Facts

On research on the
teaching of phonics

Educators agree that children learning to read texts written in English need to learn that there are relationships
between letter patterns and sound patterns in English, and that children need to develop the ability to relate letter
patterns to sound patterns.Constance Weaver, 1994

Background
Through the 1980s and the early 1990s, some prominent reading researchers have
argued for the teaching of phonics intensively and systematically (e.g. Chall,
1967/1983; Adams, 1990; Stahl, 1992). Unlike these researchers, however, those
advocating the teaching of phonics in the popular media (as in letters to the editor)
commonly imply that phonics is all that children need in order to learn to read.
Such polemics can often be traced to one of two original sources: Samuel
Blumenfeld, author of NEA: Trojan Horse in Education and of the Blumenfeld
Education Letter, and/or Patrick Groff, who has written several items published by
the National Right to Read Foundation, which has received substantial funding
from the Gateway company producing the Hooked on Phonics program. These
sources of phonics-first propaganda buttress their arguments with references to
respected researchers and their research, which is commonly thought to have
demonstrated the superiority of teaching phonics intensively and systematically.
However, even these researchers do not advocate phonics only, or phonics first, as
a means of teaching children to read (e.g., Adams, 1990). Furthermore, even some
of these prominent phonics advocates have pointed out that the alleged success of
the Hooked on Phonics program is not substantiated by research, a charge made by
the Federal Trade Commission as well. Typically the other phonics programs on
the market also lack research support, at least when groups receiving different
instruction are contrasted on a wide variety of assessment measures.
In making educational decisions, it is vital that teachers and other educational
decision-makers consider both the pros and cons of the actual research, broadly
defined.
The early research base, considered and reconsidered
The major body of comparative research arguing for the teaching of phonics
intensively and systematically was originally that summarized by Jeanne Chall in
1967 and updated in 1983, with few additions other than the 1965-1966 U.S.O.E.
cooperative first grade studies (Bond & Dykstra, 1967). Chall writes: "In summary,
judging from the studies comparing systematic with intrinsic phonics [phonics
taught more gradually, in the context of meaningful reading] we can say that

systematic phonics at the very beginning tends to produce generally better reading
and spelling achievement than intrinsic phonics, at least through grade three. . . .
Finally, there is probably a limit to the advantage that early facility with the code
gives on comprehension tested after grade 4" (Chall, 1967, 1983). In a more recent
pro-phonics book, Marilyn Adams (1990) cites no further comparative studies that
can validly claim to support the intensive, systematic teaching of phonics. Note,
however:
The research is said to show intensive phonics producing better reading and
spelling achievement than traditional basal reading programs of previous
decades, at least through grade three. In this context, "achievement" means
scores on standardized tests, which-for reading-often contain subtests of
phonics knowledge. This body of research says nothing about how children
read and comprehend normal texts.
The comparative research summarized by Chall has been examined and
critiqued in minute detail by Marie Carbo (1988), who concluded that in
interpreting the available but often flawed data, Chall tended to skew the
data as being more favorable to systematic phonics instruction than the data
actually warranted. Indeed, even Chall herself admitted (1983 edition) that
several other reviewers of the U.S.O.E. data did not draw the same
conclusions she did.
To try to resolve the discrepancy between Chall's conclusions and Carbo's
critique, an expert on assessment undertook to reexamine the research yet
again. He excluded the vast majority of studies critiqued by Carbo, thus
considering only the best research: nine randomized field experiments that
compared systematic phonics with a whole word approach (NOT whole
language), wherein phonics was taught intrinsically or not at all. The
results? "My overall conclusion from reviewing the randomized field studies
is that systematic phonics falls into that vast category of weak instructional
treatments with which education is perennially plagued. Systematic phonics
appears to have a slight and early advantage over a basal-reader/whole-word
approach as a method of beginning reading instruction. . . . However, this
difference does not last long and has no clear meaning for the acquisition of
literacy" (Turner, 1989).
Research on phonemic awareness and decoding
The last decade has seen considerable research on phonological awareness and
phonemic awareness. Phonological awareness may be defined as the ability to hear
and manipulate sound units in the language, such as syllables; the major parts of
syllables (any initial consonants = the onset, while the rest of the syllable =
the rime); and phonemes (what we have learned ot hear as the individual "sounds"
in words). One body of research has usually focused on phonological awareness

and phonological coding skills in general, but typically included measures of

phonemic awareness specifically. such research has demonstrated that there is a
strong correlation between phonemic awareness and reading achievement, as
measured by scores on standardized tests (e.g. summaries in Adams & Bruck,
1995; Beck & Juel, 1995; Foorman, 1995). There is also research showing the
opposite correlation: Low phonemic awareness, low scores on standardized tests
(e.g. Lyon, 1995, a and b; Vellutino & Denckla, 1991; Goswami & Bryant, 1990;
Elbro, 1990; Boder, 1973). These correlations are hardly surprising, since readers
with weak phonemic segmentation skills may be slower than those with strong
segmentation skills in decoding unfamiliar print words, and standardized tests are
commonly timed. Such correlation research has led to the argument that children
should be explicitly taught phonemic awareness--not merely to help them sound
out words, but to recognize words on sight, automatically (e.g. Stanovich,
1991,1992). However, a correlation simply means that the two go together, like
bread and butter; it says nothing about whether one causes the other-for example,
whether phonemic awareness leads to independent reading, whether learning to
read results in phonemic awareness, or both. What does the research show?
1. Various studies demonstrate that many children (indeed most, with intensive
tutoring) can be trained to hear phonemes and to segment words into phonemes.
Often, such studies also suggest that teaching phonemic awareness carses, or at
least facilitates, higher scores on standardized tests.These studies include, among
others, Stanovich, Cunningham, & Feeman, 1985; Fox & Routh, 1976; Bradley &
Bryant, 1985; Ball & Blachman, 1991; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Nation &
Hulme, 1997. Several research studies focus on children considered to have severe
reading difficulties (e.g. Torgeson & Hecht, 1996; Vellutino et al., 1996; Fox &
Routh, 1976) and/or on children considered to be at risk of reading failure
(Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, & Fletcher, 1997). Ayers (1993) is
exceptional in that the training groups were entire classes of kindergartners, rather
than small groups. Some research has been interpreted as demonstrating that
phonemic awareness is a necessary prerequisite to learning to read, or at least a
necessary but not sufficient cause or facilitator in learning to read. One oft-cited
example is Juel, Griffith, & Gough (1986), while another, more recent study is
Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, & Fletcher, 1997. Several studies indicate
that phonemic awareness develops best when taught in conjunction with
letter/sound correspondences (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1983;
Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1991; Goldstein, 1976; Treiman & Baron, 1983;
Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Wallach & Wallach, 1979; Williams, 1980).
2. Some research has been interpreted as demonstrating that phonemic awareness
is a consequence of learning to read. These studies include Morais, Carey, Alegria,
& Bertelson (1979); Mann (1986); and Wimmer, Landerl, Linortner, & Hummer
(1991). Another study that did not focus specifically on phonemic awareness but
that supports this conclusion is Moustafa (1990, 1995, and in press). Tunmer and
Nesdale (1985) found that the correlation between method of instruction and

