Purpose: This mixed-methods study examined how teachers implement evidence-based components of beginning reading, how this relates to teachers’ literacy knowledge levels, and teachers’ own views on classroom practice. Method: An online survey reached 507 teachers (mean age = 40 years) who taught reading in the first three years of schooling, with quantitative items measuring the reported frequency of five instructional strands and open-ended questions eliciting qualitative data on classroom practice. An optional TULIP test assessed knowledge of phonological awareness, phonics/encoding, fluency, oral language, and comprehension (n = 122). Data were analysed with repeated-measures ANOVA, linear mixed-effects modelling, and inductive content analysis. Results: Many respondents reported adopting core code-based routines, modelling phoneme awareness, and integrating phonics into daily lessons. However, systematic phonics and spelling instruction, two essential elements of the science of reading, were found to be applied inconsistently. Some classrooms were combining evidence-based elements with traditional whole-word practices. Average TULIP knowledge accuracy was 66%. The mixed-effects model showed that phonics knowledge interacted with instruction, where high-knowledge teachers allocated more time to phonics and word structure than low-knowledge peers. Qualitative themes, including societal constraints, structural/resource pressures, and limited transfer from initial teacher education into practice, explained why evidence-aligned practice is inconsistently realised. Conclusions: While the teachers endorsed core code-based routines, systematic phonics with aligned decodable texts and spelling instruction were implemented unevenly. Enhancing early literacy outcomes will require coordinated policy; sustained professional learning that addresses the identified knowledge gaps in phonics, encoding, and oral language; and access to evidence-based resources.
Milne et al. (Wed,) studied this question.