Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Despite considerable efforts made to understand the impact that instructional interventions have upon L2 reading development, we still lack a clear picture of the influence that PA and phonics instruction has upon reading in English as an L2. A search of the research literature published from 1990 to 2019 yielded 45 articles with 46 studies containing 3,841 participants in total. Effect sizes were recorded for the effect of various PA and/or phonics instructional interventions on word and pseudo word reading. Results demonstrated that L2 PA and phonics instruction has a moderate effect on L2 word reading (g = 0.53) and a large effect on pseudo word reading (g = 1.51). Moderator analyses revealed effects of a number of moderators including testing method, type of PA/phonics intervention, and context where the intervention occurred. Based upon these conclusions, policymakers and educators can provide beginning learners of English as an L2 with PA and phonics instruction that will enable them to read, understand and enjoy English better. Future research should also strive to adhere to more stringent standards of excellence in educational research.

Keywords

meta-analysis second/foreign language reading phonemic/phonological awareness reading instruction phonics decoding

Introduction

Teaching English learners phonological awareness (PA) and phonics to decode unfamiliar printed text is a foundational step in fostering English reading skills. PA is defined as “an awareness of sounds in spoken (not written) words that is revealed by such abilities as rhyming, matching initial consonants, and counting the number of phonemes in spoken words” (Stahl & Murray, 1994, p. 221). PA is widely thought to be the foundation upon which phonics is built. Examples of classroom instructional practices that support the development of PA include having learners pay attention to the sounds of spoken language as they engage in activities such as reading poems, songs and games like “I spy” (Yopp & Yopp, 2009). Phonics has been described as both “. . .a system for encoding speech sounds into written symbols. . . [and a way of] teaching learners the relationships between letters and sounds and how to use this system to recognize words” (Mesmer & Griffith, 2005, pp. 366–367). Classroom instructional practices that support the development of phonics knowledge include teaching sound-letter correspondences and having students practice decoding (i.e., sound out) words (Heilman, 2002).

Birch (2014) highlights the importance of phonics-related skills in L2 language reading while lamenting how these skills have traditionally been neglected in the L2 reading classroom due to an over emphasis on whole language principles of reading instruction. The term L2 refers to the learning of English as both a second and foreign language in the present study. Adesope et al. (2011) add that “although the effects of phonics instruction have been widely documented in the literature, there is limited understanding of the effectiveness of this approach in teaching literacy to immigrant students whose first language is not English” (p. 632). Although, in recent years, a number of meta-analyses and literature reviews have been conducted to get a clearer sense of the effectiveness of various methods for supporting L2 literacy development, none have focused on the specific role of PA and phonics instruction in developing English learners’ L2 word decoding ability. It is necessary to pay greater attention to word decoding ability because such decoding ability is widely recognized as being such an essential component of L2 reading ability (Birch, 2014). Likewise, pseudowords reading is a reliable predictor of reading achievement and using pseudoword assessments helps to ensure that learners have not previously encountered the target words allowing them to demonstrate their phonetic decoding ability to accurately identify the pseudowords (Curtis, 1980). Pseudowords are words that follow English spelling but have no meaning (e.g., sarp, desh, or chab).

The results of this meta-analysis could help summarize the empirical findings on the effectiveness of teaching PA and phonics on L2 learners’ English word and pseudo word reading. These results may prove useful to policy makers seeking input as they consider the value of devoting limited instructional time and resources to teaching PA and phonics to beginning English L2 readers. At the school and classroom level, these findings may convince teachers who are uncertain about the effectiveness of phonics instructional techniques to integrate them into their L2 reading pedagogy.

Literature review

Previous meta-analyses

A number of meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and traditional literature reviews have yielded valuable insights into the relationship between phonics instruction and L2 literacy development. One early meta-analysis of L2 studies that was based on a rather small sample of only five studies lead to the cautious conclusion that explicit PA and phonics instruction benefits L2 learners (August & Shanahan, 2007). However, basing these conclusions on such a small sample of studies and not specifying the specific aspects of English reading ability that PA/phonics instruction improves makes it difficult for educators to apply the results to their practice.

Several meta-analyses within the field of applied linguistics have also examined research conclusions regarding various aspects of L2 literacy. These meta-analyses have explored the relationship between L2 reading and other reading component variables and discovered that L1 writing system correlated with L2 decoding ability (Jeon & Yamashita, 2014; Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2011) and reading comprehension (Jeon & Yamashita, 2014) indicating that learners’ L1 has an influence on their L2 decoding and comprehension ability. Other meta-analyses have looked at the impact of various interventions on English learners’ PA and phonics knowledge development. Several reading interventions designed for L1 learners (e.g., Success for All) have been found to be effective for the learning of PA and phonics (Adesope et al., 2011; Cheung & Slavin, 2012).

Previous Systematic Literature Reviews

In addition to these meta-analyses, several systematic reviews of the research literature have also been conducted in recent years. Findings from this work indicate that L2 vocabulary and grammatical knowledge (Choi & Zhang, 2021), weak PA (Varghese, 2015), and L1 writing system (Han, 2015) influence English L2 learners’ decoding skill which can in turn hinder their word recognition and comprehension. However, these deficiencies can be ameliorated by explicit instruction of word-level skills (Murphy & Unthiah, 2015).

These researchers also identify several limitations in the extant research literature. Firstly, serious issues exist with regard to the variables in these studies including problems with inconsistent construct definition, operationalization, and measurement that create doubt regarding their legitimacy (Choi & Zhang, 2021; Han, 2015). Murphy and Unthiah (2015) also highlight the lack of intervention studies examining best practices for improving L2 literacy in more varied educational contexts.

Previous Narrative Literature Reviews

A number of traditional narrative literature reviews have generated valuable insights into the effectiveness of various types of L2 literacy instruction. For instance, literacy knowledge and skill have been found to transfer between the L1 and L2 so teachers should take ESL learners’ L1 into account (Snyder et al., 2017). They can do this by adapting their PA/phonics instruction for L2 learners by focusing on problematic sounds that do not exist in these learners’ L1 (Irujo, 2007). Systematic and explicit PA/phonics instruction can efficiently support English learners’ decoding skill and word reading development (August et al., 2014; Irujo, 2007; Snyder et al., 2017) but this instruction must be based on L2 oral language practice and opportunities to read authentic L2 texts to ensure that L2 reading is meaningful to learners (August et al., 2014; Irujo, 2007).

Some reviewers also mentioned specific instructional programs and techniques that can support the growth of L2 reading proficiency. For example, reading programs (e.g., Jolly Phonics) originally designed for English L1 speakers also work with ELLs, especially if they address the unique challenges ELLs face that stem from L1 to L2 differences such as L2 phonemes that do not exist in the L1 (August et al., 2014). Other suggested instructional techniques include August et al.’s (2014) advice that ELL learners should receive instruction that is based on mastery learning. August et al. (2014) and Snyder et al. (2017) also agreed on the importance of differentiated instruction, teacher modeling, peer tutoring, and plenty of practice to reinforce new material.

