仍然很少或没有证据表明系统的自然拼读法比其他常见的阅读教学方法更有效:对Brooks(2023)的回应

IF 2.7 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Jeffrey S. Bowers
{"title":"仍然很少或没有证据表明系统的自然拼读法比其他常见的阅读教学方法更有效:对Brooks(2023)的回应","authors":"Jeffrey S. Bowers","doi":"10.1002/rev3.3432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Brooks (2023) rejects Bowers' (2020) conclusion that there is little or no evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative teaching methods common in schools. He makes his case based on challenging my analysis of 4 or the 12 meta‐analyses reviewed in Bowers (2020). I show his criticisms are flawed and conclusions are unwarranted. I also briefly review the more recent PIRLS results that have been taken to support the claim that mandated synthetic systematic phonics has improved reading comprehension in England. This conclusion is also shown to be unjustified. I conclude there is still no reliable evidence that systematic phonics is best practice, that researchers should stop making strong claims based on the current evidence, and that the field needs to explore alternative approaches.","PeriodicalId":45076,"journal":{"name":"Review of Education","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"There is still little or no evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than common alternative methods of reading instruction: Response to Brooks (2023)\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey S. Bowers\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/rev3.3432\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Brooks (2023) rejects Bowers' (2020) conclusion that there is little or no evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative teaching methods common in schools. He makes his case based on challenging my analysis of 4 or the 12 meta‐analyses reviewed in Bowers (2020). I show his criticisms are flawed and conclusions are unwarranted. I also briefly review the more recent PIRLS results that have been taken to support the claim that mandated synthetic systematic phonics has improved reading comprehension in England. This conclusion is also shown to be unjustified. I conclude there is still no reliable evidence that systematic phonics is best practice, that researchers should stop making strong claims based on the current evidence, and that the field needs to explore alternative approaches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Education\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3432\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3432","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

布鲁克斯(2023)反对鲍尔斯(2020)的结论,即几乎没有证据表明系统语音比学校常见的其他教学方法更有效。他在挑战我对Bowers(2020)中回顾的4个或12个元分析的分析的基础上提出了自己的观点。我指出他的批评是有缺陷的,结论是没有根据的。我还简要回顾了最近的PIRLS结果,这些结果支持了强制性合成系统拼读法提高了英国人的阅读理解能力的说法。这一结论也被证明是不合理的。我的结论是,仍然没有可靠的证据表明系统语音是最佳实践,研究人员应该停止根据现有证据提出强有力的主张,该领域需要探索替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
There is still little or no evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than common alternative methods of reading instruction: Response to Brooks (2023)
Abstract Brooks (2023) rejects Bowers' (2020) conclusion that there is little or no evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative teaching methods common in schools. He makes his case based on challenging my analysis of 4 or the 12 meta‐analyses reviewed in Bowers (2020). I show his criticisms are flawed and conclusions are unwarranted. I also briefly review the more recent PIRLS results that have been taken to support the claim that mandated synthetic systematic phonics has improved reading comprehension in England. This conclusion is also shown to be unjustified. I conclude there is still no reliable evidence that systematic phonics is best practice, that researchers should stop making strong claims based on the current evidence, and that the field needs to explore alternative approaches.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Education
Review of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
63
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信