Interrogating the research evidence: Teaching reading for meaning in the early years

Beryl Exley, Kylie Bradfield & Danielle Heinrichs

As a group of researchers interested in the teaching of reading in the early years, we asked ourselves a simple but important question:

What does the research evidence say about teaching the foundational elements of reading practice and their contribution to students’ overall reading performance?

To address this question, we systematically examined the research literature spanning more than 40 years. We conducted a Systematic Quantitative Literature Review (SQLR), applying explicit and transparent selection criteria to identify which studies would be included for detailed analysis and reporting.

Only studies reporting quantitative evidence of how instructional content and teaching strategies affected overall reading performance where students were taught by the classroom teacher were selected, coded, and synthesised. In contrast to studies that examine a single element of reading practice and report outcomes only for that element, our review focused on studies that examined one or more of six foundational elements and reported their contribution to overall reading performance. In total, we identified 163 research papers investigating the contribution of phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, or oral language to students’ overall reading performance (Exley et al., 2026). 

The research consistently showed that teaching instruction works well when these elements are deliberately taught and connected.

The second part of our paper took a closer look at phonics instruction, partly because it sits at the centre of ongoing public, policy, and political debate. We asked, “Does phonics instruction contribute to improved reading outcomes?” After reviewing the five papers that met our strict inclusion criterion, and analysing the research methods and findings, the answer to the question is “yes, sometimes, but not always”.

• Cross, C. (2019). The relationship between the Reading in Motion Program and early literacy: A study on the effect of the Reading in Motion Program and reading fluency in kindergarten students (Doctoral dissertation, University of St. Francis).

• Ehri, L. C., & Flugman, B. (2018). Mentoring teachers in systematic phonics instruction: Effectiveness of an intensive year‑long program for kindergarten through third‑grade teachers and their students. Reading and Writing, 31(2), 425–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9792-7

• Ferguson, N., Currie, L.-A., Paul, M., & Topping, K. (2011). The longitudinal impact of a comprehensive literacy intervention. Educational Research, 53(3), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011.598657

• Quint, J. C., Balu, R., DeLaurentis, M., Rappaport, S., Smith, T. J., & Zhu, P. (2014). The Success for All model of school reform: Early findings from the Investing in Innovation (i3) scale‑up. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

• Rightmyer, E. C., McIntyre, E., & Petrosko, J. M. (2006). Instruction, development, and achievement of struggling primary grade readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 45(3), 209–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070609558449

 The research evidence confirms that phonics instruction can support overall reading performance, but the effects are variable.

When we looked closely at the research studies, we found major differences in:

• how much phonics was taught

• how long instruction lasted

• which year levels were involved

• how phonics instruction fits within the broader literacy teaching and learning efforts.

The Findings

In other words, phonics isn’t a magic ingredient to sprinkle into lessons and expect guaranteed results. One of the most striking findings wasn’t about particular approaches to teaching phonics; it was about people and practice. Across the research, three factors kept showing up as crucial:

• Teachers need more than scripts. They need deep, flexible knowledge to respond to learners in real classrooms.

• How teachers integrate phonics teaching into reading, writing, talk, and meaning‑making matters enormously.

• Effective teaching required informed adaptation, not blind adherence to a script.

These findings matter because large‑scale debates often treat instruction as if it operates independently of teachers. The research tells a very different story. If there’s one take-away we wish policymakers and commentators would absorb, it’s this: Reading instruction works under specific conditions, for specific learners, with skilled teachers who can adapt the teaching content and the teaching practices for the specific needs of the learners.

Summary

In conclusion, the research evidence we reviewed supports explicit teaching of phonics alongside attention to reading for meaning. The evidence also identified that when teachers are trusted, prepared, and supported to make pedagogical decisions, they can achieve better-than-expected learning gains for more students.

Asking “Does phonics work?” flattens a complex landscape. A better set of questions is: When, how, and for whom does phonics instruction contribute to overall reading performance? How does the teaching of phonics interact with the rest of the classroom-based literacy teaching?

If you like this post, you might also like to read the whole systematic quantitative literature review, available at this link: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8392/6/3/61.

Another recent article on prepackaged teaching plans and the teaching of phonics in the early years of schooling is available at this link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44020-025-00083-z

References

Exley, B., Bradfield, K. Z., Heinrichs, D. H., & Clancy, S. (2026). A systematic quantitative literature review of the contribution of phonics to overall reading performance for primary students. Encyclopedia, 6(3), 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6030061

Another open access academic paper on pre-packaged teaching plans and adaptive phonics teaching:

Exley, B., Hoyte, F., & Singh, P. (2025). When the curriculum demands personalisation: Adaptive professionalism, pre‑packaged plans and the teaching of phonics and spelling. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 48, 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44020-025-00083-z

About the authors

Beryl Exley is a Professor of English Curriculum and Literacies Education at Griffith University, Australia. She advocates for child-centred practices in the early years, primary and middle years of schooling. Beryl was awarded Life Member of the Australian Literacy Educators’ Association (ALEA) in 2019.

Kylie Zee Bradfield is a lecturer at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. Kylie is fascinated by what teachers do to teach literacy, language, and literature. Along with Beryl, Kylie leads the Australian Literacy Educators’ Association (ALEA) Teacher Education Special Interest Group.
Danielle H. Heinrichs is a Senior Lecturer of Multilingual Communication and Literacies at Griffith University, Australia. She promotes strengths-based approaches to language and literacy education, working with pre-service primary and secondary teachers.