“Benefits of Systematic Phonics Instruction”
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study or major research question “was to find if children taught with systematic phonics programs outperformed children in nonsystematic phonics or non phonics programs.” (Graaff, Bosman, Hasselman, &Verhoeven, 2009) The authors do list a major research question, but the problem statement was not as clear as it could have been. The reader has to read in depth of the entire article to really bring conclusion to what is being researched. It is not very defined with clarity, but you are able to figure out what is being researched and tested. The problem is significant and relevant because the researchers are looking at two approaches using a control group of children enrolling them in five types of programs: Basal reading programs, regular curriculum, whole language, whole word, and miscellaneous programs. In whole language approaches, it is believed that children will learn language (oral and written) best if it is learned for authentic purposes (Stahl, 1999). The author states the computer-based experiment permitted us to compare the differences and effectiveness of a systematic and a nonsystematic phonics approach, because in both programs the same 10 grapheme-phoneme correspondences were taught. Hypothesis
The authors open their article with, “systematic phonics instruction appears to be more effective than non systematic instruction for teaching reading.” (Graaff, Bosman, Hasselman, &Verhoeven, 2009) In the present study, a systematic phonics approach was directly compared with a non-systematic phonics approach for kindergarten children. The authors clearly state what they feel will happen in their research but do not go into much detail other than one or two reviews from other authors of why they support the research in the pre testing of it the way that they do. The author explains on the measures of phonemic awareness, spelling, and reading,...