phonemic segmentation ability did not reach significance, which implies a

reciprocal relationship between phonemic awareness and learning to read.
3. Most of the phonemic awareness studies support, or at least do not contradict, a
reciprocal hypothesis: that phonemic awareness facilitates learning to read and
that learning to read also facilitates phonemic awareness. Studies explicitly
drawing this conclusion include Perfetti, Beck, Bell & Hughes; 1987; Ayers, 1993,
and in press; Wagner & Torgeson, 1987; Wagner, Torgeson, & Rashotte, 1994). In
some instances the researcher did not set out to explicitly test the hypothesis that
learning to read promotes phonemic awareness, but found that by the end of first
grade, the control group did as well as the experimental groups on measures of
phonemic awareness and/or comprehension (e.g. Ayres, 1993). In fact, Ayres found
that kindergartners whose reading experiences focused first (for ten weeks) on
getting meaning and enjoyment from texts were better able to take advantage of
direct instruction phonics than those children who were given direct instruction in
phonics first.
4. With regard to decoding itself, the research is somewhat contradictory. Some
research suggests that like proficient adult readers, most children decode
unfamiliar print words by analogy with parts of known words (e.g. Moustafa,
1990, 1995, in press; Goswami, 1986, 1988). That is, they read unknown print
words in chunks (Gunning, 1988; Gibson, 1985; Santa, 1976-77; and other sources
cited in Gunning, 1995). Some studies suggest that phonemic awareness precedes
the ability to decode unfamiliar print words (e.g. Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985; also
see Ehri & Robbins, 1992, and Moustafa's reinterpretation of that study, in press).
Other research suggests that the ability to read unfamiliar print words in
pronounceable chunks precedes the ability to segment words into phonemes (Ehri,
1991, 1994, 1995; Goswami, 1986, 1988, 1993), and/or that knowing a lot of sight
words is more helpful in decoding unknown words than is letter/sound knowledge
(Moustafa, 1990, 1995, in press). More research is needed on these factors, since
decoding is a reading skill that children need to develop and use, in conjunction
with other skills.
5. The research on so-called "linguistic" or "decodable" texts (texts with
phonically regular words exemplifying patterns already taught) shows clearly that
they are harder to read than texts written in more natural language (e.g. Simons &
Ammon, 1989; Kucer, 1985; Rhodes, 1979). One study is currently being cited as
evidence for using decodable texts rather than texts with high interest words (Juel
& Roper/Schneider, 1985). However, this study compared the effects of reading
texts having mostly phonically regular words with the then-typical basal reading
texts and concluded merely that the decodable tests were more likely to lead to a
letter/sound strategy in reading. However, that strategy alone leads to a focusing on
identifying words, at the expense of meaning (e.g. K. Goodman, 1973).
Furthermore, to date there has apparently been no research that has explicitly

compared the effects of decodable texts with "predictable" texts that have more
natural language, except for their repeating and predictable patterns.
Typically the research alleging a high correlation between phonemic awareness and
reading scores and the research showing that many seemingly poorer readers are
not strong in phonological or phonemic awareness has led to the argument that
many children need explicit help in developing the ability to segment words into
sounds--not merely in order to sound out words, but to recognize words on
sight, automatically, and thereby to read fluently and rapidly. Only a small body of
research has addressed or been interpreted as having bearing on alternative
hypotheses, such as the hypothesis that there is a reciprocal relationship between
phonemic awareness and learning to read, with each facilitating the other.
However, that body of research is growing.
Research comparing skills-oriented with literature-based and/or whole
language classrooms
In the past decade, quite a few studies have compared the effects of literature-based
and/or whole language teaching with the effects of traditional skills-oriented
teaching.
Though whole language teaching involves much more than a different approach to
reading and writing, one key element of whole language classrooms is that children
receive the support they need to read and write whole texts and to develop reading
and writing skills within meaningful reading and writing situations.This includes
explicit help in developing phonemic awareness, phonics knowledge, and decoding
skills. Part of what many whole language teachers do in the primary grades is
spend significant time each day reading to children from a large text that all can
see, then rereading the text with the children chiming in. Repeated rereadings and
calling attention to words and letter/sound patterns help the children learn words
and phonics, as well as basic concepts of print. For example, extensions of such
reading activities may include discussing and making charts of words that alliterate
or rhyme. Examining and comparing the spellings of children's names is another
way phonics may be taught. Whole language teachers also promote phonics
knowledge by helping children write the sounds they hear in words. By teaching
phonics through reading, focused lessons, and writing, whole language teachers
help children develop phonics knowledge in the context of the texts they enjoy
reading and writing. The emerging body of comparative research reveals the
following patterns, which deal with phonics but go beyond (Weaver, 1994b, and
various research studies listed in References and Resources, all of which used
diverse measures):
In two of these studies, the skills-based classrooms were characterized particularly
by programs teaching phonics in isolation from literature and authentic writing;
these were Ribowsky (1985) and Kasten & Clarke (1989). Some of the studies

focused on at-risk children (Stice & Bertrand, 1990; Dahl & Freppon, 1992, 1994;
Knapp and associates, 1995; and some of the studies discussed in Tunnell &
Jacobs, 1989, which included some studies involving children identified as having
reading difficulties, too). All of these studies used a variety of measures in addition
to standardized tests. The following patterns seem to emerge from these studies and
others referenced below:
1. Children in whole language classrooms typically do as well or better on
standardized reading tests and subtests, including tests that measure phonemic
awareness and phonics knowledge--though the differences are seldom statistically
significant. For example, the whole language kindergartners in Ribowsky's study
(1985) scored better on all measures of growth and achievement, including the
tests of letter recognition and letter/sound knowledge. In the Kasten and Clarke
study (1989), the whole language kindergartners performed significantly better
than their counterparts on all subtests of the Metropolitan Readiness Test, including
tests of beginning consonant sounds, letter/sound correspondences, and sounds and
clusters of sounds in initial and final positions of words. In the Manning, Manning,
and Long study (1989), children in the whole language classroom did better on the
Stanford Achievement Test's subtest on word parts, even though only the children
in the skills classroom had explicitly studied word parts.
2. Children in whole language classrooms seem to develop greater ability to use
phonics knowledge effectively than children in more traditional classrooms where
skills are practiced in isolation. For example, in Freppon's study (1988, 1991), the
skills group attempted to sound out words more than twice as often as the others,
but the literature-based group was more successful in doing so: a 53 percent
success rate compared with a 32 percent success rate for the skills group.
Apparently the literature-based children were more successful because they made
better use of phonics in conjunction with other information and cues. (For another
relevant study, see also A. E. Cunningham, 1990).
3. Children in whole language classrooms seem to develop the alphabetic
principle, vocabulary, spelling, grammar, and punctuation skills as well as or
better than children in more traditional classrooms. For example, see Elley's 1991
summary of studies on learning English as a second language; Knapp and
associates, 1995, on a variety of skills; also McIntyre & Freppon, 1994, on
development of the alphabetic principle; Clarke, 1988, on spelling; and Stice and
Bertrand, 1990, which included spelling. A comparison of standardized test scores
before and after implementation of whole language instruction in two school
districts reveals essentially no difference in test scores (Traw, 1996). In addition,
see Calkins, 1980; Gunderson and Shapiro, 1988; Smith & Elley, 1995. DiStefano
& Killion (1984) is also relevant.
4. Children in whole language classrooms seem more inclined and able to read for
meaning rather than just to identify words. For example, when asked "What makes

a good reader?", the children in Stice and Bertrand's study (1990) reported that
good readers read a great deal and that they can read any book in the room. The
children in the traditional classrooms tended to focus on words and surface
correctness; they reported that good readers read big words, they know all the
words, and they don't miss any words. In a study by Manning, Manning, and Long
(1989), children in the whole language classroom were more likely to read for
meaning, read with greater comprehension, and read with greater accuracy (not
counting the errors that resulted in no meaning loss).
5. Children in whole language classrooms seem to develop more strategies for
dealing with problems in reading. For example, the children in the whole language
classrooms in Stice and Bertrand's study (1990) typically described six strategies
for dealing with problem words, while the children in traditional classrooms
described only three.
6. Children in whole language classrooms seem to develop greater facility in
writing. For example, in the Dahl and Freppon study (1991, 1994), a considerably
larger proportion of the children in the whole language classrooms were writing
sentences and stories by the end of first grade. The children in the whole language
classrooms in the Kasten and Clarke study (1989) were similarly much more
advanced as writers by the end of their kindergarten year.
7. Children in whole language classrooms seem to develop a stronger sense of
themselves as readers and writers. Take, for example, the Stice and Bertrand study
(1990). When asked "Who do you know who is a good reader?", 82 percent of the
kindergartners in the whole language classrooms mentioned themselves, but only 5
percent of the kindergartners in the traditional classrooms said "me." During the
first-grade year, when the children were asked directly "Are you a good reader?",
70 percent of the whole language children said yes, but only 33 percent of the
traditional children said yes.
8. Children in whole language classrooms also seem to develop greater
independence as readers and writers. In the Dahl and Freppon study (1992, 1994),
for instance, passivity seemed to be the most frequent coping strategy for learners
having difficulty in the skills-based classrooms. But in whole language classrooms,
those having difficulty tended to draw upon other learners for support: by saying
the phrases and sentences that others could read, by copying what they wrote, and
so forth. That is, these less proficient literacy learners still attempted to remain
engaged in literacy activities with their peers. They didn't just give up.
In whole language classrooms like the ones in these studies, where phonics is
taught explicitly in the context of reading and writing, the concepts of phonemic
awareness, phonics, and decoding skills seem to be learned at least as well as in
skills emphasis classrooms (Stahl & Kuhn, 1995), while other literacy behaviors
are typically learned better. One ongoing, longitudinal study that compares phonics

