# data[].attributes.body
August 10 Professional Development Slides

# data[].attributes.body
Elkonin Boxes help develop Phonemic Awareness for students by segmenting a word into individual phonemes (sounds). You can have the students encode (write) the graphemes (letters) that represent each sound or have them use manipulatives. For manipulatives ideas check out the multisensory tab on the padlet.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amazon.com/Learning-Resources-Centimeter-Cubes-Set/dp/B000QDTVFG/ref=sr_1_5?crid=1NEHG80FLFQ4H&keywords=centimeter+cubes&qid=1690568958&sprefix=centimeter+cubes%2Caps%2C159&sr=8-5

Use along with Elkonin Boxes or a Word Mapping Mat to help students segment a word into each sound and blend the sounds together. Each cube would represent a sound in the word.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

There's an idea about how children learn to read that's held sway in schools for more than a generation - even though it was proven wrong by cognitive scientists decades ago. Teaching methods based on this idea can make it harder for children to learn how to read. In this podcast, host Emily Hanford investigates the influential authors who promote this idea and the company that sells their work. It's an exposé of how educators came to believe in something that isn't true and are now reckoning with the consequences - children harmed, money wasted, an education system upended.

Sixty years ago, Marie Clay developed a way to teach reading she said would help kids who were falling behind. They'd catch up and never need help again. Today, her program remains popular and her theory about how people read is at the root of a lot of reading instruction in schools. But Marie Clay was wrong.
Sold a Story is an independent investigative journalism project from American Public Media. We rely on your donations to support this kind of rigorous reporting.
The controversial educational publishing company has sold instructional materials and professional resources in almost every state, earning at least $1.6 billion over a decade. Explore a map of school districts.

More states are now requiring districts to adopt curriculum that adheres to the science of reading. Look up the policy in your state.

At least 15 states have passed laws about how schools teach reading since the Sold a Story podcast was released in 2022, but there is pushback.

Here's a reading list put together by Emily Hanford.

This discussion guide, created by a teacher, invites educators, parents, community members and kids to have a conversation about the podcast.

Emails and voice messages poured in from people who listened to Sold a Story.

We'll let you know when we release new episodes of the podcast. Enter your address below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's an idea about how children learn to read that's held sway in schools for more than a generation - even though it was proven wrong by cognitive scientists decades ago. Teaching methods based on this idea can make it harder for children to learn how to read.

# data[].attributes.headline
The ABC and All Their Tricks: The Complete Reference Book of Phonics and Spelling

# data[].attributes.subject
The ABC and All Their Tricks: The Complete Reference Book of Phonics and Spelling

# data[].attributes.body
Phonics Reference book that explains the rules behind each phonics pattern. This is a great tool to use when teaching specific phonics patterns and/or creating anchor charts to go along with your instruction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The ABC's and All Their Tricks - paperback

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ABC's and All Their Tricks - paperback [Margaret Bishop] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The ABC's and All Their Tricks - paperback

# data[].attributes.headline
Speech to Print vs Print to Speech: Does it make a difference in beginning reading instruction?

# data[].attributes.subject
Speech to Print vs Print to Speech: Does it make a difference in beginning reading instruction?

# data[].attributes.body
with Louisa Moats

Here's what you will learn:

The linguistic demands of reading and writing an alphabet

The steps necessary for readers to establish automatic word recognition

How to recognize when a program, approach, or lesson structure does and does not facilitate use of alphabetic decoding and word recognition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Reading League has compiled a list of options, not recommendations, of frequently requested decodable texts.

# data[].attributes.body
What are Decodable Books and Why are they Important?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You are welcome to print copies for non-commercial use, or a limited number for educational purposes, as long as credit is given to Reading Rockets and the author(s). For commercial use, please contact the author or publisher listed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Are Decodable Books and Why Are They Important?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Decodable books play an important role in phonics instruction and building confidence in young readers. Learn more about decodable books, how they differ from predictable texts, and how to select high-quality texts that align with the scope and sequence of your phonics program.

