Implementing Synthetic Phonics in Malaysian English as a Second Language (ESL) Primary School: An Analysis of Pedagogical Practices and Classroom Realities

Synthetic Phonics (SP) in early reading development was well established and was strongly advocated by the Rose Review of England, as it stated how synthetic phonics offers the best passage to become a skilled reader. In the Malaysian context, there is a lack of in-depth understanding of how it is being implemented in classroom settings, particularly teachers’ pedagogical practices in teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) and students’ points of view on this approach. This qualitative study was designed to address the experiences and practices of Malaysian primary school teachers and corresponding perceptions of students from Standard 1 and 2 regarding the implementation of SP through the teachings of blending and segmenting. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews from both teachers and students and analyzed using thematic analysis. Though various effective pedagogical practices for teaching the approach of SP could be identified, a gap between their practices and the realities in the classroom was discovered. The gap is driven by issues of class size and students' lack of prior exposure to the language. This paper consequently concludes that effective implementation of successful blending and segmenting pedagogical practices in phonics teaching is best achieved through collaboration of teachers, education leaders, and policymakers.

Synthetic Phonics, Blending, Segmenting

1. Annas Mohammed. (2020). Perceived effects of large class size on College of Education tutors' effectiveness in the Northern Region of Ghana [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of Cape Coast. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ashby, J., Martin, M., McBride, M., Naftel, S., O’Brien, E., Paulson, L. H., & Moats, L. C. (2024). Teaching phoneme awareness in 2024: A guide for educators. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1tPwou7EqctDO50XtfvMGxfJAx7xPk9?usp=share_link [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum. (2017). Dokumen standard kurikulum dan pentaksiran (DSKP) bahasa Inggeris tahun 1 [Curriculum and assessment standard document for year 1 English]. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. https://www.moe.gov.my/muat-turun/penerbitan-dan-jurnal/dskp/2448-dskp-tahun-1-bahasa-inggeris-sjk/file [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum. (2017). Dokumen standard kurikulum dan pentaksiran (DSKP) bahasa Inggeris tahun 2 [Curriculum and assessment standard document for year 2 English]. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. https://www.moe.gov.my/muat-turun/penerbitan-dan-jurnal/dskp/2450-dskk-tahun-2-bahasa-inggeris-sjk/file [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bear, R. D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2020). Words their way (6th ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bhandari, P. (2022). What is qualitative research? | Methods & examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-research/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Blevins, W. (2016). *A fresh look at phonics, grades K-2: Common causes of failure and 7 ingredients for success*. Corwin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Blevins, W. (2017). Phonics from A to Z: A practical guide (3rd ed.). Scholastic. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Borg, S. (2019). Language teacher cognition: Perspectives and debates. In Second handbook of English language teaching (pp. 1149–1170). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_59-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bradbury, A., & Wyse, D. (2025). The dominance of synthetic phonics in reading policy in England. Education Policy Analysis Archives, *33*(78). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.33.8942 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Burns, N. (Ed.). (2024). Teaching hacks: Fixing everyday classroom issues with metacognition. SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Carruth, L., & Bustos, C. (2019). Phonemic awareness: It’s all in the sounds of language. Texas Association for Literacy Education Yearbook, 6, 55–61. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1291358.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Catts, H. W. (2018). The Simple View of Reading: Advancements and false impressions. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518767563 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Chandra, S., & Chand, S. (2024). A systematic review of the use of AI in education: Insights from a decade of literature. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100252 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Chen, C., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., Sasselov, D., & Fredericks, C. (2019). The impact of student misconceptions on student persistence in a MOOC. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21616 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Clement, W., & Otieno, M. (2024). The role of phonics instruction in developing early reading skills in public primary schools in Ikungi District, Tanzania. Journal of Research Innovation and Implications in Education, 8(4), 405–412. https://doi.org/10.59765/mgy59gw [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Cleland, J. A. (2017). The qualitative orientation in medical education research. Korean Journal of Medical Education, 29(2), 61–71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Coombs, H. (2022). Case study research defined [White paper]. Southern Utah University. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7604301 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Council of Europe. (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Cunningham, J. (2017, June). Supporting phonics instruction: Laying a foundation for reading: The importance of phonics to reading and writing success. District Administration, 53(6), 58–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Davis, M. H., Tonks, S. M., Hock, M., Wang, W., & Rodriguez, A. (2018). A review of reading motivation scales. Reading Psychology, 39(2), 121–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2017.1400482 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2007). Letters and sounds: Principles and practice of high quality phonics. DfES Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. D. C. Heath & Co. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., Stiff, J. C., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2019). The importance of early phonics improvements for predicting later reading comprehension. British Educational Research Journal, 45(6), 1220–1234. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3559 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Dussling, T. M. (2018). Examining the effectiveness of a supplemental reading intervention on the early literacy skills of English language learners. Literacy Research and Instruction, 57(3), 276–284. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Elkonin, D. B. (1973). U.S.S.R. In J. Downing (Ed.), Comparative reading (pp. 551–579). Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Farrall, M. L. (2012). Reading assessment: Linking language, literacy, and cognition. John Wiley and Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Flynn, S., Erickson, S., & Serry, T. (2023). The impact of explicitly teaching word segmentation using a visual vowel hand sign system to help at-risk children learn to read and spell English: A proof-of-concept study. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 28(1), 97–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Fodouop Kouam, A. W. (2024). Interpretivism or constructivism: Navigating research paradigms in social science research. International Journal of Research Publications, 143(1). https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP1001431220246122 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their organizations survive and thrive. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Fullan, M. (2016a). The NEW meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Fullan, M. (2016b). The NEW meaning of educational change (5th ed.). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Geva, E., & Farnia, F. (2012). Developmental changes in the nature of language proficiency and reading fluency paint a more complex view of reading comprehension in ELL and EL1. Reading and Writing, 25(8), 1819–1845. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Ghana Education Service - National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (2024). Learning material: Intervention English Level 1, Section 2 (TVersion) [Curriculum resource]. Retrieved from https://curriculumresources.edu.gh/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/LM-intervention-English-Level-1-section-2-TVersion.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Glazzard, J. (2017). Assessing reading development through systematic analysis of running records [Doctoral dissertation, University of Huddersfield]. Edge Hill University Repository. https://research.edgehill.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/36987255/AssessingReadingDevelopment_GLAZZARD.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Glazzard, J., & Stokoe, J. (2017). Teaching systematic synthetic phonics and early English. Critical Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Gomez-Zwiep, S. (2008). Elementary teachers’ understanding of students’ science misconceptions: Implications for practice and teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(5), 437–454. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Hjetland, H. N., Lervåg, A., Lyster, S. A. H., Hagtvet, B. E., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2019). Pathways to reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from 4 to 9 years of age. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000321 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Hoover, W. A. (2024). The simple view of reading and its broad types of reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 37, 2277–2298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10471-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Institut Pendidik Guru Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2014). TSL3063 teaching reading and writing skills to young learners: Course specification document. Institut Pendidikan Guru. https://ipkent.edu.my/document/pskent/pskent18/modul/bi/TSL3063.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. International Literacy Association. (2019). Meeting the challenges of early literacy phonics instruction. https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-meeting-challenges-early-literacy-phonics-instruction.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Jenna Kammer, J., & Hays, L. (2023). Digital literacy made simple: Strategies for building skills across the curriculum. ASCD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Johnson, P. A. (2016). *10 essential instructional elements for students with reading difficulties: A brain-friendly approach*. Corwin Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Johnston, R., & Watson, J. (2005). The effects of synthetic phonics teaching on reading and spelling attainment. A seven year longitudinal study. Scottish Executive Education Department. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Jolliffe, W., Waugh, D., & Gill, A. (2022). Teaching systematic synthetic phonics in primary schools (4th ed.). Learning Matters. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Kaur, P., & Shapii, A. (2018). Language and nationalism in Malaysia: A language policy perspective. International Journal of Law, Government and Communication, 3(7), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Keesey, S., Konrad, M., & Joseph, L. M. (2015). Word boxes improve phonemic awareness, letter-sound correspondences, and spelling skills of at-risk kindergartners. Remedial and Special Education, 36(3), 167–180. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2017). Super Minds Teacher's Book Year 1. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Kramer, M., Förtsch, C., Boone, W. J., Seidel, T., & Neuhaus, B. J. (2021). Investigating pre-service biology teachers’ diagnostic competences: Relationships between professional knowledge, diagnostic activities, and diagnostic accuracy. Education Sciences, 11(3), 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030089 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Kurikulum Bersepadu Sekolah Rendah: Curriculum Specifications for English. (2017). Ministry of Education Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Lee, N. A. A., Kassim, A. A. M., & Bakar, R. A. (2022). The CEFR-Aligned Curriculum Execution in Malaysia and Other Countries: A Conceptual Paper. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 19(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Liang, W., & Fryer, L. K. (2024). Understanding the influence of AI chatbot utility on student learning and motivation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100270 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. LINCS. (n.d.). Universal design for learning. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education. https://lincs.ed.gov/sites/default/files/2_TEAL_UDL.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Lloyd, S. (1998). The Phonics Handbook. Jolly Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Lonigan, C., Burgess, S., & Schatschneider, C. (2018). Examining the simple view of reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 317–323. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Madhavan, V., & Raja, R. L. (2024). Enhancing phonics and phonological metacognitive awareness for efficacy in reading comprehension among students with learning difficulties. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(1), 4960–4964. https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v30i1.8537 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Magaldi, D., & Berler, M. (2020). Semi-structured interviews. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_857 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Medical College of Wisconsin. (2022). Cognitive load theory [Faculty quick guide]. https://www.mcw.edu/-/media/MCW/Education/Academic-Affairs/Faculty-Quick-Guides/Cognitive-Load-Theory.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Mendoza, J. J., & Okyar, H. B. (2023). Unveiling the synergy between redundant memory and reading comprehension in elementary learners. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 11(3), 199-208. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.11n.3p.199 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Ministry of Education, Malaysia. (2013). *Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (Preschool to post-secondary education)*. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Miskin, R. (2016). Read Write Inc. Phonics: Handbook. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Mohd Shafee, N. A. S. (2019). The teaching of early reading in English using the phonics approach in Malaysian primary schools: Teacher beliefs, knowledge and practices [Doctoral dissertation, Liverpool John Moores University]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Mohd Zin, M. A., Tan, K. H., Mohd Rashid, S. M., & Mat Saad, S. (2023). Teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices in teaching phonics to lower primary learners. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 22(5), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.5.30 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Mohd Zulkifli, M. F. (2020). The influence of social media usage on student academic performance: A case study of a Malaysian public university [Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris]. Institutional Repository at Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. https://ir.upsi.edu.my/files/docs/2020/2237_2237.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Monash University. (n.d.). Building pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Teach HQ. Retrieved October 26, 2023, from https://www.monash.edu/learning-teaching/teachhq/Teaching-practices/building-pedagogical-content-knowledge [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Mulder, S. (2018). Sight words and phonics: The connection that helps early elementary students read fluently [Master's thesis, Northwestern College]. NWCommons. https://nwcommons.nwciowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1097&context=education_masters [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Nevenglosky, E. A., Cale, C., & Aguilar, S. P. (2019). Barriers to effective curriculum implementation. Research in Higher Education Journal, 36, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. OECD. (2017). Educational research and innovation: Pedagogical knowledge and the changing nature of the teaching profession. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270695-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Okyere, M. (2025). Critical analysis of Michael Fullan's theory of curriculum: A systematic review of its strengths, weaknesses, relevance to contemporary curriculum change, and application to Ghana's standards-based and common core curriculum reforms. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7442040/v1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Ose, S. O. (2016). Using Excel and Word to structure qualitative data. Journal of Applied Social Science, 10(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1936724416664948 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J. J., & Robinson, S. (2018). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Rose, J. (2005). Independent review of the teaching of early reading. Department for Education and Skills. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Röthlisberger, M., Zangger, C., & Juska-Bacher, B. (2023). Matthew effect in vocabulary and reading: A comparison of good and average readers in Grade 1 to Grade 3. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 5, 100278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100278 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Ruslin, Mashuri, S., Rasak, M. S. A., Alhabsyi, F., & Syam, H. (2022). Semi-structured interview: A methodological reflection on the development of a qualitative research instrument in educational studies. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education, 12(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-1201052229 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Saputra, N., Cendana, W., Victorynie, I., & Khaidir. (2021). Whole language approach implementation as a child language learning model development. LingLit Journal Scientific Journal for Linguistics and Literature, 2(4), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.33258/linglit.v2i4.554 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Scull, J., & Lyons, D. (2024). Teaching phonics in context—stories of teachers’ practice and students’ outcomes. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44020-024-00058-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Secora, K., Ramos, M., Lee, B., & Shahan, C. L. (2024). Language- and literacy-rich environments: Strategies for young deaf children. In M. K. Ghere, J. D. Golos, & M. M. Marsh (Eds.), Deaf education and interventions for navigating a hearing world (pp. 1–21). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-0852-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Sharp, A. (2015). Benefits of exposure to reading prior to kindergarten (Publication No. 10131109) [Master's thesis, Northwest Missouri State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. Shelley, T. (2019). Educational change: The view from within. In M. Shelley & V. Akerson (Eds.), *Proceedings of IConSES 2019-- International Conference on Social and Education Sciences* (pp. 114–121). ISTES Organization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Shing, C. L., Saat, R. M., & Loke, S. H. (2015). The knowledge of teaching – Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science, 3(3), 40–56. http://www.moj-es.net/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. Singhi, M., & Anmol, A. (2025). Effect of affective and cognitive engagement on academic performance among school students. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 13(1), 92-100. https://doi.org/10.25215/1301.009 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. Sparks, R. L. (2021). Identification and characteristics of strong, average, and weak foreign language readers: The simple view of reading model. The Modern Language Journal, 105(2), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12711 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. Stahl, N. A., & King, J. R. (2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1(1). https://edresearchandvaluation.com/index.php/ere/article/view/1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