taught in isolation with phonics taught in context shows better results with the
phonics in isolation, accompanied by a lot of reading and rereading (Wood, 1996).
On the other hand, this study does not include various measures of success other
than standardized tests, as did the aforementioned studies. Neither does the study
by Foorman, Francis, Beeler, Winikates, and Fletcher (1997), nor is it clear from
their article whether the "whole language" and "embedded phonics" teachers spent
much time teaching phonics in context, compared with the direct instruction
phonics group. If not, this might account for the fact that students in the direct
instruction group scored better on letter-word identification and word attack,
though not on one measure of comprehension.)
Various naturalistic studies also support the teaching and learning of phonics in the
context of meaningful reading (Stephens, 1991). Share and his colleagues account
for such learning in their self-teaching model of word reading acquisition (Share &
Jorm, 1987; Share & Stanovich, 1995). And recent research suggests mechanisms
by which such learning may take place (Moustafa, 1995; Peterson & Haines,
1992).
These research results corroborate conclusions from more naturalistic research;
they do not stand alone in support of whole language. Furthermore, other
comparative studies have generated similar results (see the summaries in Stephens,
1991; Shapiro, 1990; Tunnel & Jacobs, 1989; for the importance of reading and
more reading, see Krashen, 1993). From these various studies, it appears that
children in whole language classrooms develop reading skills at least as well as
children in skills-oriented classrooms, and that they get off to a significantly better
start at developing the attitudes, values, and behaviors of literate individuals--to
becoming not only competent but eager readers and writers.
So, what are we to make of these bodies of research?
When it comes to implementation, all of this research must be interpreted
cautiously. One reason is that both kinds of experimental research--that focusing on
phonological and phonemic awareness, and that focusing on the development of a
wide range of literate behaviors--have often focused on small numbers of children.
Much of the research on teaching phonological and phonemic awareness, in fact,
has involved teaching children either in small groups or tutoring them one-on-one
(Ayers, 1993 and in press, is an exception). Furthermore, while research may
sometimes show the greatest effects for direct instruction tutoring, the differences
do not necessarily last, nor are they necessarily great enough to be statistically
significant. In the Torgesen & Hecht study (1996), for example, the differences
among the different tutorial treatments were very slight, while there was a
substantial difference between all the tutorial groups and the children receiving no
additional tutoring.

Another limitation of both bodies of research is that the studies typically do not
assess comprehension on measures other than standardized tests (though
sometimes children were asked to retell what they had read, in the latter group of
studies). This is a major limitation that needs to be addressed in future research,
and addressed over a period of years, in longitudinal studies--as do various aspects
of literacy development.
Given these limitations and caveats, what can we tentatively conclude? The
evidence seems fairly strong that whole language teaching produces about the
same results on standardized tests (including measures of phonics, which ipso facto
require phonemic analysis) as does traditional skills-oriented teaching, including
teaching that has emphasized phonics. There is also some evidence that direct
instruction phonics may produce higher initial scores on phonemic awareness and
word attack skills and sometimes on comprehension tests, particularly with
children labeled at risk or reading disabled, when they are tutored one-on-one or in
very small groups. On the other hand, this advantage appears not to last very long,
particularly for comprehension tests. Meanwhile, students in classrooms where
skills are taught in the context of reading and writing whole texts have typically
made substantially greater advances in a variety of literacy-related skills, strategies,
behaviors, and attitudes.
Toward a consensus on the teaching of phonics
There are still critical differences in how reading researchers conceptualize and
characterize reading. Those who have examined the reading process through an
analysis of the miscues ("errors") made by proficient readers have concluded that
what most obviously characterizes proficient reading is the reader's drive to
construct meaning (Goodman, 1973; Brown, Goodman, & Marek, 1996). Those
who have examined word identification and the teaching of phonological skills
more than the process of reading whole texts have concluded that what most
obviously characterizes proficient reading is the ability to read most words in a text
automatically and fluently (e.g., Adams & Bruck, 1995; Beck & Juel, 1995;
Stanovich, 1991). Nevertheless, both groups agree that children need to develop
and use phonics knowledge in reading familiar and unfamiliar print words, before
they can be considered truly independent readers.
In the 1990s, various whole language researchers and educators have done research
and written books, articles, and other documents demonstrating how phonics is
learned and/or taught in the context of reading and writing whole texts (McIntyre
& Freppon, 1994; Mills, O'Keefe, & Stephens, 1992; Powell and Hornsby, 1993;
Weaver, 1994a; Routman & Butler, 1995). On the other hand, some researchers
who most adamantly insist on teaching phonemic awareness and phonics are
suggesting teaching methods and materials that resemble those of the whole
language educators (Adams & Brock, 1995; Beck & Juel, 1995; also P.
Cunningham, 1995; Griffith & Olson, 1992). For example, some educators within

both groups recommend using nursery rhymes, tongue twisters, and books like the
rhymed Dr. Seuss books. Both groups recognize the importance of reading to and
with children. One remaining difference, however, is that phonemic awareness
researchers and educators often advocate oral language play and games in the
preschool years (Yopp, 1992), while whole language educators typically are
convinced this is unnecessary and that children will learn more in less time when
the teacher focuses on phonemic awareness in the context of written texts (e.g., see
Kasten & Clarke, 1989; Richgels, Poremba, & McGee, 1996; and the
aforementioned studies showing that phonemic awareness is best learned when
letter/sound correspondences are also taught). But despite these practical and
theoretical differences, there is nevertheless a greater degree of consensus than a
few years ago.
Considering, then, the major theoretical differences and the resulting emphases, it
is particularly noteworthy that researchers and educators from various backgrounds
are beginning to converge on several major points about the teaching of phonics:
(1) that phonemic awareness facilitates learning to read, and that learning to read-and write--also facilitates the development of phonemic awareness (the reciprocal
hypothesis); (2) that worksheets and mindless drill are not the best means of
developing phonemic awareness and phonics knowledge (e.g. A. E. Cunningham,
1990); (3) that children should be given explicit, direct help in developing
phonemic awareness and a functional command of phonics; (4) that for the
majority of children, such direct teaching does not have to be intensive and
systematic to be effective; (5) that about 15-20% of our children will need
additional help, often tutorial help, in developing phonemic awareness, phonics
knowledge, and/or decoding skills (Lyon, 1996); (6) that some children need
explicit help in developing strategies for comprehending, as they read; (7) that
reading and rereading familiar and enjoyable texts is critical for developing the
ability to read and comprehend texts, and even for developing phonics knowledge
and skills; and (8) that even emergent readers should read whole texts with
appropriate support, and not be limited to, or focused mainly on, skills work.
To summarize, then: teaching phonics in context and through discussion and
collaborative activities seems to be effective with a majority of our children.
Additionally, more intensive and systematic teaching of phonemic awareness and
phonics skills can be provided in daily tutorial sessions for children who appear to
need it--either within the classroom, or in pull-out programs (Clay, 1987; Iversen &
Tunmer, 1993; Vellutino et al., 1996). Together, such instruction and support can
enable virtually all children to develop phonological and phonics skills.
Furthermore, most of the children in classrooms where skills are taught in the
context of reading and writing whole texts learn to read for meaning and get a
better start on becoming proficient and independent readers of texts, not mere
word-callers (e.g., Dahl & Freppon, 1992, 1994; Stice & Bertrand, 1990; Kasten &
Clarke, 1989).

