Skip to main content

The role of phonics teaching




You'll be aware that there is much discussion in England about the role of phonics teaching in the languages classroom. NCELP, drawing on research and the TSC Review of 2016 have made it one of their three 'pillars', along with vocabulary and grammar. Of interest is the fact that, to my knowledge, phonics has not been a major focus in other countries. I have not seen articles, blogs or discussion in social media about phonics from American colleagues, for example. 

How strong is the research support actually? Well, as Robert Woore explained in a recent article in the The Language Learning Journal, the research base for building a curriculum with a strong explicit focus on  phonics is so far thin. But there are reasons rooted in research for including phonics in your teaching and, of course, nearly all MFL/WL teachers have always included aspects of phonics teaching in their practice. It's not new. What is new is this greater priority and its inclusion as a major 'pillar'. Remember of course that we are talking not just about phonology or pronunciation, but specifically about sound-spelling relationships. 

I think, as Woore argued in his 2022 paper, there is enough evidence to support some explicit teaching of phonics (i.e. actually explaining to students how letters and letter combinations match with the sounds they generate). It may be that the amount of explanation needed depends on the class. In my own experience working with students of above average aptitude over 30-odd years, reading aloud and sound-spelling skill developed almost wholly through 'implicit' means, e.g. through students seeing text while listening and through reading aloud. But there is enough evidence to suggest that a specific, sometimes explicit, focus on phonics is useful. What is not clear is whether there is an advantage to a very systematic, highly structured approach to it.

Incidentally, 'implicit' is not the same as 'by osmosis'. By implicit, I mean that through repeated exposure to and practice of reading aloud, the sound-spelling patterns are learned through planned, deliberate exposure and practice. This is not the same as 'incidental'.

Now, 'teaching phonics' can mean a number of things. There is a risk that becomes a dry exercise of reading aloud and repetition of isolated words, with minimal communicative intent. On the other hand, it can be made more fun and be incorporated within a communicative approach. Some teachers like to teach phonics in what Woore called an 'opportunistic' way (that was my own approach). This means drawing explicit attention to issues when they come up. Others (fewer, I would think) take that highly planned, systematic approach, deciding when and how to introduce each sound-spelling correspondence (SSC). This is the NCELP way.

When Gianfranco Conti and I wrote our 2019 book about listening, Breaking the Sound Barrier: Teaching Language Learners How to Listen, we supported the idea of putting a strong focus on phonics within the context of developing listening comprehension, as well as accurate pronunciation and reading aloud. Our thinking stemmed from a few influences, including:

  • John Field's 'process approach' to teaching listening (breaking down the process of listening, then building it back up through targeted activities).
  • Gianfranco's EPI approach to teaching second languages, with its emphasis on LAM ('Listening-as-Modelling').
  • Research evidence from cognitive science, notably the limited span of working memory and cognitive load theory. 
  • Issues of self-efficacy: how do we make listening easier and more enjoyable? (e.g. work done by Suzanne Graham).
  • Personal experience!

Below is a slightly adapted section we wrote in Chapter 3 about the teaching of phonics.... 

There has been much debate about the value of teaching systematic synthetic phonics (i.e. a structured course of sound-spelling instruction) in L1 teaching during early schooling. Some argue that while phonics teaching may help with recognising and pronouncing isolated words, including invented words (also known in the literature as pseudo-words, nonsense words or non-words), it does little for reading comprehension (e.g. Krashen, 2001, who cites a range of studies) and Huo and Wang (2017) who looked at 15 studies on what they called phonological-based instruction in EFL lessons for primary school children. They found that phonemic awareness and reading of non-words improved, but word recognition and reading comprehension did not. 

Torgerson et al (2006), in a major meta-study on L1 phonics teaching, concluded that phonics teaching improves reading accuracy, if not comprehension, and recommended that teachers include it “…in a judicious balance with other elements” (p.49). From this it appears that while phonics teaching has benefits, it does not clearly improve L1 reading comprehension. 

Can it improve listening performance? 

