Phonics instruction is a hotly debated topic in the realm of language education. While it is well-established in first language (L1) literacy programmes, its role in second language (L2) acquisition remains less clear. Yet recent policy developments are making this debate increasingly urgent: phonics teaching is mandated by the current National Curriculum in England, and from 2026, the new GCSE Modern Foreign Languages specification will include a reading aloud component. This new emphasis places decoding—and with it, phonics—at the heart of formal language assessment for the first time in decades.

Before diving into the research, it’s important to clarify a key distinction: phonics involves the explicit teaching of the relationships between graphemes (letters) and phonemes (sounds), often through systematic decoding instruction. Phonological awareness, on the other hand, refers to a broader, more implicit sensitivity to the sound structure of language, including the ability to segment and manipulate sounds in spoken words. While related, these are not interchangeable. A learner might have phonological awareness (e.g., being able to hear that “bat” and “cat” rhyme) without being able to decode those words in print—a gap that phonics instruction specifically addresses.

One study of particular interest is Erler’s (2014) research on adolescent MFL learners in the UK, which identified a high prevalence of phonological dyslexia-like symptoms. Her participants displayed poor grapheme-phoneme awareness, inaccurate decoding of unfamiliar words, and difficulty retaining new vocabulary encountered in print. Crucially, Erler found that many of these learners lacked the foundational phonological processing skills that underpin effective phonics application, leading to a cycle of reading avoidance and vocabulary stagnation. This is especially problematic in contexts where vocabulary is primarily acquired through reading.

Additionally, although many students appear to be reading silently, they are typically subvocalising—mentally ‘sounding out’ the words. Without secure decoding skills, this internal voicing can become distorted or erroneous, undermining both comprehension and vocabulary retention.

Moreover, reading aloud plays a pivotal role in second language acquisition. It reinforces grapheme-phoneme correspondence, strengthens pronunciation, and improves oral fluency. Research into oral passage fluency (e.g., Rasinski, 2004) has shown that repeated reading aloud enhances not only decoding accuracy and speed, but also prosody—intonation, rhythm, and phrasing—which are essential for natural and fluent language use. There is also evidence that oral fluency improvements feed back into silent reading fluency by automating decoding, which frees up cognitive resources for comprehension and inference-making. For many L2 learners, reading aloud thus offers a vital bridge between passive recognition and confident, fluent use.

In this post, I synthesise key findings from recent studies, highlight their outcomes, and propose a practical instructional framework grounded in the research.

What Does the Research Say About Explicit Phonics Instruction?

Study & Authors	Key Findings	Outcomes	Strength	Weakness
Dennis Murphy Odo (2021)	Meta-analysis of 46 studies with 3,841 L2 learners found moderate effects on word reading (g = 0.53) and strong effects on pseudoword reading (g = 1.51).	Phonics significantly improves decoding, especially of novel words.	Comprehensive data set across contexts.	Heterogeneity in study designs and populations.
Yeh & Connell (2014) – Taiwanese EFL Learners	Phonics combined with decodable text outperformed phonics-alone instruction in long-term word reading retention.	Integrating phonics with reading contexts increases retention.	Good control group comparison.	Limited to young learners in Taiwan; generalisability is low.
Zhao et al. (2023) – Chinese Learners	Explicit phonics enhanced decoding of unfamiliar English graphemes not present in Pinyin.	Helpful for learners from non-alphabetic L1 backgrounds.	Valuable for addressing orthographic transfer.	Focused narrowly on specific grapheme types.
Wu (2010) – Adult ESL Learners (BYU)	Extended explicit phonics instruction did not significantly improve word recognition in adult learners.	Phonics alone may not be sufficient for adults.	Focuses on older learners, often understudied.	Suggests diminishing returns in adult populations.
Lervåg & Aukrust (2010) – Norwegian EFL Learners	Found a strong predictive relationship between early phonics skills and later reading comprehension in English.	Early phonics skills lead to better long-term reading comprehension.	Longitudinal study design adds robustness.	Limited to one L1 background.
Tsou et al. (2006) – Taiwanese Primary Learners	Phonics instruction improved learners’ spelling and reading accuracy in English.	Phonics boosts both decoding and encoding in L2.	Balanced design including control group.	Short intervention period.