Helping children develop phonics knowledge

Without using programs for teaching phonics intensively and systematically,
parents and teachers can do various things to help children gain phonics knowledge
and develop phonemic awareness in the context of meaningful reading and writing
and language play. Educators differ as to which particular practices they adopt or
recommend, but many educators and researchers advocate at least some of the
following: (1) read and reread favorite nursery rhymes, and enjoy tongue twisters
and other forms of language play together; (2) reread favorite poems, songs, and
stories; discuss alliteration and rhyme within them; and play with sound elements
(e.g. starting with cake, remove the c and consider what different sounds could be
added to make other words, like take, make, lake); (3) read alphabet books to and
with children, and make alphabet books together; (4) discuss words and make lists,
word banks, or books of such words that share interesting spelling/sound patterns;
(5) discuss similar sounds and letter/sound patterns in children's names; (6)
emphasize selected letter/sound relationships while writing with, for, or in front of
children; (7) encourage children to play with magnetic letters and to explore
letter/sound relations; (8) help children write the sounds they hear in words; (9)
when reading together, help children use prior knowledge and context plus initial
consonants to predict what a word will be, and then look at the rest of the word to
confirm or correct (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996; Mills et al., 1992; Powell & Hornsby,
1993; Freppon & Dahl, 1991; Griffith & Olson, 1992; Weaver, 1994a and b;
Routman & Butler, 1995; P. Cunningham, 1995; Wagstaff, no date). The latter
activity is especially important for helping children orchestrate prior knowledge
with context and letter/sound cues in order not merely to identify words but to
construct meaning from texts--which, after all, is the primary purpose of reading.
Teaching phonics and phonemic awareness in such ways helps keep letter/sound
cues in proper perspective, but only when children spend substantially more time
daily in listening to books read aloud (live, and on tape); in reading independently
or with a partner (even if they still read the pictures more than the words); in
discussing the literature they have heard and read; in reading classroom messages,
signs, directions, and other informational print; in composing and writing together
with the teacher, as a group; and in writing independently. Teaching phonics first
and only, as some people urge, is a good way of separating children who can do
isolated phonics from those who can't, but it is not a good way to teach children to
read, since reading is much more than attacking words. Phonics first-and-only can
be particularly difficult and limiting for children whose prior experiences with
books have been quite limited. Furthermore, we should not assume that children or
adults who have difficulty recognizing and/or sounding out words cannot
comprehend texts effectively; indeed, even "dyslexic" readers can often
comprehend well (Fink, 1995/96; Weaver, 1994c), because of the redundancy of
language and the knowledge they bring to texts. Research suggests that our best
plan may be to teach phonics and phonemic awareness in the context of reading
and writing, to all children; provide tutoring for children who need more

individualized and/or more direct help with phonemic awareness, phonics,

decoding, and/or using these skills as part of effective reading strategies; and
possibly to discontinue such help for children who have benefited little from a
year's daily individualized tutoring, while increasing the emphasis on developing
strategies for deriving meaning.
REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Adams, M. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Resolving the "Great debate." American Educator, 19 (2), 7, 10-20.
Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. M. (1996). Schools that work: Where all children read and write. New
York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Ayres, L. R. (1993). The efficacy of three training conditions on phonological awareness of kindergarten
children and the longitudinal effect of each on later reading acquisition. Rochester, MI: Oakland University.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Ayres, L. R. (In press). Phonological awareness training of kindergarten children: Three treatments and their
effects. In Weaver (in press).
Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early
word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.
Beck, I. L., & Juel, C. (1995). The role of decoding in learning to read. American Educator, 19 (2), 8, 21-25, 3942.
Boder, E. (1973). Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic approach based on three atypical reading-spelling
patterns. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 15, 663-687.
Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading
Research Quarterly, 2, 5-142.
Brown, J., Goodman, K. S., & Marek, A. M. (1996). Studies in miscue analysis: An annotated bibliography.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read--a causal connection. Nature, 301,
419-421.
Bradley, L, & Bryant, P. E. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. I.A.R.L.D. Monographs No. 1.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young
children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 451-455.
Calkins, L. M. (1980). When children want to punctuate: Basic skills belong in context. Language Arts, 57, 567573.
Carbo, M. (1988). Debunking the great phonics myth. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 226-240. Chall, J. (1967/1983).
Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J. (1967/1983). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Clarke, L. K. (1988). Invented versus traditional spelling in first graders' writings: Effects on learning to spell
and read. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 281-309.
Clay, M. M. (1987). Learning to be learning disabled. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 22, 155173.
Cunningham, A. E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 50, 429-444.
Cunningham, P. (1995). Phonics they use: Words for reading and writing. New York: HarperCollins.
Dahl, K. L, & Freppon, P. A. (1992). Learning to read and write in inner-city schools: A comparison of
children's sense-making in skills-based and whole language classrooms. Final report to the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education (Grant No.
G008720229)
Dahl, K. L., & Freppon, P. A. (1994). A comparison of inner-city children's interpretations of reading and
writing instruction in the early grades in skills-based and whole language classrooms. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30, 50-74. Reprinted in Weaver (in press).
DiStefano, P., & Killion, J. (1984). Assessing writing skills through a process approach. English Education, 16,
203-207.
Ehri, L. C. (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 2 (pp. 383-417). New York: Longman.
Ehri, L. C. (1994). Development of the ability to read words: Update. In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer
(Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 323-358). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in reading words. Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 116-125.
Ehri, L. C., & Robbins, C. (1992). Beginners need some decoding skill to read words by analogy. Reading
Research Quarterly, 27, 13-26.
Elbro, C. (1990). Differences in dyslexia: A study of reading strategies and deficits in a linguistic perspective.
Copenhagen: Munksgaard International Publishers.
Elley, W.B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language
Learning , 41(3), 375-411.
Fink, R. (1995/96). Successful dyslexics: A constructionist study of passionate interest reading. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39, 268-280.
Foorman, B. R. (1995). Research on "The great debate": Code-oriented versus whole language approaches to
reading instruction. School Psychology Review, 24, 376-392.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J. M. (1997) Early intervention for children
with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning Disabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary
Journal, 8, 63-71.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Fox, B., & Routh, D. K. (1980). Phonemic analysis and severe reading disability in children. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 9, 115-119.

Freppon, P. A. (1988). An investigation of children's concepts of the purpose and nature of reading in different
instructional settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Freppon, P. A. (1991). Children's concepts of the nature and purpose of reading in different instructional
settings. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 139-163.
Freppon, P. A., & Dahl, K. L. (1991). Learning about phonics in a whole language classroom. Language Arts, 68
(3), 190-197.
Gibson, E. J. (1985). Trends in perceptual development. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical
models and processes of reading (3rd Ed., pp. 144-173). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Goldstein, D. M. (1976). Cognitive-linguistic functioning and learning to read in preschoolers. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 68, 680-688.
Goodman, K. S. (1973). Theoretically based studies of patterns of miscues in oral reading performance. Detroit:
Wayne State University. (ED 079 708)
Goodman, Y. M., & Marek, A. M. (1996). Retrospective miscue analysis: Revaluing readers and
reading. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.
Goswami, U. (1986). Children's use of analogy to read: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 42, 73-83.
Goswami, U. (1988). Orthographic analogies and reading development. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 40, 239-268.
Goswami, U. (1993). Toward an interactive analogy model of reading development: Decoding vowel graphemes
in beginning reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 443-475.
Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonolnological skills and learning to read. Hove, East Sussex: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Griffith, P. L. , & Olson, M. W. (1992). Phonemic awareness helps beginning readers break the code. The
Reading Teacher, 45, 516-525.
Gunderson, L., & Shapiro, J. (1988). Whole language instruction: Writing in 1st grade. The Reading Teacher,
41, 430-437.
Gunning, R. G. (1995). Word building: A strategic approach to the teaching of phonics. The Reading Teacher,
48, 484-488.
Gunning,, T. (1988). Decoding behavior of good and poor second grade students. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the International Reading Association, Toronto.
Iverson, S., & Tunmer, W. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the reading recovery program. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 112-126.
Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first
and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243-255.
Juel, C., & Roper/Schneider, D. (1985). The influence of basal readers on first grade reading. Reading Research
Quarterly, 22, 134-152.
Kasten, W. C., & Clarke, B. K. (1989). Reading/writing readiness for preschool and kindergarten children: A
whole language approach. Sanibel, Florida: Educational Research and Development Council. (ED 312 041)