# data[].attributes.headline
5 Characteristics of Effective Structured Literacy Instruction

# data[].attributes.subject
5 Characteristics of Effective Structured Literacy Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Doesn’t Work: Literacy Practices We Should Abandon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number one concern that I hear from educators is lack of time, particularly lack of instructional time with students. Although we can’t entirely solve the time problem, we can mitigate it by carefully analyzing our use of class time.

# data[].attributes.body
Alternative to the traditional weekly spelling test.

Spelling lists encourage rote memorization of words instead of students learning the rules behind the phonics patterns. When using a phonics assessment, words should be taken from words that were practiced throughout the week during daily dictation. The words should not be given out to students on Monday and encouragement to memorize. The words that are used should have the focus of the phonics pattern of the week.

# data[].attributes.body
This can be used in conjunction with Thinking Maps

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Semantic Mapping - Teach with Tech

Discover Lessons in Action:

Watch Our Quick View Technology Videos:

As students advance to upper elementary grades, there is a shift from "learning to read" to "reading to learn", particularly with regard to content-area reading in history, social studies, and science. Students are expected to read primary and...

Quick View: Using Multimedia to Support Reading Instruction

Part of preparing students to become college and career ready involves helping them become adept at integrating and evaluating information in a variety of different media formats. To help students become comfortable with multimedia, it is useful to...

What's New on POWERUP?

AIR Informs Episode #6: Meeting the Needs of Students with Disabilities During COVID-19
Remote learning requires adjustment for all students, but students with disabilities face additional challenges during the COVID-19 quarantine. In the latest episode of AIR Informs, Allison Gandhi, managing researcher and director of AIR's special education practice area, describes some of these obstacles and shares strategies to help students make the most of this time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Semantic Mapping - Teach with Tech | Power Up What Works

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover Lessons in Action: Watch Our Quick View Technology Videos: As students advance to upper elementary grades, there is a shift from "learning to read" to "reading to learn", particularly with regard to content-area reading in history, social studies, and science. Students are expected to read primary and...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Page 7: Building Vocabulary and Conceptual Knowledge Using the Frayer Model

Within a unit of study are many vocabulary terms that students must learn. Within that list of terms are a few representing key concepts. For example, in a science unit about rocks, the terms in the table below are commonly taught.

Though students may learn these vocabulary terms independently, they still must understand the relationships between them and thus develop a deeper understanding of the main ideas. Within this vocabulary list, there are three terms that form the foundation for the entire unit: igneous rocks, sedimentary rocks, and metamorphic rocks. Because these terms are central to any substantial understanding of the chapter's content, teachers might need to spend more time making sure that students really grasp them. In cases like this, using a graphic organizer such as the Frayer Model can be helpful. When used appropriately, the Frayer Model allows teachers to incorporate the elements of vocabulary instruction discussed on previous pages (i.e., selecting words, explicitly defining and contextualizing the term, helping students actively process the word, providing multiple exposures to term).

Introducing and Teaching the Frayer Model

When they introduce this model, it is helpful for teachers to explain why it is useful for building vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. Then they can explicitly teach students what information should go in each section.
Click to enlarge Frayer Model
Click here to see a Frayer Model completed for one key concept in the science unit above: sedimentary rocks.
Frayer Model - Completed (Close this panel)
Initial instruction about the Frayer Model is heavily teacher-directed and requires teacher modeling. Teachers should demonstrate how to complete the graphic organizer by talking through what they are doing and how they are coming up with the information they enter into the different sections. Teachers should teach students how to use textbooks and other subject-matter materials to generate and discuss the information for each section.

The Frayer Model is not intended to be used as a worksheet for homework, something that would be no more effective than asking students to simply look up the definitions for a list of assigned words. Discussion is an important element of this practice. By filling out the Frayer Model with their classes, teachers help students to apply some of the practices discussed earlier in this module, such as contextualizing terms, actively processing information, and experiencing multiple exposures to terms.