To summarize key findings from previous research, explicit PA and phonics instruction helps beginning L2 readers, but this instruction should be performed upon a firm base of oral L2 proficiency. L1 literacy should also be taken into consideration to expedite the process through facilitating L1-L2 transfer and targeting problem areas. Several specific programs and techniques have been demonstrated to help teach beginning L2 readers, but several limitations associated with this research warrant continued investigation.

Results from these previous reviews offer considerable insight into the role that various issues and pedagogical techniques play in L2 reading development while providing general recommendations to teachers and policy makers. However, these broader scope reviews do not offer a sufficiently complete analysis of the specific influence that PA and phonics instruction can have upon particular aspects of L2 reading such as differing impacts on reading real words versus pseudo words. This is regrettable given the widely-acknowledged importance of these word and pseudo word reading for both L1 and L2 reading (Williams, 2016). Therefore, the present meta-analysis will address this oversight in the existing research literature by focusing on studies that examined these two central aspects of L2 reading development. The specific research questions to be addressed in this investigation are as follows:

What are the overall effect sizes for L2 readers who have experienced L2 PA and/or phonics instruction on both their L2 word and pseudo word reading?

How do the characteristics of each study influence effect size in L2 word and pseudo word reading?

Method

Literature Search Procedures

This meta-analysis synthesized results from empirical studies of PA and phonics instruction with second and foreign readers of English as a second or foreign language following established procedures for conducting meta-analyses in the social sciences (Card, 2015; Cooper, 2015). Online and manual bibliographical searches were carried out to locate both published research studies and unpublished dissertations for the meta-analysis. These online database searches were performed using Academic Search Premier (10), Linguistic and Language Behavior Abstracts (0), Web of Science (3), ERIC (7), PsycINFO (2), Google Scholar (7), EBSCO (8), and Pro Quest Dissertation and Thesis (8). The number in parentheses refers to the number of publications found through each database. Studies published between January 1990 and December 2019 were included in the search because no empirical investigations that were conducted prior to that date could be located. Thirty-four of the studies were published in peer reviewed journals and 12 were unpublished dissertation studies.

The following search terms were used: immigrant, ELL, ESOL, ESL/second language read*, EFL/foreign language read*, L2 read*, second language literacy, foreign language literacy, and L2 literacy. These search terms were cross-referenced with the following keywords: reading intervention, reading instruction, phonics, phonemic/phonological awareness, letter-sound knowledge, alphabet principle, decoding, letter knowledge, and word recognition.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Empirical studies and reviews were surveyed in order to develop the criteria by which studies would be included and excluded from the analysis. After careful consideration of relevant factors the following criteria were used.

Participants: studies of learners of English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) were included. Research with students learning to read in English as their first language was excluded. Studies of students beyond middle school age were excluded from the analysis as were studies of students with learning disabilities.

Design: Studies of those learning to read in languages other than English were excluded as were those published in a language other than English. Studies with other outcome variables such as spelling were the outcomes measured were excluded. Statistics including means, standard deviations, participant numbers, p-values, etc., were necessary to calculate Hedge’s g effect size to perform the meta-analysis. The independent variables in included studies was required to be PA and/or phonics instruction and the dependent variable had to be a measure of word or pseudo word reading.

Intervention: the intervention had to be based upon phonological awareness or phonics instruction. Interventions that focused upon other aspects of L2 reading such as fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension were not included in the analysis.

Coding of Study Characteristics and Effect Sizes

The coding process was conducted as follows: the author, title, year, type of publication, and sample size were recorded first. Next, information about the study’s participant and study characteristics was noted. Participant characteristics included the sample grade and first language writing system. The first language writing systems were classified into alphabetic, abjad, syllabary, and logographic. The study characteristics were also recorded including the research design and assessment type. Research design was categorized into whether the study used a pretest-posttest with no control group, a pretest-posttest with a control group or a posttest only with a treatment and control group.

After that, information was recorded about the interventions themselves. Intervention characteristics included the type of instructional approach which were categorized into those whose intervention included PA only versus those with only a phonics intervention and lastly those studies that included a combination of both PA and phonics instruction. Information was also documented pertaining to intervention implementation. This included the instructional context which was separated into second (e.g., the US or the UK) and foreign (e.g., Korea or Russia) language contexts. The second category with regard to intervention implementation was the duration of instruction was grouped into 1 to 500, 501 to 1,000, 1,001 to 2,000, and 2,001+ minutes.

Rationale for Each Moderator

Research design: Pretest-posttest control group (CG) designs are commonly thought to be the gold standard in experimental methodology, but a large number of other published studies are either post-test only designs or pre-post designs without a CG. This analysis could establish whether these alternative designs yield significantly different effect sizes (ES) than pretest-posttest control group (CG) designs.

Assessment type: A sizable proportion of the studies have used researcher-developed assessments to measure student decoding variables while others have used standardized instruments. A comparison of the results of studies using the two types of assessments should provide some insight into whether or not there is any significant differences in ES between them.

Instructional approach: Various approaches to phonics instruction have been used in these intervention studies with include instructional approaches based on either PA, phonics, or a combination of PA and phonics. Detecting differences in ES among these instructional approaches would provide valuable information to educators considering which approach to use with their students.

Instructional context: The distinction is typically made between those learning in second versus foreign language contexts. This moderator analysis can help to establish whether differences in the instructional context has any bearing on students’ decoding performance.

Duration of instruction: It is widely assumed that the more time learners spend learning a particular skill the better they will be able to use that skill. This analysis can investigate this claim with respect to the effect of instruction duration on L2 decoding performance.

Type of L1 writing system: English learners’ L1’s are written with different kinds of writing systems (i.e., alphabet, alpha-syllabary, abjad, and logographic). This analysis may provide insight into whether the type of writing system of the L1 had any bearing on their L2 decoding ability.

Educational stage: The grade level of the learner is commonly investigated in relation to L2 reading instructional interventions. The widely-held assumption that will be investigated here is that earlier interventions yield greater positive L2 decoding outcomes for students.

Effect Size Extraction and Data-Analytic Strategy

Effect size (ES) has been described as “a quantitative reflection of a magnitude of some phenomenon that is used for the purpose of addressing a question of interest” (Kelley & Preacher, 2012, p. 140). In the present investigation, the ES represents the magnitude of the influence of the PA/phonics instructional intervention on L2 word and pseudo word reading. A summative mean effect size was calculated from the weighted effect sizes using inverse-variance weights to evaluate the intervention’s effectiveness. Studies that had larger samples were weighted more heavily because the effect sizes from these studies are usually more precise (Card, 2015).

