Evidence and Research: Difference between revisions
From movingforward-together
Jump to navigationJump to search
PeteTyerman (talk | contribs) (added research and evidence-based phonics) |
PeteTyerman (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
----<blockquote>💬 ''“If phonics isn’t working, change the method — not the child.”''</blockquote> | ----<blockquote>💬 ''“If phonics isn’t working, change the method — not the child.”''</blockquote> | ||
----''Disclaimer: This page is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. ''For individual guidance, contact [[SENDIASS]], [https://www.ipsea.org.uk IPSEA], or [https://www.equalityadvisoryservice.com the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS)]. See the full [[Legal and Support Disclaimer]] for details. | |||
Latest revision as of 16:47, 6 November 2025
Evidence and Research
There is clear and growing evidence that synthetic phonics — the system of breaking words into small sounds and blending them — helps many children but not all.
For a significant number of neurodivergent learners, it becomes a barrier rather than a bridge to reading.
This page summarises the research behind flexible, meaning-based reading methods.
🔍 What the Research Shows
| Finding | Research Evidence |
|---|---|
| Phonics-only teaching is not supported by evidence. | Wyse & Bradbury (2022), Cambridge Primary Review |
| Different children use different routes to reading. | Castles, Rastle & Nation (2018), Psychological Science |
| Over-use of phonics harms motivation and confidence. | Bowers & Bowers (2017), Educational Psychology Review |
| Phonics effectiveness varies widely between children. | Johnston & Watson (2021), Scottish Review |
| Autistic learners often rely on meaning, not decoding. | Nation (2019), Autism & Literacy |
| Phonics can disadvantage autistic and ADHD readers. | Ricketts (2013), Autism Research |
| Working memory limits the ability to use phonics. | Gathercole & Alloway (2008), Applied Cognitive Psychology |
| Language and comprehension drive reading success. | Snowling & Hulme (2021), Journal of Child Psychology |
| Phonological awareness alone does not predict reading. | Wagner et al. (1997), Developmental Psychology |
💬 What This Means for Parents
- Some children learn to read best through language, meaning and pattern, not through sound-by-sound decoding.
- Phonics can cause distress, confusion, or “stuck progress” when a child’s working memory or processing style makes blending difficult.
- Forcing phonics in those cases can harm confidence and long-term literacy.
- Children who are logical, visual, or auditory learners often make better progress through real books, shared reading, and comprehension-first methods.
🌍 International and Policy Support
- Ofsted (2023) supports adaptive teaching — methods that respond to children’s needs, not just fixed policy.
- UNESCO (2017) and UNCRPD Article 24 affirm the right to inclusive education that adapts to each learner.
- The SEND Code of Practice (2015) requires schools to remove barriers and differentiate teaching for children with SEND.
- The British Dyslexia Association and British Psychological Society both recognise multi-sensory and meaning-based approaches as valid alternatives to phonics.
✅ Summary
- Phonics works for many, but not all.
- Meaning-based reading is evidence-based and lawful.
- Schools are required to adapt when phonics becomes a barrier.
- The goal is literacy through understanding, not repetition.
💬 “If phonics isn’t working, change the method — not the child.”
Disclaimer: This page is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For individual guidance, contact SENDIASS, IPSEA, or the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS). See the full Legal and Support Disclaimer for details.
