The study by Torgerson and Brooks discussed at this link attempts to tackle one of the problems of using drugs trial research methods in education. Every patient, on whatever branch of a trial receives exactly the same drug. In normal circumstances, every pupil will not receive exactly the same teaching. By setting out the content in advance, and using only technology, the researchers were able to ensure consistency of input. Unfortunately, this did not ensure any effective learning, as anyone who has ever taught spelling could have predicted. Different children need different levels of explanation and support. This leads me to conclude not only that the methodology of drugs trials should not be used as the sole criterion for evaluating educational research, but that the application of the method in education is, in fact, impossible.
Torgerson and Brooks' most recent paper, available behind the most outrageous paywall I've ever seen - 30 days access for £196 - shows the weakness of the methodology beyond a scintilla of doubt. The studies they analyse are so unspecified, and so varied in their techniques, that they might as well be comparing Association and Rugby football. Some of the weaknesses are noted in these quotations:
Galuschka et al. (2014), Some interventions (e.g. orally dividing words into syllables with supporting hand signals) would not fit standard definitions of phonics...no details of control group instruction....samples drawn from Italy, Spain, Finland, Brazil and unspecified "English-speaking countries."
What is a study of this type going to tell us about the role of phonics, let alone "systematic synthetic phonics" in learning to read in English? I'll answer the question - absolutely nothing.
Hann et al (2010)Studies which taught phonemic awareness, phonics or both. No specific varieties of phonics mentioned, and of 11 teaching ctivities mentioned (120) only ‘decoding’ would meet standard definitions of phonics; all the rest are whole-word approaches, hence not phonics. No detail of control group instruction.
Does not this make the study completely irrelevant to the issue of phonics? And again, no details on controls?
I could continue, as not one of these studies provides any evidence of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of any of the items under discussion. We might as well say that they don't tell us anything about underwater archeology. They do not provide evidence of the effectiveness of systematic synthetic phonics (a term I use here under duress, and for the sake of consistency only) for the simple reason that they were not looking for it. They are so poorly designed that they don't provide evidence of anything at all, particularly as they do not have the six year follow-up that was the clinching argument in the Clackmannanshire study. I'm astonished that this study can be taken seriously by anyone at all, including its authors.