Knapp, M. S., and associates. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high-poverty classrooms. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Kucer, S. B. (1985). Predictability and readability: The same rose with different names? In M. Douglass
(Ed.), Claremont Reading Conference 49th yearbook (pp. 229-246). Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate
School.
Lyon, G. R. (1995a). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists supported by the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Journal of Child Neurology, 10, 120-128.
Lyon, G. R. (1995b). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3-27.
Lyon, G.R. (1996). The state of research. In S. Cramer & W. Ellis (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Lifelong
issues (pp. 3-61). Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing.
Mann, V. (1986). Phonological awareness: The role of reading experience. Cognition, 24, 65-92.
Manning, M., Manning, G., & Long, R. (1989). Effects of a whole language and a skill-oriented program on the
literacy development of inner city primary children. ED 324 642.
McIntyre, E., & Freppon, P. A. (1994). A comparison of children's development of alphabetic knowledge in a
skills-based and a whole language classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 391-417.
Mills, H., O'Keefe, T., & Stephens, D. (1992). Looking closely: Exploring the role of phonics in one whole
language classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Morais, J., Bertelson, P., Carey, L., & Alegria, J. (1986). Literacy training and speech segmentation. Cognition,
24, 45-64.
Moustafa, M. (1990). An interactive/cognitive model of the acquisition of a graphophonemic system by young
children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Moustafa, M. (1995). Children's productive phonological recoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 464-476.
Moustafa, M. (In press). Reconceptualizing phonics instruction. In Weaver (in press).
Nation, K., & Hulme, C. (1997). Phonemic segmentation, not onset-rime segmentation, predicts early reading
and spelling skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 154-167.
Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L. C., & Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are
reciprocal: A longitudinal study of first grade children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 283-319.
Peterson, M. E., & Haines, L. P. (1992). Orthographic analogy training with kindergarten children: Effects on
analogy use, phonemic segmentation, and letter-sound knowledge. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 109-127.
Powell, D., & Hornsby, D. (1993). Learning phonics and spelling in a whole language classroom. New York:
Scholastic.
Rhodes, L. (1979). Comprehension and predictability: An analysis of beginning reading materials. In J. Harste
& R. Carey (Eds.), New perspectives on comprehension (pp. 100-130). Bloomington, IN: School of Education,
Indiana University.
Ribowsky, H. (1985). The effects of a code emphasis approach and a whole language approach upon emergent
literacy of kindergarten children. Alexandria, Va. (ERIC: ED 269 720)

Richgels, D., Poremba, K., & McGee, L. (1996). Kindergartners talk about print: Phonemic awareness in
meaningful contexts. The Reading Teacher, 49, 632-641.
Routman, R., & Butler, A. (1995). Why talk about phonics? School Talk, 1 (2). (National Council of Teachers of
English.)
Santa, C. M. (1976-77). Spelling patterns and the development of flexible word recognition strategies. Reading
Research Quarterly, 12, 125-144.
Shapiro, J. (1990). Research perspectives on whole-language. In V. Froese (Ed.), Whole language: Practice and
theory (pp. 313-356). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Share, D. L., & Jorm, A. F. (1987). Segmental analysis: Co-requisite to reading, vital for self-teaching, requiring
phonological memory. European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 7, 509-513.
Share, D. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: A model of
acquisition and individual differences. Issues in Education: Contributions from educational psychology, 1, 1-35.
Simons, H. D., & Ammon, P. (1989). Child knowledge and primerese text: Mismatches and miscues. Research
in the Teaching of English, 23, 380-398.
Smith, J. W. A., & Elley, W. B. (1995). Learning to read in New Zealand. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.
Stahl, S. A. (1992). Saying the "p" word: Nine guidelines for exemplary phonics instruction. The Reading
Teacher, 45, 618-625.
Stahl, S. A., & Kuhn, M. R. (1995). Does whole language or instruction matched to learning styles help children
learn to read? School Psychology Review, 24, 393-404.
Stahl, S. A., McKenna, M. C., & Pagnucco, J. R. (1994). The effects of whole-language instruction: An update
and a reappraisal. Educational Psychologist, 29, 175-185.
Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.
D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 418-452). New York: Longman.
Stanovich, K. E. (1992). Speculations on the causes and consequences of individual differences in early reading
acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 307-342). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Feeman, D. J. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive skills, and early reading
progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 8-46.
Stephens, D. (1991). Research on whole language: Support for a new curriculum. Katonah, NY: Richard C.
Owen.
Stice, C. F., & Bertrand, N. P. (1990). Whole language and the emergent literacy of at-risk children: A two-year
comparative study. Nashville: Center of Excellence: Basic Skills, Tennessee State University. (ED 324 636)
Treiman, R., & Baron, J. (1983). Phonemic-analysis training helps children benefit from spelling-sound
rules. Memory and Cognition, 18, 559-567.
Torgeson, J. K., & Hecht, S. A. (1996). Preventing and remediating reading disabilities: Instructional variables
that make a difference for special students. In M. F. Graves, P. Van Den Broek, & B. M. Taylor (Eds.), The first
R: Every child's right to read (pp. 133-159). New York: Teachers College Press.

Traw, R. (1996). Large-scale assessment of skills in a whole language curriculum: Two districts'
experiences. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 323-339.
Tunnell, M. O., & Jacobs, J. S. (1989). Using "real" books: Research findings on literature based reading
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 42, 470-477.
Tunmer, W. E., & Nesdale, A. R. (1985). Phonemic segmentation skill and beginning reading. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 4, 417-427.
Turner, R. L. (1989). The "great" debate: Can both Carbo and Chall be right? Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 276-283.
Vellutino, F. R., & Denckla, M. B. (1991). Cognitive and neuropsychological foundations of word identification
in poor and normally developing readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 2 (pp. 571-608). New York: Longman.
Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading ability:
Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321-363
Vellutino, F. R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers:
Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of
specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.
Wagner, R. K., & Torgeson, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the
acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192-212.
Wagner, R. K., Torgeson, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). The development of reading-related phonological
processing abilities: New evidence of bi-directional causality from a latent-variable longitudinal
study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73-87.
Wagstaff, J. (No date.) Phonics that work! New strategies for the reading/writing classroom. New York:
Scholastic.
Wallach, M. A., & Wallach, L. (1979). Helping disadvantaged children learn to read by teaching them phoneme
identification skills. In L. A. Resnick & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading, Vol. 3 (pp.
197-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weaver, C. (1994a). Phonics in whole language classrooms. ERIC Digest: ED 372 375.
Weaver, C. (1994b). Reading process and practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole
language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Weaver, C. (1994c). Reconceptualizing reading and dyslexia. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders,
16 (1), 23-35.
Weaver, C. (In press). Reconsidering a balanced approach to reading. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English.
Williams, J. P. (1980). The ABD's of reading: A program for the learning disabled. In L. A. Resnick & P. A.
Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading, Vol. 3 (pp. 179-195). Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.
Wimmer, H., Landerl, K., Linortner, R., & Hummer, P. (1991). The relationship of phonemic awareness to
reading acquisition: More consequence than precondition but still important. Cognition, 40: 219-249.
Wood, F. (1996, Dec.5). Presentation to members of the North Carolina State Board of Education. Raleigh, NC.
Yopp, H. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 45, 696-703.

