This is the following I wrote in my Concept paper Literature Review
Structured literacy
represents a shift in early grade reading instruction, marked by systematic,
direct, and explicit teaching of phonology, phonemic awareness, fluency,
vocabulary, and comprehension ( Duffy
et al., 2024; Dilgard et al., 2022). Given reading proficiency remains stagnant
across much of the K-12 landscape, understanding teacher viewpoints within
classrooms expected to deliver fledgling structured literacy programming bears
particular importance (McNeill et al., 2023 Wolfin & Gabriel, 2022). This
literature review examines the history of reading instruction and analyzes the
most recent literature and studies conducted on structured literacy
implementation, painting a picture with evidence of the need for further
research to explore teacher perceptions regarding this pedagogical transition.
Current State of Literacy Achievement
Structured literacy framework now serves as an umbrella
for systematic and explicit reading approaches supported by over 20 years of
accumulated research reaching back to the National Reading Panel in 2000 (
Dilgard et al.,2022; McNeill et al., 2023). Multiple studies have demonstrated
growth in academic achievement when utilizing explicit, systematic, and direct
teaching methods aligned to the science of reading (Hudson et al., 2021;
Semingson & Kerns, 2021). For example, kindergarteners exhibit accelerated
letter learning (Roberts, 2021), while both decoding and encoding skills are
enhanced (McNeill et al., 2023). Students with or at risk for dyslexia stand to
benefit greatly as well ( IDEA, 2022; Vizhi & Rathnasabapathy, 2023). A
five-year longitudinal study examined oral reading fluency and found results
significantly exceeding national norms after structured literacy-based professional
development (Duffy et al., 2024).
Current State of Teaching Phonics
While research demonstrated that explicit, systematic
instruction benefits students, a gap persists between educators’ knowledge and
actual implementation of evidence-based methods in classrooms (Nelson et al.
2022; Smith et al., 2023). Nelson et al. (2022) conducted a national survey of
293 superintendents exploring this misalignment of phonics curriculum. While
96% of leaders stated research-backed programs were crucial, only 5% selected
dedicated phonics curricula in the past three years, instead relying on basal
(54%) or leveled readers (27%). 21% marked the option as a “other” and no
clarification of that “other” was given. More alarmingly, over half utilized
assessments misaligned with science of reading principles. Smith et al. (2023)
corroborated the inconsistencies between instructional talk and action through
a 284-teacher survey. 75% of teachers reporting use of 4 or more reading
programs in their classroom and 50% applying some phonics-based program,
substantial minorities dedicated negligible time on decoding skills. For
example, only 17% of the 50% using phonics-based programs spend over 10 minutes
daily on explicit phonics instruction (Smith et al., 2023). Many literacy
program teachers currently used reflect a balanced literacy approach (Semingson
& Kerns, 2021; Smith et al., 2023). Balanced literacy blends elements of
phonics with whole language strategies, serving as a compromise from the “reading
wars’ ‘ after the National Reading Panel’s 2000 report (Semingson & Kerns,
2021). Across studies, data revealed a misalignment between scientific
research, instructional beliefs, and what happens inside classrooms daily
(Costantino-Lane, 2020; Nelson et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2023). Such divides
ultimately inhibit implementation fidelity and potential literacy gains.
Current State of Teacher Preparation
Students rely on teachers’ effective implementation of
professional knowledge in structured literacy to create academic gains (Ehri
& Flugman, 2018). Thus, successful policy execution requires examining
teacher preparation and ongoing development (Broemmel et al., 2022; Wulfin
& Gabriel, 2022). Multiple studies confirmed teacher training and support
immense impact on potential literacy achievement ( Duffy et al., 2024;
Filderman et al., 2022; Rodgers et al., 2022). For example, adaptive and
sustained professional learning can strengthen instructional transfer to
students (Broemmel et al., 2022; Lambert et al., 2022). Additionally, teacher
self-efficacy correlates to higher student outcomes (Costantino-Lane, 2020;
Rodgers et al., 2022). Teachers do not need to
have confidence in or endorse a particular intervention program to implement it
effectively. Rather, teachers simply need to have confidence in their own
abilities to carry out the intervention with students. If teachers believe in
themselves and their capacity to follow through on an intervention, that
self-efficacy is sufficient for successful implementation even if they are
skeptical about the intervention itself (Brommel et al., 2022; Filderman et
al., 2022) However, research gaps persist regarding teacher experiences
applying structured literacy post-training (Brommel et al., 2022; Rodgers et
al., 2022).
References are attached in the lit review reference page.
I will need the following— at least 50 more articles at least 75% within 5 years of my graduation date of September 2025.
Place the articles in article matrix
Put the references in the excel calculator
Write the literature review to the checklist requirements. I can get you a copy of the research purpose, problem and research question. Please reach out to me for any questions.
