Canadian Study – Sumbler and Willows 1996 –

synthetic phonics (Jolly Phonics) classes compared

to whole language/eclectic classes.

large numbers of children, all 265 non reading, controlled and

equal comparison groups

After 6 months monitoring and testing:

Synthetic group – Av. reading – 8 months ahead of chronological

age

Eclectic group - Av. reading - same as chronological age

Synthetic group - Av. spelling – 5 months ahead of chronological

age

Eclectic group - Av. spelling – 16 months behind chronological

age

Synthetic group – Av. nonword reading – same as chronological

age

Eclectic group - Av. nonword reading – 2 months behind

chronological age

Only two activities were significantly related to subsequent reading

and spelling success: they were 'phonics' (which included all

phonics activities involving print) and letter formation (which

involved pronouncing letter-sounds while writing the letter shapes)

England - Stuart 1999 – Jolly Phonics compared to

holistic method (Big Books)

large numbers of children, 86% foreign language speakers, controls

and well matched comparison groups

tested after 12 weeks and one year later

Results at the end of 1 year 3 months:

Synthetic group – Av. reading – 11 months ahead

Big book group - Av. reading - 2 months ahead

Synthetic group - Av. spelling – 1 month ahead of chronological

age.

Big Book group - Av. spelling – 11 months behind chronological

age

Jolly Phonics children also significantly ahead on comprehension

Scotland- Johnston, R. and Watson, J (1998) –

Accelerating Reading Attainment: The

Effectiveness of Synthetic Phonics. Interchange 57.

The Scottish Office Education and Industry

Department. Copies can be obtained from the following website:

www.hmis.scotoff.gov.uk/riu

although slightly different to Jolly Phonics – the principles are the same.

large number of children, controls and good comparison groups.

three methods compared:

1. 'Analytic phonics' (letter-sounds taught by analysing the initial sounds

heard and seen in whole words)

2. 'Phonological awareness plus analytic phonics' (oral training in phoneme

and rhyme skills for first 10 minutes, followed by letter-sound teaching

identical to 'Analytic phonics' for the final 10 minutes)

3. 'Synthetic phonics' (introduced to letters and their sounds in isolation,

taught how to sound and blend all the letters in a printed word, and taught

how to segment oral words into sounds in order to spell using letters)

after 16 weeks:-

- Analytic phonics – Reading Av. - at age level

- Spelling Av. – 2 months below

- Phonological awareness plus analytic phonics

- Reading Av: at age level

- Spelling Av: 1 month below

- Synthetic phonics – Reading Av: 7 months above chronological age.

- Spelling Av: 9 months above chronological age.

after the testing, the first two sets of children were taught with synthetic phonics.

All the groups then ended up with much the same results for reading and

comprehension. However, the spelling was significantly higher for the original

synthetic group and this group also had no child more than a year below

chronological age, whereas the others did have a few.

the researchers concluded that it was not the pace but the method of letter-sound

teaching that was the crucial factor

Accelerating Reading and Spelling with Synthetic

phonics: A Five Year Follow Up – Scotland –

Johnston, R. and Watson, J

at the end of Primary 2 (English Year 1), the 264 children available

for testing who had been taught by the synthetic phonics method

(1998) were reading and spelling on average eleven months ahead

of chronological age

at the end of Primary 5 (English Year 4), the children who had

been taught by the synthetic phonics method were reading, on

average, 26 months ahead of chronological age

spelling and comprehension scores were significantly above

chronological age

boys in Primary 4 & 5 were a significant seven months ahead of

girls for reading

* www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/ins4-00.asp

A seven year study of the effects of synthetic

phonics teaching on reading and spelling

attainment

www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/ins17-00.asp

Word reading - 3 years 6 months ahead of chronological age

Spelling – 1 year 9 months ahead of chronological age

Reading comprehension - 3½ months ahead of chronological

age (Clackmannanshire children were from the most deprived 10% of the

population)

Boys reading 9.5 months ahead of girls

* St Michael's Primary School, Stoke Gifford – a large primary with low entry assessment

94% achieved Level 4 (KS2 SATs) compared to 77%

nationally

65% achieved Level 5 (KS2 SATs) compared to 29%

nationally

No children below Level 3B (KS2 SATs) (including a child whose

intellectual ability was below the 1st percentile) compared to 7% Level 2

and below nationally

33.3% boys achieved Level 5 (KS2 SATs) compared to 11%

nationally

no significant difference in literacy between boys and girls;

no significant difference between children with summer birthdays and

others;

no children with English as an Additional Language on the SEN

register;

no significant difference in literacy skills between children eligible for

free school meals and others.

* If all schools followed the example of this synthetic

phonics school then most of our literacy problems in

schools would be solved.

Jolly Case Studies – at the end of one year of

schooling

Deerpark Primary, Clackmannanshire -

Av age: 5.9 Reading Age: 6.8 Spelling Age: 6.11

Birstall County J&I School, West Yorkshire -

Av age 5.5 Reading Age: 6.7

St Michael's Primary School, Stoke Gifford –

Av age: 5.4 Reading Age: 5.11 Spelling Age: 5.11

Our Lady of Lebanon College, Sydney -

Av Age: 5.8 Reading Age: 6.8 Spelling Age: 6.9