Prepared for the Michigan English Language Arts Framework project and 1996,
1997 by Constance Weaver. In C. Weaver, L. Gillmeister-Krause, & G. VentoZogby, Creating Support for Effective Literacy Education (Heinemann, 1996).
May be copied.
Previous sheet | Next sheet | Fact sheet index

Why should parents and teachers use direct systematic phonics instruction in
teaching their children or students to read?
All reading instructional approaches are NOT equal in effectiveness. Direct
systematic phonologic based instruction is more effective than other approaches to
reading instruction. This is not opinion. This is clearly revealed by 1) the
neurobiological science of proficient reading as well as proven by 2) the validated
evidence based research. *Specific research references are listed at the end of this
article.

1.

Neurobiological science reveals the importance of phonologic processing to

proficient reading. We now know proficient readers develop and use phonologic
processing pathways to convert print to sound. Struggling/dyslexic readers have
difficulty turning print to sound and do not use phonologic processing pathways. The
key to proficient reading lies in the development of phonologic processing neural
pathways. The brain imaging research also has provided neurobiologic proof
effective phonological based reading instructional programs that specifically taught
letter-sound correspondence not only improved reading skills in struggling readers,
but actually changed neural activity from incorrect neural pathways to correct
phonologic pathways used by good readers. This fascinating brain imaging research
has literally given us the map for developing proficient reading and shown how we
can help students develop proficient reader phonologic processing pathways.

2. Valid evidence based research clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of

systematic and explicit phonics instruction in helping students learn to read. The
research (National Reading Panel) reveals systematic and explicit instruction in
phonics produces significant benefits for children from kindergarten through sixth
grade and for children having difficulty learning to read. Systematic and explicit
phonics instruction is effective for children from various social and economic levels
and is particularly beneficial for children who are having difficulty learning to read.
Systematic and explicit phonics instruction significantly improves childrens reading
comprehension. The research also clearly reveals systematic explicit phonics
instruction was significantly more effective than non-systematic or no phonics
instruction. Direct systematic phonics instruction was not only effective, it was more
effective than other approaches to reading instruction. Students taught phonics
systematically outperformed students who were taught a variety of nonsystematic or
non-phonics programs, including basal programs, whole language approaches and
whole-word programs.

We should use direct systematic phonics based instructional programs in teaching

students to read because these programs give us the tools to directly develop the
phonologic processing necessary for proficient reading. To read proficiently, the
student must develop phonologic neural processing pathways. If students fail to
convert print to sound and develop phonologic processing pathways they face
difficulty learning to read. Effective complete direct systematic phonics reading
programs intentionally teach students to convert print to sound and directly help
children acquire specific necessary skills and develop these proficient reader neural
pathways. We have proof, both validated results based evidence and findings from
the neural imaging studies, direct systematic phonics programs are effective in both
helping young children learn to read proficiently and in helping struggling students
(children and adults) overcome reading difficulty. Direct systematic phonics
instruction provides the most effective approach for directly help students
achieve reading success!
What are the key elements/components of effective direct systematic phonics
programs?
All phonics programs are not equal. The research shows the most effective
programs include:

1.

A phonologic based/ synthetic phonics approach: An effective instruction

program explicitly teaches the student how to convert letters/letter combinations into
sound and then how to blend the sounds together into words. A true phonics based
reading program is more than learning letter=sound knowledge in isolation. The
student is explicitly taught not only their sounds but how to combine sounds together
into words. Students learn to approach reading by sounding out words. Remember
phonics based instruction works because these programs intentionally and directly
develop the phonologic processing pathways necessary for proficient reading.

2. Direct or explicit instruction: Effective programs directly or explicitly teach skills

and knowledge to the student. Explicit instruction is proven to be more effective than
embedded, implicit or analogy instruction. For example on phonemic code
knowledge, explicit instruction clearly shows the student the printed letter(s) and
directly teaches the corresponding sound to achieve direct print=sound instruction. In
contrast analytic or embedded approaches do not clearly identify the letter-sound
relationship and instead require the child to acquire this information from analyzing
or extracting this information from known words or text within reading. Many children
do not learn from implicit, embedded, analogy or analytic phonics approaches. Direct
or explicit instruction is necessary. For additional information see the article More
About Direct Instruction Methods in Teaching Reading and Why Children Often Fail
to Learn with Indirect Instruction.

2. Systematic presentation: Systematic instruction directly teaches necessary skills

and knowledge a pre-planned organized and logical sequence. Systematic
programs usually start simple, teach foundational skills and then add complexities
methodically as skills develop. Pre-planning also ensures all skills/knowledge is
covered. A critical feature of systematic phonics instruction is the carefully planned
introduction of the complete phonemic code (See The Phonemic Code Explained).
Instruction usually begins with a planned set of the simple letter=sound relationships.

Complexities such as vowel combinations r-controlled vowel combinations need to

be methodically added after basic knowledge is acquired. Systematic presentation
allows the student time to practice and master individual skills before additional
complexities are added. Systematic presentation is particularly critical for
struggling/dyslexic readers. Systematic presentation breaks the complex process of
reading into manageable bite-sized skills allowing the student to achieve success
one step at a time as they build their way toward proficient reading. Systematic
presentation helps students learn and succeed!

2. Complete: Reading is a complex learned skill. Correct phonologic processing

requires the acquisition and integration of many different subskills including
phonemic awareness, alphabetic awareness/knowledge of the complete phonemic
code, smooth blending, proper tracking, and attention to detail. See the
article Foundational Skills Necessary for Proficient Phonologic Processing.
Complete programs include explicit instruction in each of these skills. It is also
important that the student is directly taught the complete phonemic code (including
consonant digraphs, vowel combinations, r-controlled vowel combinations, and other
complexities).

2. Provide Practice: Effective phonics programs provide practice so the student can
apply what they have learned about the letters and sounds to decoding/reading
words. The student needs considerable practice reading decodable text in words,
sentences and stories. When parents and teachers use a well organized systematic
phonics program, they are able to easily develop decodable text based on their
students code knowledge. See the article Decodable Text Explainedfor dditional
information. In addition, repeated practice of correct phonologic processing is
essential to building fluency.
In quick summary, to achieve effectiveness, reading programs need to be strong
phonics first, use direct/explicit instruction, and teach in a systematic and complete
manner. Effective programs also provide opportunity for the student to practice
applying the correct phonologic processing of print by reading words, sentences and
stories. The Right Track Reading Programs are effective, direct systematic phonics
programs.
Why should parents and teachers focus on one approach to reading
instruction (direct systematic phonics) instead of utilizing multiple approaches
when teaching children to read?
The evidence clearly shows that direct systematic phonics is more effective than
other approaches. The research shows systematic phonics instruction is not only
effective but it is significantly more effective than instruction that teaches little,
unsystematic or no phonics. Systematic phonics is significantly more effective in
helping prevent reading difficulties among at risk students and in remediating
disabled readers.
Students taught phonics systematically outperformed students who were
taught a variety of nonsystematic or non-phonics programs, including basal
programs, whole language approaches and whole-word programs. (NRP
Subgroup Report page 2-95)

The effectiveness is achieved with strong direct systematic synthetic phonics

instruction. It is not achieved my mixing methods or by adding phonics activities to
other nonsystematic programs. In fact, adding phonics workbooks and phonics
activities to non-systematic/non-phonics programs was shown not only be ineffective
but to actually confuse students.
Further, adding phonics workbooks or phonics activities to these programs of
instruction has not been effective. Such "add-ons" confuse rather than help
children to read. (From page 17 of Put Reading First: The Research Blocks
for Teaching Children to Read)
Proficient reading is complex; most children need direct systematic phonics
instruction to insure they develop necessary phonologic processing pathways. This
is especially true for the children at greatest risk for reading failure. The reason
WHY direct systematic phonics programs are most effective is they directly
and intentionally help the child develop the phonological neural processing
pathways that are essential for proficient reading. When children are first
learning to read, we cant see the neural processing pathways they are using.
However, by teaching them with effective direct systematic phonics programs we can
ensure they activate these proficient reader pathways. The downfall with other
approaches to reading, while they may work for some children, is that they allow and
even encourage many children to use incorrect alternate processing pathways. We
help insure all students succeed when we use direct systematic phonics programs to
intentionally develop proficient phonologic processing pathways.
An important point! These statements comparing methods of reading instruction
relate strictly to the effectiveness and success in teaching students how to read. For
example, the statement direct systematic synthetic phonics is significantly more
effective than non systematic literature based approach to reading instruction
absolutely does not translate into reading literature to your child is somehow not
beneficial or you need to avoid exposure to literature. Of course you need to read
literature to your child and there are significant benefits from literature exposure. Just
dont use the instructional literature basedmethod to teach your child how to convert
the black squiggles of print into language. The research clearly shows it is
significantly more effective to use direct systematic phonics instruction. Teaching
students how to read with direct systmatic phonics instruction is most effective in
helping the child establish the foundation of phonologic processing that is essential
for achieving proficient reading. (Please see the next section on complete and
comprehensive reading programs)
Direct Systematic Phonics Programs are NOT Complete/Comprehensive
Reading Programs!
Although direct systematic phonics instruction is highly effective in teaching students
how to read, it does NOT constitute a complete curriculum or comprehensive reading
program. Direct systematic phonics instruction is effectively conducted in k-1st, or
1st-2nd grades or as a direct intervention/remediation program for older students. A
direct-systematic-phonics program establishes the essential foundation of accurate