Data were extracted and coded from 45 articles (containing 46 unique studies) that satisfied the inclusion criteria. These data were entered into the “Metafor” (Viechtbauer, 2010) package in the R statistical programing language (R Core Team, 2020) to compute the overall mean effect sizes and perform the moderator analysis. The “esc” (Lüdecke, 2019) package within R was also used to convert results from pre-post and posttest only studies into Hedge’s g for this analysis. Hedge’s g was selected as the effect size statistic in this analysis over Cohen’s d because several of the studies had relatively small sample sizes and Hedge’s g adds a correction factor for studies with small samples.

A random effects model was used for the computing the mean effect size. This model is the most appropriate when data originates from a collection of studies conducted by different researchers in various contexts calling into doubt the assumption that they share a common effect size. A random effects model is also more suitable when aspiring to generalize to a wider range of populations which is the aim of this meta-analysis (Borenstein et al., 2007).

Potential Publication Bias and Moderator Analysis

Publication bias is the tendency of studies that report small or non-significant effects to be underrepresented in the published literature (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). A funnel plot inspection as well as rank and regression tests for funnel plot asymmetry were employed to check for the publication bias. Visual inspection of the funnel plot did not show distinct asymmetry which indicates minimal publication bias in the sample for both the word and pseudo word reading data. Egger’s regression test for funnel plot asymmetry was also conducted. The Egger test evaluates the statistical significance of the intercept in an unweighted simple regression between the effect size indices and their standard errors. A non-significant result indicates no publication bias. The result of the Egger test was not significant with z = 1.07, p = .281 for pseudo word reading data and z = 0.848, p = .396 for word reading data. The Begg rank correlation test was performed as well. It tests whether Kendall’s rank correlation between the effect sizes and their variances equals zero. The test can be used to examine whether the observed outcomes and the corresponding sampling variances are correlated. A high correlation would indicate that the funnel plot is asymmetric suggesting publication bias. The result of the rank correlation test was not significant with Kendall’s τ = 0.149, p = .184 for word reading data and τ = 0.22, p = .14 for pseudo word reading data which indicates no publication bias. The results from the visual inspection of the funnel plots as well as both the Egger and Begg tests all show no evidence of serious publication bias in the sample of studies used in this meta-analysis.

A sensitivity analysis was also performed to determine whether the results of the study were disproportionately influenced by deviant data points or possible outliers. Visual inspection of a forest plot that was sorted according study precision indicated no strong relationship between the precision of the study and the effect size estimate which does not imply the presence of availability bias for neither the word reading nor the pseudo word reading studies. An inspection of the residuals to ensure that none deviated substantially from the mean indicated that two studies in the word reading data and two studies in the pseudo word reading data had z-scores that were larger than two but none were larger than 2.5. This result suggests that none of the studies included in the analysis deviate excessively from the mean. A “leave-one-out” analysis showed that removing any study from the analysis would not result in substantial change in the overall outcome estimate. Therefore, the inclusion of all studies in the analysis was justified.

Initial results indicating a significant amount of heterogeneity in overall effect size results prompted the decision to pursue a follow up analysis of various potential moderator variables because effect sizes did not appear to represent a common population mean (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). The characteristics of the studies themselves (i.e., designs and assessments), features of the interventions (i.e., instructional approach), implementation of the intervention (i.e., context and duration) as well as characteristics of the participants (i.e., L1 writing system and educational stage) were incorporated into the analysis because these variables have been established as being important factors in L2 education. These moderators were individually evaluated through a series of Q tests.

Results

An overall mean effect size for word reading was calculated from 36 effect sizes taken from 35 different studies based upon the random-effects method utilizing the restricted maximum likelihood estimator. A moderate and statistically significant mean effect size was identified for the effect of phonics instruction on L2 word reading skills: g = 0.53 (SE = 0.12), 95% CI = [0.27, 0.79], and t(35) = 4.17, p < .001. These findings suggest that phonics instruction supports the development of word decoding ability of English learners. The results shown in Table 1 represent the estimated effect sizes, the standard error and the 95% CI for each effect size for both the word reading and pseudo word reading variables. The pre-post experimental-control group studies are located in the upper section of the table, the post-test-only between-group studies are found in the middle section, and the within-group studies in the bottom section.

Table 1.

Treatment Effects for Experimental- Versus Control-Group Comparisons.

Study	N	Word reading				Pseudo word reading
Study	N	g	SE	95% CI lower	95% CI upper	g	SE	95% CI lower	95% CI upper
Treatment effects for pretest, posttest, control group designs
Chu and Chen (2014)	117	−0.21	0.02	−0.69	0.27
Salas Morales (2018)	36	0.9	0.06	0.17	1.63
Denton et al. (2004)	33	0.37	0.05	−0.26	1.00	−0.13	0.004	−0.57	0.31
Gerber et al. (2004)	43	−0.15	0.08	−1.21	0.91	−1.19	0.011	−2.23	−0.15
Gunn et al. (2005)	159	0.08	0.01	−0.27	0.43	0.81	0.004	0.37	1.25
Huang (2010)	50					−0.01	0.007	−0.63	0.61
Huo (2017)	93	−0.22	0.02	−0.72	0.28	0.63	0.004	0.24	1.02
Li and Chen (2016)	40	0.99	0.05	0.27	1.71	1.19	0.007	0.57	1.81
Nasrawi and Al-Jamal (2017)	58	0.1	0.03	−0.37	0.57
Nishanimut et al. (2013)	40	1	0.05	0.35	1.65	0.77	0.007	0.12	1.42
Park and Jeong (2005)	68	0.63	0.03	0.06	1.20
Takeda (2002)	179	1.22	0.01	0.79	1.65
Troia (2004)	191	0.26	0.01	−0.02	0.54	0.20	0.003	−0.08	0.48
Yeung et al. (2013)	76	0.4	0.02	−0.02	0.82	1.74	0.006	1.19	2.29
Yeung and Savage (2020)	71	0.02	0.03	−0.54	0.58
Sun et al. (2013)	80					−0.15	0.004	−0.54	0.24
Chu (2017)	206	0.37	0.01	0.02	0.72
Dixon et al. (2011)	506	0.49	0.005	0.23	0.75
Wu (2005)	55	−0.32	0.07	−1.34	0.70
Baker et al. (2016)	78	−0.01	0.04	−0.83	0.81	0.02	0.005	−0.46	0.50
Kamps et al. (2007)	88	−0.55	0.02	−1.05	−0.05	2.81	0.007	2.19	3.43
Leafstedt et al. (2004)	64	0.44	0.05	−0.43	1.31
Yang (2009)	67	2	0.04	1.34	2.66
Yeung (2012)	60	0.24	0.03	−0.22	0.70
Yeung (2012)	66	0.18	0.02	−0.26	0.62	1.51	0.006	0.96	2.06
Gunn et al. (2002)	120					0.73	0.004	0.39	1.07
Solari and Gerber (2008)	27	−0.41	0.07	−1.14	0.32	0.05	0.007	−0.57	0.67
Cirino et al. (2009)	142					0.50	0.006	−0.05	1.05
Umezinwa and Udogu (2018)	100	1.18	0.08	−0.43	2.79
Ng (2006)	118	−0.16	0.02	−0.76	0.44
Cheung (1999)	163	0.43	0.01	−0.04	0.90
Treatment effects for between groups studies
Farokhbakht and Nejadansari (2015)	100	2.12	0.02	1.63	2.61
Huo (2019)	90					0.94	0.004	0.55	1.33
Karimkhanlooei and Seifiniya (2015)	40	1.41	0.05	0.72	2.10
Slavin and Madden (1999)	50	0.05	0.04	−0.51	0.61	2.74	0.009	1.98	3.50
Tsiadimos (2015)	74	0.63	0.02	0.16	1.10
Vaughn et al. (2006)	41					−0.34	0.007	−0.96	0.28
Yen (2004)	41	−0.5	0.04	−1.12	0.12
Treatment effects for within group studies
Chen (2018)	23	2.33	0.08	1.57	3.09
McCain (2008)	79	1.09	0.01	0.81	1.37
Limsukhawat et al. (2016)	36	2.35	0.05	1.75	2.95
Linan-Thompson et al. (2003)	26					0.51	0.006	−0.01	1.03
Quiroga et al. (2002)	8	0.97	0.18	−0.07	2.01	0.56	0.011	−0.44	1.56
Walter (2010)	20					2.43	0.009	1.62	3.24
Healy et al. (2005)	19					2.62	0.010	1.77	3.47

