Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Niidae Wiki
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Phonics
(section)
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Effectiveness of programs and evidence-based education== Researchers such as [[Joseph Torgesen]] estimate that "between four and six percent" of children would still have weak word reading skills even if they were exposed to effective interventions in the first or second year of school.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aft.org/ae/fall2004/torgesen|title=The Evidence That Early Intervention Prevents Reading Failure, The American Federation of Teachers|author=Joseph K. Torgesen|year=2004}}</ref> Yet, in the USA 20% or more do not meet grade expectations.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/moats.pdf|title=Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science, American Federation of Teachers, Washington, DC, USA, 2020|page=5|author=Louisa C. Moats}}</ref> According to the 2019 [[NAEP|Nation's Report card]], 34% of grade four students in the United States failed to perform at or above the ''Basic reading level''. There was a significant difference by race and ethnicity (e.g., black students at 52% and white students at 23%). After the impact of the [[COVID-19 pandemic]], the average basic reading score dropped by 3% in 2022.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/scores/?grade=4|title=Nation's Report Card, reading scores, grade 4|year=2022}} {{PD-notice}}</ref> Between 2013 and 2027, 37 US States have passed laws or implemented new policies related to evidence-based reading instruction.<ref name="Sarah Schwartz">{{cite news|url=https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/which-states-have-passed-science-of-reading-laws-whats-in-them/2022/07|author=Sarah Schwartz|title=Which States Have Passed 'Science of Reading' Laws? What's in Them? Education Week|date=July 20, 2022}}</ref> As a result, many schools are moving away from balance literacy programs that encourage students to guess a word, and are introducing phonics where they learn to "decode" (sound out) words.<ref>{{cite video|URL=https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/04/24/education-schools-reading-programs-literacy-jones-pkg-cnntm-cprog-vpx.cnn|title=School changes reading program after realizing students 'weren't actually learning to read', CNN national correspondent Athena Jones|date=2023-04-24}}</ref> The Canadian provinces of [[Ontario]] and [[Nova Scotia]], respectively, reported that 26% and 30% of grade three students did not meet the provincial reading standards in 2019.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/right-to-read-inquiry-report/how-ontario-students-are-performing|title=How Ontario students are performing, Ontario Human Rights Commission|year=2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://plans.ednet.ns.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2018–19_LM3-EN_results%20v2.pdf|title=2018–2019 Nova Scotia Assessment, Literacy and Mathematics/Mathématiques in Grade 3|year=2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eqao.com/wp-content/uploads/provincial-report-highlights-literacy-2019.pdf|title=Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test, Education Quality and accountability office|year=2019}}</ref> In Ontario, 53% of Grade 3 students with special education needs (students who have an Individual Education Plan), were not meeting the provincial standard.<ref name="ohrc.on.ca">{{cite web|url=https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/right-to-read-inquiry-report/executive-summary|title=Executive summary, Right to Read inquiry report, OHRC|date=January 27, 2022}}</ref> In 2022, the Minister of Education for Ontario said they are taking immediate action to improve student literacy and making longer-term reforms to modernize the way reading is taught and assessed in schools, with a focus on phonics. Their plan includes "revising the elementary Language curriculum and the Grade 9 English course with scientific, evidence-based approaches that emphasize direct, explicit and [[Phonics#Teaching reading with phonics|systematic instruction]], and removing references to unscientific discovery and inquiry-based learning, including the three-cueing system, by 2023."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/Right%20to%20Read%20Min%20of%20Ed%20%20Response%20ENG.pdf|title=The Ministry of Education thanks the Ontario Human Rights Commission for its Right to Read Inquiry report|date=March 11, 2022}}</ref> Proponents of [[Reading#Evidence-based reading instruction|evidence-based reading instruction]] maintain that teaching reading without teaching phonics can be harmful to large numbers of students, although in their view not all phonics teaching programs are equally effective. According to them, the effectiveness of a program depends on using specific curriculum and instruction techniques, classroom management, grouping, and other factors.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://robertslavinsblog.wordpress.com/2020/03/26/science-of-reading-can-we-get-beyond-our-30-year-pillar-fight/|title=Science of reading, Robert Slavin's blog.|date=26 March 2020}}</ref> Phonics instruction is also an important part of the [[Reading#Science of reading|science of reading]]. Interest in [[evidence-based education]] appears to be growing.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://researched.org.uk|title=researchED.org.uk}}</ref> In 2019, [[#Best Evidence Encyclopedia (BEE)|Best Evidence Encyclopedia]] (BEE) released a review of research on 48 different programs for struggling readers in elementary schools.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bestevidence.org/word/strug_read_April_2019_full.pdf|title=A Quantitative Synthesis of Research on Programs for Struggling Readers in Elementary Schools, Best Evidence Encyclopedia, April 24, 2019|access-date=May 4, 2020|archive-date=July 8, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200708081225/http://www.bestevidence.org/word/strug_read_April_2019_full.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> Many of the programs used phonics-based teaching and/or one or more of the following: [[cooperative learning]], technology-supported adaptive instruction (see [[Educational technology]]), [[metacognitive]] skills, [[phonemic awareness]], word reading, [[fluency]], [[vocabulary]], [[multisensory learning]], [[spelling]], [[guided reading]], [[reading comprehension]], word analysis, structured [[curriculum]], and [[balanced literacy]] (non-phonetic approach). The BEE review concludes that a) outcomes were positive for one-to-one tutoring, b) outcomes were positive but not as large for one-to-small group tutoring, c) there were no differences in outcomes between teachers and teaching assistants as tutors, d) technology-supported adaptive instruction did not have positive outcomes, e) whole-class approaches (mostly cooperative learning) and whole-school approaches incorporating tutoring obtained outcomes for struggling readers as large as those found for one-to-one tutoring, and benefitted many more students, and f) approaches mixing classroom and school improvements, with tutoring for the most [[at-risk students]], have the greatest potential for the largest numbers of struggling readers.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://bestevidence.org|title=Best evidence encyclopedia}}</ref> [[Robert Slavin]], of BEE, goes so far as to suggest that states should "hire thousands of tutors" to support students scoring far below grade level – particularly in elementary school reading. Research, he says, shows "only tutoring, both one-to-one and one-to-small group, in reading and mathematics, had an [[effect size]] larger than +0.10 ... averages are around +0.30", and "well-trained teaching assistants using structured tutoring materials or software can obtain outcomes as good as those obtained by certified teachers as tutors".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://robertslavinsblog.wordpress.com/2020/10/01/how-much-have-students-lost-in-the-covid-19-shutdowns/|title=How Much Have Students Lost in The COVID-19 Shutdowns?, Robert Slavin, 2020-10-01|date=October 2020}}</ref> Other evidence-based comparison databases featuring phonics and other methods include [[Evidence-based education#Evidence for ESSA|Evidence for ESSA]]<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.evidenceforessa.org|title=Evidence for ESSA}}</ref> (Center for Research and Reform in Education)<ref>{{cite web|url=https://education.jhu.edu/crre/|title=Center for Research and Reform in Education (CRRE)|date=16 October 2023 }}</ref> (meeting the standards of the U.S. [[Every Student Succeeds Act]], and the [[Evidence-based education#What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)|What Works Clearinghouse]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/FWW/Results?filters=,Literacy|title=What works clearinghouse, Literacy}}</ref>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Niidae Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Encyclopedia:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
Phonics
(section)
Add topic