Research is unfortunately thin on the ground. There is good evidence, however, that sounding out whole words makes them more memorable. What psychologists call the production effect suggests that we remember items better when we say them aloud. Forrin and MacLeod (2018) carried out a study to compare how well college students recalled words depending on whether they read them silently, heard someone say them or read them aloud themselves. The words they read aloud themselves were more easily recalled two weeks later. The researchers concluded that when the students spoke the words this provided more engagement with the word, helping to make the words memorable. As they put it: “…oral production is beneficial because it entails two distinctive components: a motor (speech) act and a unique, self-referential auditory input” (from the Abstract). 

Other researchers, such as Baddeley, Gathercole and Papagno (1998) have argued that when a student learns a new word it needs to be repeated aloud in order for sounds to be assigned to the word, a process which helps the word find its way into long-term memory. 

Woo and Price (2015) have suggested that if students are not given the chance to say a word or phrase several times they may assign the wrong sounds to the word before it is transferred to long-term memory. 

Service (1992) found that phonological short-term memory (reflected in the ability to repeat words accurately, i.e. being a good mimic) correlates with future L2 learning performance. 

Finally, an influential review of language teaching pedagogy in England by The Teaching Schools Council (Bauckham, 2016), which involved observations of lessons and interviews with teachers, strongly recommended a planned approach to the teaching of phonics. With this type of evidence in mind, together with our own long experience as teachers, a number of general points can be made: 

 • L2 phonology differs from L1 and students often apply their existing knowledge of L1 phonics to L2. This leads to poor pronunciation and a greater likelihood that words will not be recognised in speech. It is therefore important to model correct pronunciation and sound-spelling links, and have students shadow it, i.e. say or whisper it out loud after you. 

 • Although sound-spelling links will become established through general work in the four skills, many students will benefit from being taught explicitly which sounds and syllables correspond to which spellings, notably where these spellings are in contrast to the L1 orthography. This may be of particular benefit to lower-attaining students. 

 • Language-specific issues may need special treatment, e.g. ‘silent letters’ and elision in French or the role of accented characters in French, German and Spanish. 

 • Although perception tasks such as distinguishing between minimal pairs (e.g. in French des chats versus déjà) are useful, saying sounds and words aloud adds an extra element in reinforcing memory. If we train students in accurate repetition this will help with their general proficiency. 

 • Rather than prepare a time-consuming structured phonics programme which has the potential to be tedious for students, we recommend you intersperse your other communicative work with short bouts of phonics practice. But keep in mind the areas which will cause most difficulty for your students. Whether teachers deal with phonics in a systematic or more incidental manner may depend on their preference or practical issues such as time available. 

 • Pronunciation of segments longer than individual words or phonemes is likely to be more engaging for students. Adding meaning to a task makes it more enjoyable as well as productive. 

 • High aptitude language learners with excellent mimicry and reading skills may require little phonics training at all.


Our book (Conti and Smith, 2019) contains multiple examples of engaging ways to build skill with reading aloud and phonics.

For more on this I would recommend this blog by Gianfranco:

https://gianfrancoconti.com/2018/03/16/my-favourite-read-aloud-task-and-how-i-use-them/comment-page-1/


Main references

Bauckham, I. (2016). The TSC MFL Pedagogy Review. 

Available at: https://ncelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/MFL_Pedagogy_Review_Report_TSC_PUBLISHED_VERSION_Nov_2016_1_.pdf

Conti, G. and Smith, S.P. (2019). Breaking the Sound Barrier: Teaching Language Learners How to Listen. Independently published.

Woore, R. (2022). What can second language acquisition research tell us about the phonics ‘pillar’? The Language Learning Journal.  

Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09571736.2022.2045683

Image: pixabay.com

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

12 principles of second language teaching

This is a short, adapted extract from our book The Language Teacher Toolkit . "We could not possibly recommend a single overall method for second language teaching, but the growing body of research we now have points to certain provisional broad principles which might guide teachers. Canadian professors Patsy Lightbown and Nina Spada (2013), after reviewing a number of studies over the years to see whether it is better to just use meaning-based approaches or to include elements of explicit grammar teaching and practice, conclude: Classroom data from a number of studies offer support for the view that form-focused instruction and corrective feedback provided within the context of communicative and content-based programmes are more effective in promoting second language learning than programmes that are limited to a virtually exclusive emphasis on comprehension. As teachers Gianfranco and I would go along with that general view and would like to suggest our own set of g