A heterogeneity analysis yielded a result of Q (35) = 242.26, p < .001 demonstrated statistically significant heterogeneity in effect sizes in the word reading studies. Similarly, an I² of 88.53% also indicated considerable variability among effect sizes in the sample. Therefore, the inclusion of a moderator analysis to possibly account for this unexplained heterogeneity was warranted.

The mean effect size calculated for pseudo word reading was g = 0.79 (SE = 0.202), 95% CI = [0.37, 1.21], and t(23) = 3.92, p < .001. This result suggests that teaching L2 readers using PA and/or phonics methods has a statistically significant and large effect on their ability to decode pseudo words in English. However, as with the word reading result reported above, a statistically significant result of Q (23) = 224.79, p < .001 as well as an I² statistic indicates the percentage of the variability in effect estimates due to heterogeneity equaled 94.12%. This amount of heterogeneity in the effect sizes also justified a moderator analysis of the studies with effect sizes for pseudo word reading.

The Moderator Analyses for Word Reading Variables

Study characteristics

Results for the three different research designs shown in Table 2 revealed significant differences among them (Q = 42.46, p < .001). That is, the studies with a pretest-posttest control group design (g = 0.33) had significantly lower effect sizes than those with a posttest only design (g = 0.75). The within subjects studies with only a pretest-posttest design and no control group had the highest mean effect size (g = 1.68) which was significantly higher than the other two types of studies. These results indicate a substantial difference in effect size depending on the design of the study.

Table 2.

Moderator Analysis for Experimental- Versus Control-Group Comparisons for Word Reading Results.

Group	Moderator		g	k	SE	95% CI lower	95% CI upper	QM ^a
Study characteristics	Research design	Pretest-posttest CG	0.33	27	0.12	0.09	0.56	42.46*
		Posttest CG	0.75	5	0.27	0.21	1.29
		Pretest posttest	1.68	4	0.32	1.05	2.31
	Assessment type	Researcher-designed	0.71	18	0.17	0.35	1.07	9.27*
	Assessment type	Standardized	0.26	16	0.18	−0.12	0.64	9.27*
Intervention implementation	Instructional approach	PA	0.46	9	0.24	−0.03	0.96	8.57*
		Phonics	0.76	20	0.16	0.43	1.09
		PA/phonics	−0.03	7	0.27	−0.59	0.52
	Instructional context	Second language	0.26	19	0.16	−0.05	0.58	26.81*
	Instructional context	Foreign language	0.83	17	0.16	0.50	1.16	26.81*
	Duration of instruction	1–500 minutes	0.48	10	0.25	−0.012	0.98	14.81*
		501–1,000	0.55	9	0.26	0.04	1.06
		1,001–2,000	0.49	6	0.33	−0.14	1.13
		2,001+	0.69	5	0.32	0.04	1.35
Participant characteristics	Type of L1 writing system	Alphabet	0.39	13	0.17	0.04	0.73	27.92*
		Alpha-syllab.	1.68	2	0.44	0.82	2.55
		Abjad	0.30	2	0.40	−0.48	1.09
		Logographic	0.43	15	0.15	0.12	0.74
	Edstage	Primary	0.43	23	0.15	0.10	0.75	7.53*
		Elementary	0.56	9	0.25	0.04	1.08
		Mid. School	1.72	2	0.53	0.63	2.80

Knapp and Hartung (2003) adjusted F ratio results are reported for the variables that have two categories (e.g., assessment type).

significant at p < 0.05.

Learners also showed significant differences in the mean effect sizes for their L2 word reading performance depending on the type of assessment used to measure their L2 word reading (Q = 9.27, p < .001). Studies that used standardized assessments tended to report smaller effect sizes (g = 0.26) than those that relied upon researcher designed assessment tools (g = 0.71). Thus, it appears that the type of assessment tool used to measure learners’ progress can influence their performance so that studies using standardized assessments demonstrate substantially less growth in English L2 word reading.

Intervention implementation

The instructional approach that was used during the studies was also shown to impact learners’ L2 word reading performance (Q = 8.57, p < .001). Studies that were based on a combination of PA/phonics (g = -0.03) had the lowest effect size while those that relied upon PA had a significantly higher moderate effect size (g = 0.46) and those that used a phonics-based approach exclusively reported the largest mean effect size of all (g = 0.76). This result suggests that using a phonics-based approach is the most effective method to support the development of word reading in English as an L2.

The difference between second (g = 0.26) and foreign (g = 0.83) language instructional context was statistically significant as well (Q = 26.81, p < .001). Second language instructional contexts showed small effect sizes but those in foreign language instructional contexts were found to be considerably larger. This result indicates that phonics instruction promotes L2 word reading more effectively in foreign language than in second language contexts.

The duration of the phonics instruction was another moderator included in the analysis. Statistically significant differences were identified between the various time durations given for phonics instruction across the studies included in the analysis (Q = 14.81, p = .005). Generally, the studies showed medium effect sizes that increased as the duration of time devoted to phonics instruction increased. Investigations that spent from 1 to 500 minutes on phonics instruction had a moderate mean effect size of (g = 0.48) while those that allotted 501 to 1,000 minutes had a moderate effect size of (g = 0.55). Studies that had students learn about phonics from 1,001 to 2,000 minutes reported a moderate mean effect of (g = 0.49) and those who received phonics instruction for longer than 2,001 minutes had the largest effect size (g = 0.69). Thus, the more time is devoted to phonics instruction, the larger the effect of the instruction on English L2 word reading appears to be.

