Role of phonics instruction in developing reading, spelling and dictation skills of Grade 1 and Grade 2 students: A quasi-experimental study in private schools of Lahore, Pakistan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68065/joccd.05.01.168Keywords:
Phonics Instruction, Early Literacy, Reading, Spelling, Dictation, Primary Education, Quasi-Experimental Design, PakistanAbstract
The present study examined the effect of systematic phonics instruction on the reading, spelling and dictation skills of Grade 1 and Grade 2 students in private English-medium schools in Lahore. A quasi-experimental pre-test–post-test control group design was employed with 80 students drawn from intact classes through purposive sampling: 40 students (20 per grade) received a six-week systematic phonics programme, and 40 continued with traditional instruction. Literacy was measured with a 37-mark researcher-developed test of reading, spelling and dictation administered in parallel forms, and the data were analysed through independent-samples and paired-samples t-tests with effect sizes. After the intervention, the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group in reading, t(78) = 17.72, spelling, t(78) = 16.69, dictation, t(78) = 12.17, and overall achievement, t(78) = 21.30 (all p < .001), and its overall score rose from 46.8% to 89.5% of the maximum. The effect sizes were very large (d = 2.72–4.76). The study concludes that systematic phonics is a promising approach to foundational English literacy in early primary classrooms and recommends its structured inclusion in Grade 1 and Grade 2 teaching, supported by teacher training and decodable materials.
Downloads
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press.
ASER Pakistan. (2024). Annual Status of Education Report: ASER-Pakistan 2023 national. Idara-e-Taleem-o-Aagahi.
Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2016). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (6th ed.). Pearson.
Bowers, J. S. (2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271
Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2016). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16656615
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393
Fletcher, J. M., Savage, R., & Vaughn, S. (2021). A commentary on Bowers (2020) and the role of phonics instruction in reading. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 1249–1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09580-8
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27(9), 1703–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0
Huo, S., & Wang, S. (2017). The effectiveness of phonological-based instruction in English as a foreign language student at primary school level: A research synthesis. Frontiers in Education, 2, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00015
Johnston, R. S., & Watson, J. E. (2005). The effects of synthetic phonics teaching on reading and spelling attainment: A seven-year longitudinal study. Scottish Executive Education Department.
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
Malik, S., & Asif, S. I. (2022). Evaluation of phonics content in PTB primary grade textbooks and assessment schemes: Scope for technology-enhanced language learning (TELL) and assessment tools. International Journal of Linguistics and Culture, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.52700/ijlc.v3i1.85
Malik, S., Imdadullah, M., & Javed, M. (2024). Effectiveness of technology-enhanced language learning tools for phonics instruction: Implications for very young learners. Linguistics and Literature Review, 10(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.32350/llr.101.01
Nasrawi, A., & Al-Jamal, D. (2017). The effect of using Jolly Phonics on Jordanian first grade pupils’ reading. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 4(2), 106–119.
Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. Routledge.
National Curriculum Council. (2020). Single National Curriculum: English (Grades I–V). Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training, Government of Pakistan.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Ouellette, G., & Sénéchal, M. (2008). Pathways to literacy: A study of invented spelling and its role in learning to read. Child Development, 79(4), 899–913. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01166.x
Rahman, T. (2004). Denizens of alien worlds: A study of education, inequality and polarization in Pakistan. Oxford University Press.
Rashid, S., Malik, S., & Khan, J. A. (2025). Exploring technology-enhanced language learning tools for interest-based phonics instruction: An experimental study of Pakistani primary grade learners. Cogent Education, 12(1), Article 2556354. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2556354
Roberts, T. A., & Meiring, A. (2006). Teaching phonics in the context of children’s literature or spelling: Influences on first-grade reading, spelling, and writing and fifth-grade comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 690–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.690
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19, 39.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Shamim, F. (2008). Trends, issues and challenges in English language education in Pakistan. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(3), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790802267324
Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00645-2
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press.
Torgerson, C. J., Brooks, G., & Hall, J. (2006). A systematic review of the research literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling (Research Report RR711). Department for Education and Skills.
Treiman, R. (2017). Learning to spell words: Findings, theories, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1296449
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hira Jamil, Dr. Amir Hashmi, Zobia Kanwal (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
