Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis

A quantitative meta-analysis evaluating the effects of systematic phonics instruction compared to unsystematic or no-phonics instruction on learning to read was conducted using 66 treatment–control comparisons derived from 38 experiments. The overall effect of phonics instruction on reading was moderate, d = 0.41. Effects persisted after instruction ended. Effects were larger when phonics instruction began early (d = 0.55) than after first grade (d = 0.27). Phonics benefited decoding, word reading, text comprehension, and spelling in many readers. Phonics helped low and middle SES readers, younger students at risk for reading disability (RD), and older students with RD, but it did not help low achieving readers that included students with cognitive limitations. Synthetic phonics and larger-unit systematic phonics programs produced a similar advantage in reading. Delivering instruction to small groups and classes was not less effective than tutoring. Systematic phonics instruction helped children learn to read better than all forms of control group instruction, including whole language. In sum, systematic phonics instruction proved effective and should be implemented as part of literacy programs to teach beginning reading as well as to prevent and remediate reading difficulties. In 1997, the U.S. Congress directed that a national panel be convened to review and evaluate research on the effectiveness of various approaches for teaching children to read. The Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in consultation with the Secretary of Education constituted the National Reading Panel (NRP) composed of 14 individuals. Members of the Panel formed subgroups to review research on alphabetics, comprehension, fluency, teacher education, and technology. The alphabetics subgroup conducted two meta-analyses, one on phonemic awareness instruction (Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Shanahan, 2001) and another on systematic phonics instruction. Results of the phonics meta-analysis are presented in this article. The final report incorporating all the subgroup reviews was submitted to Congress in April 2000 (NRP, 2000). Teaching students to read is a complex task. Children enter school with substantial competence speaking their language, but typically they have little knowledge about how to read and write. The purpose of literacy instruction in schools is to help children master the many challenges of written language. These include acquiring knowledge of the alphabetic system, Journal of Direct Instruction 121 LINNEA C. EHRI and SIMONE R. NUNES, City University of New York Graduate Center; STEVEN A. STAHL, University of Georgia; DALE M. WILLOWS, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence From the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis Journal of Direct Instruction Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 121–166. Copyright 2001 by the American Educational Research Association. Reprinted by permission of the publisher. Review of Educational Research, Fall 2001, Vol. 71(3), 393–447. learning to decode new words, building a vocabulary of words that can be read from memory by sight, and becoming facile at constructing, integrating, and remembering meanings represented in text. In order for children to be able to link their knowledge of spoken language to their knowledge of written language, they must master the alphabetic code, that is, the system of grapheme–phoneme correspondences that links the spellings of words to their pronunciations. Phonics instruction teaches beginning readers the alphabetic code and how to use this knowledge to read words. In systematic phonics programs, a planned set of phonics elements is taught sequentially. The set includes not only the major correspondences between consonant letters and sounds but also short and long vowel letters and sounds, and vowel and consonant digraphs (e.g., oi, ea, sh, th). It also may include blends of letter–sounds that form larger subunits in words. The larger units taught might include onsets (consonants that precede vowels, such as “j” in jump or “st” in stop) and rimes (i.e., the vowel and following consonants such as “ump” in jump and “op” in stop). Over the years, educators have disagreed about how beginning reading should be taught. Some have advocated starting with a systematic phonics approach whereas others have argued for whole-word or whole-language approaches. Disagreement has centered on whether teaching should begin with explicit instruction in symbol–sound correspondences or with whole words, or whether initial instruction should be meaning-centered with correspondences taught incidentally in context as needed. The current view is that, because research suggests that systematic phonics approaches are more effective than nonsystematic approaches, children should be provided with systematic phonics instruction as part of a balanced reading program. The purpose of this review was to examine the research evidence to determine whether systematic phonics instruction helps children learn to read more effectively than unsystematic phonics instruction or instruction teaching little or no phonics. Is phonics instruction more effective under some circumstances than others, such as tutoring versus small groups or classrooms; beginning grades as opposed to later grades; for children who are progressing normally in reading as well as for children who are at risk or disabled in their reading? Does phonics instruction improve children’s reading comprehension as well as their word-reading and spelling skills? Does the type of instruction given to control groups to evaluate the effectiveness of phonics instruction (e.g., whole-word or whole-language approaches) make a difference? A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the evidence. The Panel searched the literature to locate experimental studies that administered systematic phonics instruction to one group of children and administered another type of instruction involving either unsystematic phonics or no phonics to a control group. The review was limited to experiments because these provide the strongest evidence that instruction rather than some other factor caused the improvement in reading. The studies had to examine phonics programs of the sort used in schools rather than used in laboratory experiments focused on single processes. The studies had to measure reading as an outcome of instruction. Studies were excluded if they were in the Panel’s other meta-analysis examining effects of phonemic awareness instruction (Ehri et al., 2001). To insure that they met the research standards of the field, studies were limited to those published in peer reviewed journals. A total of 38 studies was identified and coded for various characteristics of students, instruction, and experimental design. The meta-analysis examined the size of effects that resulted when treatment and control groups were compared on reading and spelling outcomes. Our main interest for this review was in reading as an outcome of instruction. Reading may be defined in various ways. Although many people consider the term reading to refer to text comprehension, the meaning is broader and encompasses reading words as well, for