Participant characteristics

A significant difference in effect sizes for L2 word reading was identified among the different L1 writing systems included in each of the various studies (Q = 27.92, p < .001). Statistically significant mean effect sizes in the small to medium range were observed for learners from alphabet (g = 0.39) and logographic (g = 0.43) backgrounds. A small to medium effect was found for learners from abjad L1 writing systems (g = 0.30) but it was not significant and the number of studies this result was based upon was limited (k = 2). A large and significant effect was found for learners from L1 backgrounds that were alpha-syllabaries (g = 1.68) but the low number of studies (k = 2) this finding was based upon leaves it open to criticism. Nevertheless, these results suggest that the type of L1 writing system background of the learner may influence their L2 word reading.

The other participant characteristic included in the analysis was educational stage. With regard to educational stage, there was a statistically significant relationship to the English word reading depending on the educational stage that the learners in a given study were at (Q = 7.53, p < .001). Those at the primary (g = 0.43) and elementary (g = 0.56) levels showed moderate effect sizes while those at the middle school level (g = 1.72) had a large effect size. Thus, the effect of PA/phonics instruction on their English L2 word reading seems to have a relationship to the grade they were in when they received that instruction. However, it should be noted that the middle school results were based on a low number of studies (k = 2).

The Moderator Analyses for Pseudo Word Reading Variables

Studies characteristics

As shown in Table 3, significant differences were observed in the mean effect sizes for learners’ L2 pseudo word reading depending on the research design that was used for the study (Q = 5.76, p = .005). The pretest-posttest CG design yielded a statistically significant medium effect size of (g = 0.60). The posttest-only CG had a large effect size but it was not significant (g = 1.08). Studies with a pretest posttest within-group only design had a large and significant effect (g = 1.51). These results indicate that differences exist in the effect of phonics instruction on L2 learners’ reading of pseudo words depending on the research design used. However, both the posttest only (k = 3) and within groups designs (k = 4) consisted of relatively few studies so care must be taken in interpreting these results.

Table 3.

Moderator Analysis for Experimental- Versus Control-Group Comparisons for Pseudo Word Reading Results.

Group	Moderator		g	k	SE	95% CI lower	95% CI upper	Q ^a
Study characteristics	Research design	Pretest-posttest CG	0.60	16	0.25	0.07	1.13	5.76*
		Posttest CG	1.08	3	0.58	−0.14	2.30
		Pretest posttest	1.51	4	0.53	0.40	2.62
	Assessment type	Researcher-designed	0.58	9	0.34	−0.13	1.30	7.39*
	Assessment type	Standardized	0.96	14	0.27	0.38	1.54	7.39*
Interventions characteristics	Instructional approach	PA	0.82	7	0.37	0.07	1.56	15.50*
		Phonics	0.83	6	0.40	0.04	1.61
		PA/phonics	0.80	10	0.31	0.18	1.41
Intervention implementation	Instructional context	Second language	0.90	18	0.23	0.44	1.35	16.54*
	Instructional context	Foreign language	0.51	5	0.43	−0.32	1.36	16.54*
	Duration of instruction	1–500 minutes	0.26	8	0.16	−0.05	0.58	75.37*
		501–1,000	1.98	4	0.24	1.50	2.45
		1,001–2,000	0.16	3	0.24	−0.31	0.65
		2,001+	0.41	5	0.18	0.05	0.76
Participant characteristics	Type of L1 writing system	Alphabet	0.52	13	0.22	0.07	0.97	13.48*
		Alpha-syllab.	0.77	1	0.83	−0.86	2.40
		Logographic	0.82	7	0.30	0.23	1.42
	Edstage	Primary	0.17	17	0.23	−0.66	1.01	9.60*
	Edstage	Elementary	1.03	6	0.40	0.54	1.53	9.60*

Knapp and Hartung (2003) adjusted F ratio results are reported for the variables that have two categories (e.g., assessment type).

significant at p < 0.05.

Assessment type was another potential moderator variable that was investigated. In this case, a large and significant difference was observed between studies that used assessments designed by the researcher (g = 0.58) and those that incorporated standardized assessments (g = 0.96) (Q = 7.39, p = .003). As these results show, investigations that used standardized instruments have a large effect which suggests that learners demonstrate substantial growth in their L2 pseudo word reading ability when standardized assessment tools to measure it.

Interventions characteristics

Characteristics of the interventions themselves were also considered as possible moderators between PA/phonics instruction and learner pseudo word reading performance. Instructional approach was explored as a potential moderator and significant differences were found in effect sizes depending on the instructional approach that learners experienced (Q = 15.50, p = .001). Those who were exposed to an approach designed to focus on PA showed a large and significant effect on their L2 pseudo word reading (g = 0.82) as did those who received primarily phonics-oriented instruction (g = 0.83) and a combination of both PA and phonics (g = 0.80) instruction. This shows that while all three instructional approaches are effective for promoting L2 pseudo word reading, combining both PA and phonics in the same program may be the least effective.

Intervention implementation

Several potential moderators related to the implementation of the PA/phonics intervention were also analyzed. One of these was the instructional context. Findings showed studies that occurred in second language environments had large and significant effects (g = 0.90) while those that took place in foreign language settings showed moderate and non-significant results (g = 0.52) (Q = 16.54, p < .001). This shows that PA and/or phonics instruction is considerably more effective in second language contexts than in foreign language contexts.

Analysis of the duration of the instruction period showed statistically significant differences among the mean effect sizes across the various time periods (Q = 75.37, p < .001). A small effect size (g = 0.26) was associated with learners receiving instruction for anywhere from 1 to 500 minutes. A much larger mean effect size (g = 1.98) was noted in studies where the intervention lasted between 501 and 1,000 minutes. In studies where learners were instructed for between 1,001 and 2,000 minutes, a small non-significant mean effect was found (g = 0.16). However, a small to medium effect size (g = 0.41) was observed when learners received instruction for 2,001 or more minutes. These effects suggest that L2 phonics instruction has most impact on pseudo word reading when it lasts for between 501 and 1,000 minutes.

Participant characteristics

The potential influence of L1 writing system was investigated as a possible moderator in the analysis. Statistically significant differences existed between studies of learners with different L1 writing systems (Q = 13.48, p = .003). In studies of learners with alphabetic L1’s, a significant and moderate mean effect size (g = 0.52) was obtained. As well, a moderate to large effect size (g = 0.82) was typically reported for English learners whose L1 writing system was logographic. A comparable effect size (g = 0.77) was observed for learners whose L1 writing was based upon an alpha-syllabary. Taken together, these results imply that there are meaningful differences in the L2 pseudo word reading performance of learners from different L1 writing systems but considering the limited number of studies for some L1 writing systems (i.e., alpha-syllabary) these findings should be interpreted with some caution (Tipton, 2015).