94. Sulaiman, T., Ayub, A. F. M., & Sulaiman, S. (2015). Curriculum change in English language curriculum advocates higher order thinking skills and standards-based assessments in Malaysian Primary schools. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 494–500. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

95. Sutfin, T. K. (2025). Building early phonemic awareness. Journal of Curriculum, Teaching, Learning and Leadership in Education, 10(1), Article 5. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/ctlle/vol10/iss1/5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

96. Tallman, M. A. (2023). What makes pedagogical content knowledge “pedagogical”? Reconnecting PCK to its Deweyan foundations. The Mathematics Educator, 31(1), 100–128. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

97. Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2023). Cognitive flexibility + phonics intervention effects on reading gains. Reading Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2023.2166636 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

98. Vandeyar, S. (2017). The teacher as an agent of meaningful educational change. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(2), 373–393. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.2.0314 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

99. Varaporn, S., & Sitthitikul, P. (2019). Effects of multimodal tasks on students’ critical reading ability and perceptions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 31(1), 81–108. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

100. Wang, H.-C., Wass, M., & Castles, A. (2020). Grapheme-phoneme correspondence learning in children: The order in which graphemes are taught matters. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 189, 104798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104798 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

101. Webber, C., Patel, H., Cunningham, A., Fox, A., Vousden, J., Castles, A., & Shapiro, L. (2024). An experimental comparison of additional training in phoneme awareness, letter-sound knowledge and decoding for struggling beginner readers. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 282–305. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

102. Wolf, M. (2018). Reader, come home. Harper Collins. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

103. Yamamori, K., Tokuoka, M., Hagiwara, Y., Oouchi, Y., Nakamoto, K., & Isoda, T. (2021). Effects of class size and provision of learning goals and feedback on students’ two-year achievement trajectories. The Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 297–316. https://doi.org/10.5926/jjep.69.297 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

104. Zhong, B., & Kang, Y. (2021). Chinese EFL teachers’ perception and practice of phonics instruction. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(6), 990–999. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1206.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study