effortless decoding/correct phonologic decoding so the student is able to achieve the

higher goals of reading. A comprehensive reading program goes beyond decoding
and directly helps students achieve higher level skills.
Skilled reading requires the mastery, integration and application of numerous skills
and knowledge. Parents and teachers absolutely need to help students develop
higher level skills. In addition to requiring practice to build proficiency, a
comprehensive reading program needs to include vocabulary, fluency and
comprehension development. See Overview of Advanced Skills for additional
information. Other essential language curriculum areas in spelling, grammar, creative
and technical writing, exposure to literature, appreciation and enjoyment of reading
and writing, the ability to extract knowledge, critical analysis skills and ability to
research information from multiple sources are absolutely essential to education.
The importance of these educational elements is WHY you use direct systematic
phonics instruction. Direct systematic phonics programs directly help students get on
track to reading proficiency so they will be able to obtain these higher skills and
greater objectives of reading/language instruction.
Selecting an Effective Direct Systematic Phonics Program
When selecting a reading program, remember the National Reading Panel did NOT
give a blanket endorsement on effectiveness to all phonics programs. To be most
effective programs must be 1) a synthetic phonics approach, 2) use direct or explicit
instruction 3) use systematic presentation 4) include instruction in complete
information skills and 5) include opportunities to practice. The National Right to
Read Foundation www.nrrf.org has information and lists programs that meet the
criteria of effective direct systematic phonics.
Both Right Track Reading Lessons (K-2nd grade) and Back on the Right Track
Reading Lessons(remediation of older students 3rd grade through adult) are highly
effective direct systematic phonics instructional programs. These highly effective
direct systematic phonics programs are guaranteed effective.

Reference to Reading Research and the Neuroscience of

Proficient Reading:
This section lists the research and neuroscience links that support the effectiveness
of direct systematic phonics for reading instruction. Links are provided. The
information contained in this article as well as the Right Track Reading Programs,
website information and activities are consistent with and apply the follwoing
research information and findings .
The information in this article is consistent with the research based findings of
the National Reading Panels Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence Based
Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its
Implications for Reading Instruction. The findings of the National Reading Panel
(NRP) listed below are well documented in publications including:

The NRP Report Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the

Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading
Instruction - Summary Report
The NRP Report Teaching Children to Read: Reports of the Subgroups
The NIFL publication Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching
Children to Read
Key Points from the Reading Research Include:
The meta-analysis indicated that systematic phonics instruction enhances
childrens success in learning to read and that systematic phonics instruction is
significantly more effective than instruction that teaches little or no phonics. (NRP
Summary Report p.9)
The meta-analysis revealed that systematic phonics instruction produces
significant benefits for students in kindergarten through 6th grade & for children
having difficulty learning to read. (NRP Summary Report p.9)
Systematic synthetic phonics instruction had a positive and significant effect on
disabled readers reading skills. (NRP Summary Report p.9)
Moreover, systematic synthetic phonics instruction was significantly more
effective in improving low socioeconomic status (SES) childrens alphabetic
knowledge and word reading skills than instructional approaches that were less
focused on these initial reading skills. (NRP Summary Report p.9)
Findings provided solid support for the conclusion that systematic phonics
instruction makes a bigger contribution to childrens growth in reading than
alternative programs providing unsystematic or no phonics instruction. (NRP
Subgroup Report page 2-92)
This supports the conclusion that systematic phonics instruction is effective when
delivered through tutoring, through small groups & through teaching classes of
students. (NRP Subgroup Report page 2-93)
The conclusion drawn from these findings is that systematic phonics instruction is
significantly more effective than non-phonics instruction in helping to prevent
reading difficulties among at risk students and in helping to remediate reading
difficulties in disabled readers. (NRP Subgroup Report page 2-94)
Students taught phonics systematically outperformed students who were taught a
variety of nonsystematic or non-phonics programs, including basal programs,
whole language approaches and whole-word programs. (NRP Subgroup Report
page 2-95)
The conclusion drawn is that growth in word-reading skills is strongly enhanced
by systematic phonics instruction when compared to non-phonics instruction for
kindergartners and 1st graders as well as for older struggling readers. Growth in

comprehension is also boosted by systematic phonics instruction for younger

students and reading disabled students. These findings should dispel any belief
that teaching phonics systematically to young children interferes with their ability
to read and comprehend text. Quite the opposite is the case. (NRP Subgroup
Report page 2-94)

Non-Systematic Programs of phonics instruction: Some programs of instruction

do not teach phonics explicitly and systematically.
Literature-based programs that emphasize reading and writing activities. Phonics
instruction is embedded in these activities, but letter-sound relationships are taught
incidentally, usually based on key letters that appear in student reading materials.
Basal reading programs that focus on whole-word or meaning-based activities.
These programs pay only limited attention to letter-sound relationships and provide little
or no instruction in how to blend letters to pronounce words.
Sight-word programs that begin by teaching children a sight-word reading
vocabulary of from 50 to 100 words. Only after they learn to read these words do
children receive instruction in the alphabetic principle.
Further, adding phonics workbooks or phonics activities to these programs of
instruction has not been effective. Such "add-ons" confuse rather than help
children to read.
(From page 17 of Put Reading First: The Research Blocks for Teaching Children
to Read)
Additional principles and findings from the NRP that are incorporated into the
Right Track Reading Program and Website Information and activities are listed
below. These highlights are copied from the National Institute for Literacys (NIFL)
Summary Principles from the Reading Research
To become good readers, children must develop phonemic awareness (an
understanding of the sounds that make up spoken language), phonics skills (an
understanding of the sounds that letters and letter combinations make), the ability
to read fluently and accurately, and the ability to comprehend what is read.
Systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness directly causes
improvement in children's reading and spelling skills.
Systematic and explicit phonics instruction produces significant benefits for
children from kindergarten through sixth grade and for children having difficulty
learning to read. Effective Phonics Instruction involves teaching a sequence of
phonics elements, not just highlighting elements as they appear in a text.
Highlights from the evidence-based research on phonics instruction include:
Systematic and explicit phonics instruction is more effective than nonsystematic or no phonics instruction. The hallmark of systematic phonics
instruction is the direct teaching of a set of letter-sound relationships in a clearly
defined sequence. The set includes the major sound/spelling relationships of both
consonants and vowels.
Systematic and explicit phonics instruction significantly improves
kindergarten and first grade children's word recognition and spelling.
Systematic and explicit phonics instruction significantly improves
children's reading comprehension.