There was also a statistically significant relationship to the English pseudo word reading depending on the educational stage of the learners (Q = 9.60, p = .001). Those in the primary grades (g = 0.17) had a small effect size while those in the elementary grades had a large mean effect size (g = 1.03). Thus, PA/phonics instruction is more effective for developing the English L2 pseudo word reading ability for learners in the elementary rather than the primary grades.

Discussion

The overall effectiveness for L2 phonics instruction was found to be moderate for L2 word reading and large for pseudo word reading. These moderate to large mean effect sizes both generally are in accordance with results from other studies that PA/phonics instruction supports decoding skill development and word reading ability (August & Shanahan, 2007; August et al., 2014; Cheung & Slavin, 2012; Han, 2015; Irujo, 2007; Murphy & Unthiah, 2015).

A number of studies produced moderately negative effect sizes (i.e., Baker et al., 2016; Kamps et al., 2007; Solari & Gerber, 2008; Yen, 2004) that contrasted with the results presented by most other studies. There are at least two possible explanations for these somewhat unexpected results. Yen’s (2004) study was an unpublished masters’ thesis study conducted by a novice researcher which may explain the substantial divergence of its results from those of most other peer-reviewed investigations. In the case of Baker et al. (2016), Kamps et al. (2007), and Solari and Gerber (2008), these studies all contained sizable numbers of at-risk learners. This relatively high proportion of at-risk learners within the sample may account for the discrepancy in their findings and those of most of the other studies in the analysis.

Moderator analyses pointed to some differences in effect sizes for both word and pseudo word reading depending on the assessment type that was used in the study. While previous research did not specifically examine discrepancies in results between studies conducted with standardized or researcher-designed measures, some researchers have voiced concerns about how L2 literacy related constructs have been defined, operationalized and measured in previous research (Choi & Zhang, 2021; Han, 2015). Thus, the results of the present analysis agree that discrepancies may exist with the operationalization and measurement of L2 literacy variables in this research like word and pseudoword reading that could offer an explanation for why there are substantial differences in their ES depending on the type of assessment used in the research.

Instructional approach results showed that PA/phonics interventions had a small effect size for word reading in comparison to medium effects for PA and large effects for phonics instruction alone. Significant differences were observed for pseudo word reading but PA, phonics, and PA/phonics all had large and similar effect sizes. Thus, all approaches appeared to be more effective for pseudo word reading possibly because all approaches focus on teaching decoding skills and pseudo word reading relies more on decoding skills than real word reading.

Learners who received their instruction in second language contexts showed a small mean effect on their L2 word reading while those taught in foreign language settings displayed a large mean effect size. Somewhat unexpectedly, the opposite was found for L2 pseudo word reading. A possible explanation for this discrepancy might be that EFL teachers encourage the practice of decoding pseudo words more than ESL teachers possibly because they do not face the same pressing concerns as ESL teachers to prepare learners to read in their content classes. Only additional research can confirm the veracity of this speculation.

Previous meta-analyses of L2 reading instruction did not discuss the role that factors such as instructional context, and duration of instruction play in PA/phonics instruction and L2 word and pseudo word reading development. Given the somewhat counterintuitive findings presented here, additional investigation of these moderators appears warranted.

Findings for the L1 writing system moderator were that PA/phonics instruction appears to support the development of pseudo word reading for learners from logographic L1 backgrounds more than for those from alphabetic L1 backgrounds. Previous meta-analyses and literature reviews concurred that L1 to L2 distance moderates L2 decoding performance (Jeon & Yamashita, 2014; Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2011) and learners from alphabetic or non-alphabetic L1s perform differently on measures of word recognition (Han, 2015). Fortunately, as demonstrated both here and in previous research, literacy skills transfer between the L1 and L2 (Snyder et al., 2017), but teachers may still need to tailor their PA/phonics instruction to teach the specific phonemes that are absent from the learners’ L1 (Irujo, 2007).

The findings from this meta-analysis support the use of phonics instruction in the L2 reading classroom and demonstrate that phonics instruction can improve L2 word reading and pseudo word decoding although the moderators discussed above should also be taken into account. Debate among theoreticians and researchers has long continued about the role of phonics instruction in the first and second language reading classroom. Second-language researchers and educators have historically tended to encourage more of a whole-language based approaches (Birch, 2014). However, in recent years, somewhat of a shift in attitude has occurred toward a more balanced view of L2 literacy instruction that incorporates the best practices of both whole language and phonics instruction (Gunderson et al., 2020).

Based upon the conclusions reported here, policymakers should consider providing beginning learners of English as an L2 with phonics instruction. Likewise, L2 pre-service and in-service reading teachers who are less knowledgeable about phonics instruction should seek training to teach phonics effectively to enable their learners to decode the target language better. This decoding ability is the vital first step to reading, enjoying and ultimately learning the target language.

This meta-analysis has also exposed some possible issues with the current research base that suggest some caution when interpreting the results. First, there are potential concerns about quality in some of the studies. Several failed to report sufficient information about the background characteristics of the learners (e.g., age, gender etc.), the experimental intervention, and the assessment instruments used. As well, some studies were technically pre-experimental because they did not include a control group. This limitation leaves designs open to criticisms regarding their inability to account for threats to their internal validity. A related limitation was the wide variety of assessments used to evaluate learners’ reading ability made it difficult to directly compare their results. This oversight was compounded by the fact that instrument validity and reliability was often discussed in vague terms or ignored altogether.

These limitations can threaten the conclusions of the present meta-analysis because they may call into question the validity of the studies upon which these results are based. Nevertheless, pointing out these weaknesses in the existing research does not necessarily negate the value of these investigations because the limitations mentioned above are common in social science research in general. Thus, the best we can do at present is to acknowledge and learn from them as we strive to produce more carefully-designed research going forward. Reports of future studies should include more complete and detailed information about instrumentation to clearly demonstrate their validity and reliability. Additionally, researchers should make great efforts to design and conduct more true experiments that include important characteristics such as the inclusion of a control group and the random assignment of participants to experimental conditions.

Conclusion

The present meta-analysis has examined a relatively large sample of the extant empirical studies of L2 PA and phonics instructional interventions and demonstrated that they have a moderate effect on L2 word reading and a large effect on pseudo word reading. Moderator analyses has revealed that standardized tests yielded different effects than researcher designed tests for both the word and pseudo word reading variables. PA/phonics interventions have a small effect for word reading in comparison to medium effects for PA and large effects for phonics instruction alone. PA/phonics, PA, and phonics all have a moderate effect for pseudo word reading. Second language learners showed a smaller effect on their L2 word reading than foreign language learners, but the opposite was found for pseudo word reading.