For Your Information

It is not necessary to complete the entire Frayer Model in one lesson. Teachers may use the definition portion to first introduce a term to students. Then they can return to complete other sections of the organizer after students have built some conceptual knowledge by reading the text, seeing demonstrations, or working with associated content.
Click here for a pdf template of the Frayer Model for classroom use.
Examples of Frayer Models from Content Areas

Click on the links below for examples of completed Frayer Models.

Guided Practice with the Frayer Model

Once students are familiar with using this graphic organizer, they are ready for guided practice. After they've discussed the definition as a group, teachers can guide students as they complete the characteristics, examples, and non-examples sections. Watch the video below to see how a math teacher guides her students to generate characteristics of the term dilation and to distinguish examples and non-examples of this word. During this process, students learn to relate dilation to previous lessons and to review their knowledge of other words as they deepen their understanding of the new term (time: 2:05).

Used with permission from the Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at The University of Texas at Austin, copyright © [2010].

Transcript: Guided Practice with the Frayer Model

Teacher: I would like for you to use these characteristics to determine if this slide I am going to show you is an example or a non-example of a dilation.

Narrator: The teacher incorporates technology, displaying figures and asks students to use interactive clickers to vote on whether the figures are examples or non-examples of dilations.

Teacher: I just asked you to "Vote A" if it was an example of a dilation or "B" if it was a non-example of a dilation, and here are our results. So most of you voted "B," which is a non-example. Raise your hand if you can tell me why it's a non-example. Nicole?

Nicole: Because the shapes are not similar.

Teacher: The shapes are not similar.

Nicole: Because it stretches horizontally but not vertically.

Teacher: Good!

Narrator: The teacher calls on students to explain how they use the characteristics of dilations recorded on their Frayer Model to make their decisions.

Teacher: We just voted that this image is an example of a dilation. Now I want to know who can tell me what type of dilation this is. Raise your hand if you can tell me. Anthony?

Anthony: Enlargement.

Teacher: It's an enlargement. Very good, yes! And how did you know that?

Anthony: It's greater than one.

Teacher: Okay, it's an enlargement because it has a scale factor greater than one. And I see that you're looking at your Frayer Model and the characteristics. What about the other characteristics? Do they apply?

Anthony: Yes

Teacher: Tell me which ones do.

Anthony: The figures are similar.

Teacher: The figures are similar. Good.

Anthony: The size changed but not the shape.

Teacher: Good! That's a true statement. The size did change but not the shape. What else, Anthony?

Anthony: The figure doesn't rotate or flip.

Teacher: Good. You're right. The orientation stays the same. The figure did not rotate or flip. So those characteristics fit into as to why this is a dilation.

Narrator: As the class discusses, the teacher adds examples and non-examples to the class Frayer Model. Next, the students will work with partners to practice creating examples and non-examples on their Frayer Models.
(Close this panel)
Independent Practice with the Frayer Model

Once students have sufficient experience with the Frayer Model, they should be able to complete sections in class without teacher guidance (i.e., independently, in pairs, or in small groups). When doing so, they should still be required to explain their rationale for the characteristics, examples, and non-examples they chose. It is helpful to ask students to show how they used information from their text or other curricular materials to complete sections. Click on the video to see how small groups of students explain how they came up with examples and non-examples for the vocabulary term dilations (time: 2:07).

Used with permission from the Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at The University of Texas at Austin, copyright © [2010].

Transcript: Independent Practice with the Frayer Model

Narrator: Eighth-grade students in Alma Perales' class have been using a Frayer Model to increase their understanding of math vocabulary and concepts. In this video, students practice creating examples and non-examples of dilations.

Student 1: So what shapes should we do?

Student 2: Rectangles.

Student 1: Rectangles.

Student 2: Yeah.

Student 1: Okay.

Student 2: We should do a smaller one, 1 x 2.

Student 1: 1 x 2. Make it bigger?

Student 2: Yeah, we should go to an enlargement.

Student 1: Enlargement? Okay.