Systematic and explicit phonics instruction is effective for children from

various social and economic levels. It helps children from various backgrounds
make greater gains in reading than non-systematic or no phonics instruction.
Systematic and explicit phonics instruction is particularly beneficial for
children who are having difficulty learning to read and who are at risk for
developing future reading problems.
Systematic and explicit phonics instruction is most effective when
introduced early. Instruction should start in kindergarten and first grade.
Phonics instruction is not an entire reading program for beginning
readers. Children should also be solidifying their knowledge of the alphabet,
engaging in phonemic awareness activities, and listening to stories and
informational texts read aloud to them. They should also be reading texts and
writing letters, words, messages, and stories.
Phonics can be taught effectively to a whole class, small groups, or
individual students.
The information contained in the Right Track Reading Programs, Website
Information and Activities apply the research information and findings
from University of Oregons Big Ideas in Beginning
Readinghttp://reading.uoregon.edu/big_ideas/ including:
Phonemic Awareness Instruction:
Phonemic awareness needs to be taught explicitly.
Teachers increase effectiveness when the manipulation of letters is added to
phonemic awareness tasks. Phonemic awareness is an auditory skill, but once
children start to become familiar with the concept, teachers can introduce letter
tiles or squares and manipulate them to form sounds and words.
The sound units (phonemes) are not inherently obvious and must be taught. The
sounds that make up words are "coarticulated;" that is, they are not distinctly
separate from each other.
Alphabetic Principle Instruction:
Letter-sound knowledge is prerequisite to effective word identification. A primary
difference between good and poor readers is the ability to use letter-sound
correspondence to identify words (Juel, 1991).
Students who acquire and apply the alphabetic principle early in their reading
careers reap long-term benefits (Stanovich, 1986).
Teaching students to phonologically recode words is a difficult, demanding, yet
achievable goal with long-lasting effects (Liberman & Liberman, 1990).
The combination of instruction in phonological awareness and letter-sounds
appears to be the most favorable for successful early reading (Haskell, Foorman,
& Swank, 1992).
Good readers must have a strategy to phonologically recode words (Ehri, 1991;
NRP, 2000;).

During the alphabetic phase, reading must have lots of practice phonologically
recoding the same words to become familiar with spelling patterns (Ehri, 1991).
Awareness of the relation between sounds and the alphabet can be taught
(Liberman & Liberman, 1990).
Because our language is alphabetic, decoding is an essential and primary
means of recognizing words. There are simply too many words in the English
language to rely on memorization as a primary word identification strategy (Bay
Area Reading Task Force, 1996;).
Accuracy & Fluency Instruction:
Successful Readersrely primarily on the letters in the word rather than context
or pictures to identify familiar and unfamiliar words; process virtually every letter;
use letter-sound correspondences to identify words; have a reliable strategy for
decoding words; read words for a sufficient number of times for words to become
automatic (Hasbrouck, 1998)

The Science of Proficient Reading!

The neurobiological evidence on the process of proficient reading and dyslexia
reveal the importance of phonemic awareness and phonologic processing to
proficient reading. The neural research demonstrates the ability of effective
phonologic based reading instructional programs to develop proficient reader
pathways and improve reading skills. This research provides a wealth of information
that can help us more effectively teach students how to read. Several sources of
background information applied to the activities in this presentation include:
Overcoming Dyslexia: A New and Complete Science-Based Program for Reading
Problems at Any Level by Sally Shaywitz, M.D. Copyright 2003
This book provides valuable information on the science of proficient reading. Dr.
Shaywitz is a neuroscientist involved in the fascinating research on the process
of proficient reading. In this book, she outlines what scientists are learning about
the process of proficient reading and dyslexia (difficulty reading). The scientific
evidence on the importance of phonemic awareness and phonologic processing
provide a wealth of information that can help us more effectively teach students
how to read. This book is available in many libraries and most bookstores.

Links to specific reasearch articles and journal citations found on the National
Library of Medicine - National Institue of Health web based literature retrieval
search system PubMed:

Dyslexia-specific brain activation profile becomes normal following successful

remedial training

Functional disruption in the organization of the brain for reading in dyslexia

Development of left occipitotemporal systems for skilled reading in children after
a phonologically-based intervention
Brain mechanisms for reading in children with and without dyslexia: a review of
studies of normal development and plasticity

Intensive instruction affects brain magnetic activity associated with oral word
reading in children with persistent reading disabilities

Neural changes following remediation in adult developmental dyslexia

The role of functional magnetic resonance imaging in understanding reading and

dyslexia

Dyslexia (specific reading disability)

Links to a few informative articles from the Georgetown University Medical

Center:
Clinical Study - Neural Changes Following Remediation in Adult Developmental
Dyslexia (Shows how the Adult Dyslexic Bran Can Chang with Direct Phonologic
Tutoring)
Neurobiological Basis of Dyslexia - Georgetown University Slide/Handout
Brochure (great visual display)
Was Orton Right? A New Study Examines How the Brain Works in Reading:
Offers Key to Better Understanding Dyslexia

In sumary, parents and teachers should use direct systematic phonics to teach their
children and student to read becasue direct systematic phonologic based
instruction is more effective than other approaches to reading instruction. This
is not opinion. This is clearly revealed by 1) the neurobiological science of proficient
reading as well as proven by 2) the validated evidence based research.
Additional free information on teaching students to read using effective direct
systematic phonics instruction is located at Reading Information and Information &
Resources for Teaching Reading pages of the Right Track Reading website. If you
are ready to acquire effective tools to help your child or student achieve reading
success preview Right Track Reading Lessons and Back on the Right Track Reading
Lessons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This article was written by Miscese Gagen a mother with a passion for teaching children to read proficiently by
using effective methods. She is also a successful reading tutor and author of the reading instructional programs
Right Track Reading Lessons and Back on the Right Track Reading Lessons. The purpose of this article is to
empower parents and teachers with information on teaching children how to read. We CAN improve reading
proficiency, one student at a time! More information is located at www.righttrackreading.com ~ Copyright 20082013 Miscese R. Gagen

Fun, Effective Phonics A Teachers Perspective

Adam Saye June 2013

Ive been at the Thomas Buxton Primary School in Tower Hamlets for two years. When I joined
the school we didnt have a phonics programme we followed, so I implemented Jolly Phonics
in the Nursery and Reception. I split the classes into three groupings: high, middle, and lower
ability and streamed the children according to their phonics ability. This provided the
opportunity to work intensively at the particular groups required pace.
In Early Years, we have a number of children on the SEN register; we have children with autism, ASD,
children with dyslexia and children with speech and language difficulties who have the use of a
speech therapist . We also have a high number of children with English as an additional language
(EAL) at the school. Children with EAL do not have a statement of special education needs but they
do need help when they enter nursery to help with aural and verbal comprehension of English.
Typically 95% of our children enter nursery under their age-expected level of ability. We teach
intensively using Jolly Phonics and track the children every half term rather than every term (as
practiced in many schools). By the time children leave us to go into year 1, 80% are working at ageexpected level and above.
We use the Essex Target Tracker to track pupils every half term, so were very aware of the progress
theyre making. If theyre not making progress we are able to ask why, and work to rectify it.
Monitoring progress is a great way of recognising the childrens individual needs. If a pupil is making
good progress in the lower group, then we move them up; there is a fluidity to the practice.
Children need to have a good grasp of phonics in order to learn to read and write. They need to know
their letter sounds and how to segment and blend. When I have a child who has a statement I know I
need to make the phonics more fun and interactive; in fact I make it as interactive as possible. I use
games such as Whats in the bag?: I use a bag that contains objects starting with the letter sound of
the day; I sing songs about the objects, ask what noises they make etc.
When I was at school I learned to read using Jolly Phonics, I enjoyed it and learned all my letter
sounds quickly. I sing a lot of songs with the children; singing songs makes retention of information a
lot easier. The children may just think youre singing them a song, but we sing the Jolly Phonics
songs with the letter sounds embedded in them. We always teach the songs first in Nursery, then
afterwards we introduce flash cards that correspond with the letter sounds from the songs; and we put
the two together. We sing a song about ants with the sound a emphasised within the song, then
when the children see the a/ant flashcard they already know the sound from the song. Well say;
We know a song about ants/a, dont we? and launch into the song. This enjoyable way of learning
really helps the children to remember their letters and sounds.
We send home a special book which contains the letters the children have learned that day. We
include letter sound sheets within the book so parents can go over what the children have learned that
day. We also provide the curriculum map for parents so they know what were doing that term.

Revisiting what the children are doing is the best way to help children, especially children with SEN,
and making it fun stops the children (and teachers) from getting bored.