Even though current research efforts have provided us with valuable insights, important work remains to be done. For example, additional research can provide us with a more fine-grained understanding of the interaction between learners’ personal characteristics (e.g., age, L1 reading ability etc.) and instructional techniques and approaches to which they are exposed. Hopefully, the limitations in existing research pointed out here will also be given careful consideration in future investigations so that the quality of the research that we produce in this important area will only continue to improve.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Disclosure

The author certifies that he has no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

ORCID iD

Dennis Murphy Odo

References

Adesope

O. O.

Lavin

Thompson

Ungerleider

(2011). Pedagogical strategies for teaching literacy to ESL immigrant students: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 629–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.02015.x

August

McCardle

Shanahan

(2014). Developing literacy in English language learners: Findings from a review of the experimental research. School Psychology Review, 43(4), 490–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2014.12087417

August

Shanahan

(Eds.). (2007). Developing reading and writing in second-language learners: Lessons from the report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Routledge, Center for Applied Linguistics & The National Reading Association.

Baker

D. L.

Burns

Kame’enui

E. J.

Smolkowski

Baker

S. K.

(2016). Does supplemental instruction support the transition from Spanish to English reading instruction for first-grade English learners at risk of reading difficulties? Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(4), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715616757

Birch

B. M.

(2014). English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom. Routledge.

Borenstein

Hedges

Rothstein

(2007). Meta-analysis: Fixed effect vs. random effects. Meta-Analysis.com. https://www.meta-analysis.com/downloads/Meta-analysis%20fixed%20effect%20vs%20random%20effects%20072607.pdf

Card

N. A.

(2015). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. Guilford Publications.

Chen

I.-C.

(2018). The application of augmented reality in English phonics learning performance of ESL young learners [Conference session]. 1st international cognitive cities conference (IC3), Okinawa, Japan (pp. 255–259). https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3.2018.000-7

Cheung

A. C. K.

Slavin

R. E.

(2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 82(4), 351–395. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312465472

10.

Cheung

(1999). Improving phonological awareness and word reading in a later learned alphabetic script. Cognition, 70(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00074-2

11.

Choi

Zhang

(2021). The relative role of vocabulary and grammatical knowledge in L2 reading comprehension: A systematic review of literature. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0033

12.

Chu

M.-C.

Chen

S.-H.

(2014). Comparison of the effects of two phonics training programs on L2 word reading. Psychological Reports, 114(1), 272–291. https://doi.org/10.2466/28.10.PR0.114k17w0

13.

Chu

M.-H.

(2017). A comparison of phonics and phonetic symbols in ELT [Master’s thesis]. National Pingtung University.

14.

Cirino

P. T.

Vaughn

Linan-Thompson

Cardenas-Hagan

Fletcher

J. M.

Francis

D. J.

(2009). One-year follow-up outcomes of Spanish and English interventions for English language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 744–781. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208330214

15.

Cooper

(2015). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (Vol. 2, 5th ed.). SAGE publications.

16.

Curtis

M. E.

(1980). Development of components of reading skill. Journal of Education & Psychology, 72(5), 656–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.72.5.656

17.

Denton

C. A.

Anthony

J. L.

Parker

Hasbrouck

J. E.

(2004). Effects of two tutoring programs on the English reading development of Spanish-English bilingual students. The Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 289–305.

18.

Dixon

Schagen

Seedhouse

(2011). The impact of an intervention on children’s reading and spelling ability in low-income schools in India. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(4), 461–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2011.625125

19.

Farokhbakht

Nejadansari

(2015). The effect of using synthetic multisensory phonics in teaching literacy on EFL young learners’ literacy learning. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 4(4), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2015.1196

20.

Gerber

Jimenez

Leafstedt

Villaruz

Richards

English

(2004). English reading effects of small-group intensive intervention in Spanish for K-1 English learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19(4), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00109.x

21.

Gunderson

D’Silva

Murphy Odo

R. D.

(2020). ESL (ELL) literacy instruction: A guidebook to theory and practice (4th ed.). Routledge.

22.

Gunn

Smolkowski

Biglan

Black

(2002). Supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school: A follow-up. Journal for Special Educators, 36(2), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669020360020201

23.

Gunn

Smolkowski

Biglan

Black

Blair

(2005). Fostering the development of reading skill through supplemental instruction: Results for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students. Journal for Special Educators, 39(2), 66–85.

24.

Han

(2015). Word recognition research in foreign language reading: A systematic review. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 10, 57–91.

25.

Healy

Vanderwood

Edelston

(2005). Early literacy interventions for English language learners: Support for an RTI model. The California School Psychologist, 10(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03340921

26.

Heilman

A. W.

(2002). Phonics in proper perspective (9th ed.). Merrill/Prentice Hall.

27.

Huang

(2010). The effects of rime analogy training on word reading for EFL sixth graders [Master’s thesis]. National Chengchi University.

28.

Huo

(2017). Influence of language immersion and phonological-based instruction on literacy skills of English language learners in Xi’an, China [Doctoral dissertation]. University of British Columbia. https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0362561

29.

Huo

(2019). Prediction of English word skills from oral proficiency and phonological awareness among EFL children: The impact of language learning environment. OSF Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/u6rd2

30.

Irujo

(2007). What does research tell us about teaching reading to English language learners. ELL Outlook. http://www.coursecrafters.com/what-does-research-tell-us-about-teaching-reading-to-english-language-learners/

31.

Jeon

E. H.

Yamashita

(2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 64(1), 160–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12034

32.

Kamps

Abbott

Greenwood

Arreaga-Mayer

Wills

Longstaff

Culpepper

Walton

(2007). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading instruction for English language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-tier intervention. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(3), 153–168.

33.

Karimkhanlooei

Seifiniya

(2015). Teaching alphabet, reading and writing for kids between 3-6 years old as a second language. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 769–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.090

34.

Kelley

Preacher

K. J.

(2012). On effect size. Psychological Methods, 17(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028086

35.

Knapp

Hartung

(2003). Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 2693–2710. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1482

36.

Leafstedt

J. M.

Richards

C. R.

Gerber

M. M.

(2004). Effectiveness of explicit phonological-awareness instruction for at-risk English learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19(4), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2004.00110.x

37.

Limsukhawat

Kaewyoun

Wongwatkit

Wongta

(2016). A development of augmented reality-supported mobile game application based on jolly phonics approach to enhancing English phonics learning performance of ESL learners [Conference session]. The 24th international conference on computers in education, “Think Global Act Local,” Mumbai, India (pp. 483–488). http://www.et.iitb.ac.in/icce2016/files/proceedings/ICCE%202016%20Main%20Conference%20Proceedings.pdf

38.