Student 2: Yes, 2 x 4.

Student 1: Let's check the characteristics.

Student 2: The size changes but not the shape. A scale factor greater than one is an enlargement. The figure does not rotate or flip. A five...I mean a scale factor between zero and one, creates a reduct.

Student 2: My bad. The figures are similar so square, I mean rectangle and rectangle are similar and the size changes but not the shape, so...

Student 1: It's an enlargement.

Student 2: Yes. And then non-examples.

Student 1: What should we do on non-example? What shape?

Students 2 & 3: Rectangle.

Student 1: We keep that. And let's check the characteristics. The size changes but not the shape. This is a non-example, because it's not that. It's wrong.

Student 2: Yes, this is rectangle, and this is a square.

Student 1: Yes.

Student 2: It went from a rectangle to a square. That's why it's a non-example, because the shape changed.

Narrator: The teacher calls the class back together and gives students an opportunity to share their explanations of examples and non-examples. Later, she wraps up the lesson by restating the primary focus.

Teacher: Our main objective today was to generate similar figures using dilations, including enlargements and reductions. And we incorporated the Frayer Model to help build our understanding of the word dilation. And we will continue to use the Frayer Model to increase our understanding of other math concepts in this class.
(Close this panel)
Now listen as Deborah Reed talks about how much of the Frayer Model students can complete on their own (time: 2:50).

Deborah K. Reed, PhD
College of Education, University of Iowa
Director, Iowa Reading Research Center

/wp-content/uploads/module_media/sec_rdng_media/audio/sec_rdng_audio_page07_reed.mp3
View Transcript
Transcript: Deborah K. Reed, PhD

In terms of how much of the Frayer Model students should complete or which particular squares they could complete on their own, it depends on a few things. First of all, it depends on their understanding of the format and the function of the Frayer Model. The other thing it depends on is their familiarity with the content of what you're using the Frayer Model to address. If it's the first time that students are experiencing that target term that you're putting in the center of the Frayer Model, and you know that you haven't taught anything about this concept yet, I'm not sure how students would come up with the information in the squares all on their own. That would be the same thing as assigning the list of words on Monday that the students look up in the glossary or the dictionary and then we take the test on Friday. The purpose of the Frayer Model is to go deeper with the words. If you're using it to introduce for the first time, it's incumbent upon the teacher to provide the student-friendly definition. Kids don't have enough information yet to give you any sort of definition.

Now, you could be going through a text together in which the definition is somewhere embedded in that text, and so it might be a guided instructional activity where we find the definition embedded within this text that we could include on the Frayer Model. And then maybe later on in the reading we'll find some characteristics. So as we read we'll pull out these characteristics, and we'll put them into that square of the Frayer Model and then maybe later on, or while they're giving us characteristics perhaps, they'll also show us some examples of the application of it, and so as we read we'll find those and pull those out and put them onto the Frayer Model. If you've covered some instruction in this concept and you're using the Frayer Model as kind of a cumulative review of what they've learned then it's possible that students could complete more of the Frayer Model on their own, including the definition. By then they've built background knowledge, they've done some work, they've had these multiple exposures and different contexts, they've been discussing this in class, and so by then the expectation might be that they should be able to identify, or come up with the definition, be able to list all the important characteristics that will help us recognize this concept, and generate some examples and non-examples. That would be much later in the lesson. Earlier in the lesson, it would be much more teacher-directed.

In the next section of this module, you will learn about reading comprehension, another essential component for developing knowledge in content areas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IRIS | Page 7: Building Vocabulary and Conceptual Knowledge Using the Frayer Model

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Within a unit of study are many vocabulary terms that students must learn. Within that list of terms are a few representing key concepts. For example, in a science unit about rocks, the terms in the table below are commonly taught.

