewhere.

Jenny C.

[chew8]

One of the contributors to the Reading the Evidence book was Paul Gardner. He has recently (15 July 2019) published a blog on the Phonics Screening Check:

https://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?p=4213

Jennifer Buckingham has produced a response pointing out a number of inaccuracies in what Gardner has written:

https://www.fivefromfive.org.au/blog/mi ... nics-check

Jenny C.

[chew8]

This is an interesting article about children's performance in the Phonics Screening Check and their later performance in the Key Stage 1 assessment and PIRLS:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... berj.3559

Jenny C.

[chew8]

There's a new publication from Clark et al:

https://www.newman.ac.uk/wp-content/upl ... l-2020.pdf

Jenny C.

[chew8]

Another article by one of the contributors to the Clark book:

https://educationhq.com/news/myths-and- ... ols-79934/

Jenny.

[chew8]

As has been stated several times in this thread, 5 of the 7 contributors to Reading the Evidence... mention the 2006 Torgerson, Brooks and Hall meta-analysis, and all 5 accept its conclusion that there is no definitive evidence showing that synthetic phonics is more effective than analytic phonics.

I'm grateful to Stephen Parker, an American supporter of synthetic phonics, who, in a recent tweet, provided a link which gives access to a free sample from the second edition (2014) of Johnston and Watson's Teaching Synthetic Phonics. On pages 14-18, they deal with the flaws in the Torgerson et al. meta-analysis, and also with other criticisms:


https://play.google.com/store/books/det ... ICwAAQBAJ

Jenny.