Linan-Thompson

Vaughn

Hickman-Davis

Kouzekanani

(2003). Effectiveness of supplemental reading instruction for second-grade English language learners with reading difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1086/499724

39.

Lipsey

M. W.

Wilson

D. B.

(2001). Practical meta-analysis. SAGE publications, Inc.

40.

Y. S.

Chen

S. H.

(2016). Relative effectiveness of phonological and morphological awareness training on L2 word reading in EFL children. System, 60, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.06.005

41.

Lüdecke

(2019). esc: Effect size computation for meta analysis (0.5.1) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=esc

42.

McCain

(2008). A comparison of the reading progress of English language speakers and learners, participating in an intensive, explicit, structured, phonics-based program [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Arizona. https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/194005

43.

Melby-Lervåg

Lervåg

(2011). Cross-linguistic transfer of oral language, decoding, phonological awareness and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(1), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01477.x

44.

Mesmer

H. A. E.

Griffith

P. L.

(2005). Everybody’s selling it—but just what is explicit, systematic phonics instruction? The Reading Teacher, 59(4), 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.59.4.6

45.

Murphy

V. A.

Unthiah

(2015). A systematic review of intervention research examining English language and literacy development in children with English as an additional language (EAL) (p. 67). Educational Endowment Foundation. https://d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/documents/guidance/EAL_Systematic_review.pdf

46.

Nasrawi

Al-Jamal

(2017). The effect of using jolly phonics on Jordanian first grade pupils’ reading. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 4(2), 106–119.

47.

S.-W. C.

(2006). The effects of direct instruction in phonological skills on L2 reading performance of Chinese learners of English [PhD thesis]. Institute of Education, University of London.

48.

Nishanimut

S. P.

Johnston

R. S.

Joshi

R. M.

Thomas

P. J.

Padakannaya

(2013). Effect of synthetic phonics instruction on literacy skills in an ESL setting. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.06.007

49.

Park

Jeong

(2005). Phonological awareness and word reading in an EFL context: Phoneme-based vs. onset/rime-based method. Elementary English Education, 11(1), 267–293.

50.

Quiroga

Lemos-Britton

Mostafapour

Abbott

R. D.

Berninger

V. W.

(2002). Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish-speaking ESL first graders: Research into practice. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 85–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4405(01)00095-4

51.

R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/

52.

Salas Morales

A. J

. (2018). Improving pronunciation through jolly phonics programme in early years [Master’s thesis]. University of Piura. https://pirhua.udep.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/11042/3729/MAE_EDUC_EILE-L_012.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

53.

Slavin

R. E.

Madden

(1999). Effects of bilingual and English as a second language adaptations of success for all on the reading achievement of students acquiring English. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 4(4), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327671espr0404_3

54.

Snyder

Witmer

S. E.

Schmitt

(2017). English language learners and reading instruction: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 61(2), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2016.1219301

55.

Solari

E. J.

Gerber

M. M.

(2008). Early comprehension instruction for Spanish-speaking English language learners: Teaching text-level reading skills while maintaining effects on word-level skills. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(4), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00273.x

56.

Stahl

S. A.

Murray

B. A.

(1994). Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to early reading. Journal of Education & Psychology, 86(2), 221–234.

57.

Sun

Zhou

Zhu

(2013). Effects of English phonological awareness training on Chinese child EFL learners’ literacy development. Canadian Social Science, 9(1), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.3968/j.css.1923669720130901.1049

58.

Takeda

(2002). The application of phonics to the teaching of reading in junior high school English classes in Japan. TESL Reporter, 35(2), 16–36.

59.

Tipton

(2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000011

60.

Troia

G. A.

(2004). Migrant students with limited English proficiency: Can Fast ForWord Language make a difference in their language skills and academic achievement? Remedial and Special Education, 25(6), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250060301

61.

Tsiadimos

(2015). Phonics-based instruction vs. Whole language approach: Their effect on young EFL learners’ reading accuracy and fluency [Master’s thesis]. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

62.

Umezinwa

R. N.

Udogu

C. O.

(2018). Effect of jolly Phonics on primary school pupils achievement on reading and spelling skills in Anambra state. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Educational Sciences, 6(6), 19–36.

63.

Varghese

J. L.

(2015). Relationship between oral language and reading comprehension for English learners: A systematic review [Master’s capstone project]. Hamline University. https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1131&context=hse_all

64.

Vaughn

Mathes

Linan-Thompson

Cirino

Carlson

Pollard-Durodola

Cardenas-Hagan

Francis

(2006). Effectiveness of an English intervention for First-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 153–180. https://doi.org/10.1086/510653

65.

Viechtbauer

(2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.

66.

Walter

(2010). The effects of intervention in phonemic awareness on the reading achievement of English language learners in kindergarten [EdD dissertation]. Northcentral University.

67.

Williams

C. H.

(2016). Teaching English reading in the Chinese-speaking world. Springer.

68.

C.-J.

(2005). A comparison of the effects of explicit phonics instruction and the revised silent way on EFL elementary students’ pronunciation [Master’s thesis]. National Cheng Kung University.

69.

Yang

H. C.

(2009). Improving phonological awareness and reading through rhyme picture books for EFL elementary school students [EdD dissertation]. Alliant International University.

70.

Yen

H.-Y.

(2004). An examination of the effect of explicit phonics instruction and authentic readings on EFL elementary pupils [Master’s thesis]. National Cheng Kung University.

71.

Yeung

(2012). Phonological awareness, oral language proficiency and beginning reading development among Hong Kong Chinese kindergarteners [EdD dissertation]. The University of Hong Kong.

72.

Yeung

S. S.

Savage

(2020). Teaching grapheme–phoneme correspondences using a direct mapping approach for at-risk second language learners: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419894563

73.

Yeung

S. S.

Siegel

L. S.

Chan

C. K.

(2013). Effects of a phonological awareness program on English reading and spelling among Hong Kong Chinese ESL children. Reading and Writing, 26(5), 681–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9383-6

74.

Yopp

H. K.

Yopp

R. H.

(2009). Phonological awareness is child’s play. Young Children, 64(1), 12–21.

A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Phonological Awareness and/or Phonics Instruction on Word and Pseudo Word Reading of English as an L2

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature review

Previous meta-analyses

Previous Systematic Literature Reviews

Previous Narrative Literature Reviews

Method

Literature Search Procedures

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Coding of Study Characteristics and Effect Sizes

Rationale for Each Moderator

Effect Size Extraction and Data-Analytic Strategy

Potential Publication Bias and Moderator Analysis

Results

The Moderator Analyses for Word Reading Variables

Study characteristics

Intervention implementation

Participant characteristics

The Moderator Analyses for Pseudo Word Reading Variables

Studies characteristics

Interventions characteristics

Intervention implementation

Participant characteristics

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Disclosure

ORCID iD

References