# data[].attributes.headline
Explicit Instruction: What is it? And Why?

# data[].attributes.subject
Explicit Instruction: What is it? And Why?

# data[].attributes.headline
Vocabulary Instruction Using Thinking Maps

# data[].attributes.subject
Vocabulary Instruction Using Thinking Maps

# data[].attributes.body
Login into the TMLC and click on "Training"

Course: Academic Vocabulary 301

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
| | Filed Under: Advanced Word Study, Reading

Word walls for upper elementary? Try a morphology wall! Morphology walls are a great tool for teaching and reviewing prefixes, suffixes, bases, and roots. By using a "Morphology Wall" in your classroom, you can help your students better understand how words are put together and how to use that knowledge to determine the meaning of unknown words.
💡Want to read more about the power of morphology instruction? Click here to read all about teaching morphology in grades 4-5!
This post will share what a morphology wall is, benefits to having one, tips for setting up and using one, strategies for making it interactive, and free posters to create your own wall!

What is a Morphology Wall?

A morphology wall is a collection of morphemes (prefixes, suffixes, bases, and roots) displayed and referenced to help your students learn about the power of morphology and the structure of words (and how they relate). The morphemes (the smallest meaningful unit of a word) are arranged in groups based on their function in words, such as root words, prefixes, and suffixes.

This can be a whole class display (using wall space, bulletin boards, markerboard space, or even cabinets) or students can have personal morphology walls - super easy to do with digital resources (more about this in the section about having limited space).

You can use teacher-created posters with given examples, or you can have your wall be co-created with students adding in example words.

Benefits of Having a Morphology Wall

Here are some benefits to having and using a morphology wall:

1. It can help students to better understand how word parts are combined to form words.

2. It can help students to see how the meaning of a word can be changed by adding or removing certain word parts (prefixes and suffixes).

3. It can help students see the connection between known words/word parts and use that connection to determine the meaning of unknown words.

4. It can provide students with a reference tool that they can use when they encounter unknown words in their reading.

5. You can use the wall to continually review and practice morphemes (word parts- prefixes, suffixes, bases, and roots) all year long.

Tips for Using a Morphology Wall in Grades 4-5

Here are my three top tips for using a morphology wall effectively with your students.

Tip #1 - Build the wall gradually throughout the year.

Introduce focus word parts (prefixes, suffixes, and roots) gradually throughout the year. After introducing and teaching them, add them to the morphology wall. Continue to add to the wall and build it out throughout the year.

Tip #2 - Build a regular routine that uses the prefixes, suffixes, bases, and roots on the wall.
✨More questions and activity ideas in the next section about making the wall interactive.
Use the wall regularly as part of a daily or weekly routine. You can do this by asking students a question of the day or giving a task that requires the use of the morphology wall to answer the question or complete the task.

Tip #3 - Encourage students to use the wall while they are reading.

Encourage students to use the wall to figure out the meaning of unknown words when they come across them in their reading. You will definitely need to model this for them. Also encourage students to take note of words that use the morphemes from the wall in their independent or assigned readings. They can even collect these words in a morphology notebook or journal.

Making a Morphology Wall Interactive

In order for the morphology wall to be effective, it needs to be interactive and used regularly. Here are some ideas:

Use It As a "Evolving, Living" Wall

As you introduce/review/teach morphemes (prefixes, suffixes, roots), add them to the wall. Continue to add to the wall throughout the year with more advanced morphemes.

Have Students Identify Affixes or Roots Based on Given Meaning

Regularly review the meaning of affixes and roots from the wall by having students identify which affix or root matches a specific meaning.

You can do this by saying: I am thinking of a morpheme that can be added to the beginning of a word. What type of morpheme am I? (prefix). My meaning is wrong or bad. What morpheme am I? (mis-)

Have Students Practice Using Affixes from the Wall for Specific Purposes

Affixes have specific functions/meanings that are important for students to know and be aware of. But, it is a lot to learn and requires repetition and continual review. The morphology wall is a perfect tool for this.
What suffix from the wall could I add to a verb to change it to a noun that shows a person who does that action? (-er, -or) Which suffix would I add to a word to show that something is made of a certain material? (-en) Which prefix could I add to a word to show that something has been done before? (pre-) Which affixes could be added to a given base word?
Ask students questions like:

Create Word Sums or Morphology Word Matrices

Give students a base or root (or use a base/root of the week) and have the students use the base/root and affixes from the morphology wall to create word sums or word matrices.
💡Click here to read a detailed post about word matrix activities AND grab free teaching posters to help you introduce matrixes to your students.
Tip: When you begin word sums or word matrices, uses bases to begin with to scaffold students' understanding. Bases are morphemes that can stand alone as complete words without affixes. Examples: friend, care, build, use, love, care

Have Students Generate Words (and Use Them in Contexts) from Word Parts on the Wall

This is similar to creating word sums or a morphology word matrix, but it can be used to zone in on a specific affix (versus bases/roots that word sums and matrices usually focus on)
Choose a prefix from the wall. Make a list of 5 words that use that prefix. Choose one to use in sentence. You can allow for student choice or use the focus morphemes for this activity. Assign students an affix. Have them generate as many words as possible with that affix in a specific amount of time.
Example tasks to give students:

Use the Morphology Wall to Analyze and Breakdown Multi-Morphemic Words

When students come across words that have prefixes and/or suffixes, the wall can be used to break those words down into their individual morphemes. This task is similar to creating word sums, but you are starting with a completed word that is found authentically in student text.

Example: Use the morphology wall to break the word "construction" into its individual morphemes. Write the meaning of each. Then write the meaning of the word.

Making a Morphology Wall with Limited Space

If you are an intervention teacher who rotates classes/students or you just have limited space in your classroom, here are some ideas for creating a wall with limited space:

1. Use a digital morphology wall using Google Slides. You can still have this be interactive by having students access their digital "wall" when you are doing any of the activities described in the above section.

2. Another option is to create a portable morphology wall on a trifold using smaller versions of the morpheme posters.

3. You can have a rotating morphology wall where you only post the morphemes you are focusing on and then you have students refer to a digital reference or morphology notebook that has the entire collection.

Get FREE Prefix, Suffix, and Roots Posters Here to Make Your Own Morphology Wall!

Get all of the prefix, suffix, base, and root posters shown on this post by entering your email in the form below! They posters will be sent to your inbox in a PDF file with digital access links included in the PDF file.

Want Activities and Resources for Teaching Prefixes, Suffixes, and Roots?

If you need morphology resources and activities, I recommend these. You can use the "Of the Day" resources to teach your target morphemes and then use the morphology warmups to continually review and apply morphology skills throughout the year.

\

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Filed Under: Advanced Word Study, Reading Word walls for upper elementary? Try a morphology wall! Morphology walls are a great tool for teaching and reviewing prefixes, suffixes, bases, and roots. By using a "Morphology Wall" in your classroom, you can help your students better understand how words are put together and how to use that knowledge to determine the meaning of unknown words.

# data[].attributes.body
Orton-Gillingham: https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/BUNDLE-Morphology-Cards-2-Sizes-Wall-and-IndividualDrill-6839552?st=0a69c8b0d38510a7f5491e843e9b58dd

https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Morphology-Wall-Orton-Gillingham-Morphology-9815827?st=0a69c8b0d38510a7f5491e843e9b58dd

https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Build-an-Interactive-Morphology-Wall-The-Science-of-Reading-SWI-Vocabulary-7475850?st=0a69c8b0d38510a7f5491e843e9b58dd

# data[].attributes.body
Etymology: the history of a linguistic form (such as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amazon.com/Bananagrams-First-Multi-Award-Winning-Spelling/dp/B01G52QSU2/ref=sr_1_16?crid=C9EB0A6E3VEW&keywords=blending+board+for+phonics+cards&qid=1689953802&sprefix=blending+board+for+p%2Caps%2C140&sr=8-16

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Sparks-WordWall-Challenge-Prefixes/dp/B0855NQ7BK/ref=sr_1_6?crid=3RR809N8XU3CB&keywords=morphology+manipulatives&qid=1689953735&sprefix=morphology+manipulatives%2Caps%2C132&sr=8-6