What About Implicit Phonics Instruction?

Study & Authors	Key Findings	Outcomes	Strength	Weakness
Lee (2015) – Hong Kong ESL Learners	Implicit phonics instruction embedded in authentic reading improved reading confidence and proficiency among low-level learners.	Implicit methods support motivation and fluency in weaker learners.	Rich combination of qualitative and quantitative data.	Case study approach limits generalisation.
Cunningham (1990) – Phonemic Awareness Study	Explicit instruction in phonemic awareness was more effective than implicit exposure for beginning readers.	Metacognitive awareness improves early literacy outcomes.	Early evidence on importance of instruction clarity.	Older study; may not reflect current pedagogical realities.
Yildiz et al. (2013) – Turkish EFL Learners	Story-based implicit instruction improved students’ reading fluency over a phonics-only group.	Implicit input supports fluency and engagement.	Real-classroom setting improves ecological validity.	No follow-up to assess long-term retention.
Choi & Zhang (2018) – Chinese University Students	Extensive reading programmes with minimal phonics instruction boosted reading speed and comprehension.	Implicit exposure through volume of reading can foster reading efficiency.	Useful for higher proficiency learners.	May not apply to beginners or younger learners.

Limitations in Current Research

Despite some encouraging results, the evidence base for phonics in L2 learning is still remarkably limited. There are simply too few robust, large-scale studies to allow for sound generalisations across learner types, age groups, and instructional settings. Many of the available studies focus exclusively on young learners, leaving the needs of adolescent and adult L2 learners largely underexplored. There’s also considerable variability in learners’ L1 backgrounds, intervention duration, and instructional designs, all of which muddy the waters when trying to draw clear, transferable conclusions. Longitudinal studies that track sustained impact over time are scarce, and comparisons between implicit and explicit methods—especially within the same population—are almost non-existent. In short, we need more targeted, nuanced research before we can confidently declare what works best, for whom, and under what conditions.

Lessons Learned and a Proposed Framework

From the research reviewed, several insights stand out:

1. Explicit phonics instruction is most effective when systematic, contextualised, and paired with meaningful text.
2. Implicit instruction, particularly when delivered through authentic reading, can support reading fluency and learner motivation, especially in weaker learners.
3. The age, proficiency level, and L1 background of learners play a significant role in determining instructional effectiveness.

A Balanced Framework for L2 Phonics Instruction

Based on these insights, I propose the following phased framework:

• Phase 1: Implicit Exposure – Use rich, meaningful texts to generate natural phoneme-grapheme awareness.
• Phase 2: Explicit Instruction – Introduce phonics systematically, focusing on high-frequency and challenging correspondences.
• Phase 3: Integrated Practice – Reinforce phonics through structured reading and writing tasks that recycle forms.
• Phase 4: Monitoring and Feedback – Provide targeted support through ongoing assessment and error correction.

This framework aligns with the principles of Extensive Processing Instruction (EPI) by cycling input and output and supporting the proceduralisation of decoding skills through meaningful use (see picture below)

Figure 1 – Implicit and Explicit SSC (Sound-to-Spelling Correspondence) instruction as embedded in the MARSEARS sequence)

Conclusion

The question is not whether phonics instruction should be used in L2 classrooms, but how and when. Evidence suggests that both explicit and implicit approaches have merit, depending on the learner profile and instructional goals. Rather than treating phonics as a one-size-fits-all toolkit, we should see it as a flexible component of a broader, integrated literacy approach. And in light of the new GCSE reading aloud requirement, this isn’t just a pedagogical issue—it’s a matter of curriculum alignment and equity.

When learners can confidently sound out a new word, they own it. And when reading aloud becomes less of a performance and more of a practice, that’s when real fluency begins to form. We owe it to our learners to give them both the tools and the time to get there.

PLEASE NOTE: I am delivering a workshop on Phonics Instruction on 11th June 2025