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amazon.com/ETA-hand2mind-Alphabet-Linking-Building/dp/B075JND1SD/ref=sr_1_9?crid=1H35CECYQYR31&keywords=reading+rods&qid=1689953586&sprefix=reading+rod%2Caps%2C168&sr=8-9

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amazon.com/Learning-Resources-Phonics-Cubes-Class/dp/B000F8R5EG/ref=sr_1_20_sspa?crid=1H35CECYQYR31&keywords=reading+rods&qid=1689953586&sprefix=reading+rod%2Caps%2C168&sr=8-20-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9tdGY&psc=1

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amazon.com/hand2mind-Alphabet-Activities-Kindergarten-Manipulatives/dp/B0BPX5FGMJ/ref=sr_1_5?crid=1H35CECYQYR31&keywords=reading+rods&qid=1689953586&sprefix=reading+rod%2Caps%2C168&sr=8-5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
hand2mind Reading Rods Alphabet & CVC Words, Word Building Activities, Letter Blocks, CVC Words for Kindergarten, Spelling Toys, Reading Tools for Kids, Science of Reading Manipulatives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy hand2mind Reading Rods Alphabet & CVC Words, Word Building Activities, Letter Blocks, CVC Words for Kindergarten, Spelling Toys, Reading Tools for Kids, Science of Reading Manipulatives: Flash Cards - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amazon.com/hand2mind-Sentence-Construction-Building-Manipulatives/dp/B0BPWYNMRY/ref=sr_1_8?crid=1H35CECYQYR31&keywords=reading+rods&qid=1689953452&sprefix=reading+rod%2Caps%2C168&sr=8-8

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amazon.com/hand2mind-Prefixes-Activities-Awareness-Manipulatives/dp/B0BPWVNNRF/ref=sr_1_7?crid=1H35CECYQYR31&keywords=reading%2Brods&qid=1689953452&sprefix=reading%2Brod%2Caps%2C168&sr=8-7&th=1

# data[].attributes.body
Reference Guide for Morphology!

# data[].attributes.body
Great to help guide small group instruction

Ventris Learning is the University of Florida Literacy Institute’s publishing partner for the UFLI Foundations Teacher Manual. Foundations is an explicit and systematic phonics program that introduces students to the foundational reading skills necessary for proficient reading. Foundations follows a carefully developed scope and sequence designed to ensure that students systematically acquire each skill needed and learn to apply each skill with automaticity and confidence. Foundations is designed to be used for core instruction in the primary grades or for intervention with struggling students in any grade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Note: We will pause UFLI shipping to US SCHOOL and SCHOOL DISTRICT customers on Tuesday Nov. 14 until Monday Nov. 27 due to the Thanksgiving break. We will pause shipping to US (and Canadian) SCHOOL and SCHOOL DISTRICT/BOARD customers again Dec. 11 until Dec. 28 due to the winter break.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
hand2mind Reading Rods Phonics Word-Building, Word Building Activities, Spelling Toys, Montessori Alphabet Letters, Reading Tools for Kids, Science of Reading Manipulatives, Phonemic Awareness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy hand2mind Reading Rods Phonics Word-Building, Word Building Activities, Spelling Toys, Montessori Alphabet Letters, Reading Tools for Kids, Science of Reading Manipulatives, Phonemic Awareness: Flash Cards - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
hand2mind Reading Rods Building Sight Words, Word Building Activities, Letter Blocks, Sight Words Kindergarten, CVC Words Spelling Toys, Reading Tools for Kids, Science of Reading Manipulatives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy hand2mind Reading Rods Building Sight Words, Word Building Activities, Letter Blocks, Sight Words Kindergarten, CVC Words Spelling Toys, Reading Tools for Kids, Science of Reading Manipulatives: Flash Cards - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases

# data[].attributes.body
These are great for students to use when reading decodable passages or sentences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PPXMEEUDC Eye Finger Puppets Googly Eye Finger Puppets Wiggly Eyeball Finger Puppet Rings Eye Finger Toy Kids Party Favor 8 Colors A Pack of 32

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy PPXMEEUDC Eye Finger Puppets Googly Eye Finger Puppets Wiggly Eyeball Finger Puppet Rings Eye Finger Toy Kids Party Favor 8 Colors A Pack of 32: Finger Puppets - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases

# data[].attributes.body
These are perfect to use for small group and whole group instruction. Word Mapping Mats & Dictation sheets can go into these.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SUNEE 30 Packs Oversized Reusable Dry Erase Pocket Sleeves with 2 Rings, 10 Assorted Colors 10x14 Ticket Holders, Clear Plastic Sheet Protectors, Teacher School Classroom Supplies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amazon.com : SUNEE 30 Packs Oversized Reusable Dry Erase Pocket Sleeves with 2 Rings, 10 Assorted Colors 10x14 Ticket Holders, Clear Plastic Sheet Protectors, Teacher School Classroom Supplies : Office Products

# data[].attributes.body
These are great to use when segmenting or blending words. Students can pop the sounds in each word.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pop it Bubble Sensory Fidget Toy, Spliced Stacking pop Building Blocks，Children and Adults Push Fidget Toys,Autism Special Needs Stress Reliever Silicone Squeeze. (Nine Color)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amazon.com: Pop it Bubble Sensory Fidget Toy, Spliced Stacking pop Building Blocks，Children and Adults Push Fidget Toys,Autism Special Needs Stress Reliever Silicone Squeeze. (Nine Color) : Toys & Games

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With our giant letter kit, it's easy for the whole class to practice alphabet skills...on any magnetic surface! You get 240 lowercase magnetic letters-all in a compartmentalized storage box with labels for easy organization. The consonants and vowels are even color-coded to make word building a breeze! Plastic letters measure 1"-1 1/2" tall.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Building new words is a breeze with our double-sided letter tiles! The 48 sturdy chipboard tiles feature uppercase letters on front and lowercase on back-plus the consonants and vowels are color-coded! Tiles measure 1 1/4" and come in an easy-seal vinyl pouch.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our double-sided magnetic tiles stick together from every side—for a fun, hands-on way to build language skills! The translucent tiles feature an uppercase letter on one side and the corresponding lowercase letter on the other, so kids can connect them to sequence the alphabet, build simple words an…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
hand2mind Lowercase Alphabet Chips, Toddler Learning Letters for Spelling, Learn to Spell for Kids, Reading Tools for Kids, Science of Reading Manipulatives, Teaching Supplies Kindergarten

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy hand2mind Lowercase Alphabet Chips, Toddler Learning Letters for Spelling, Learn to Spell for Kids, Reading Tools for Kids, Science of Reading Manipulatives, Teaching Supplies Kindergarten: Flash Cards - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases

# data[].attributes.body
UFLI is a wonderful website that includes a variety of instructional activities for each of the key components of Structured Literacy. These are perfect to use in a small group setting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Instructional Activities | UF Literacy Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As children are developing early literacy skills, they begin to associate the phonemes (speech sounds) they hear with the graphemes (letters and letter combinations) they see. The activities in this section are designed to strengthen students’ phoneme-grapheme associations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Being a proficient reader has an impact on a student's entire education. Teaching students to read is the work of educators. While some educators are well-equipped to take on such a significant task, others wish they were better prepared and supported to make an impact that could change a child's life. IMSE makes it easy for teachers to access and understand the core principles of Structured Literacy and the Science of Reading (SoR) through their professional development trainings and programs. IMSE programs are delivered by experienced teachers, all with a master's degree, who know how to ensure that teachers feel knowledgeable and supported in their ability to teach literacy.

Notably, over the past years, the Science of Reading has compiled information that holds important implications for empowering teachers with the knowledge to help students succeed in reading. In addition, intervention research estimates that the use of evidence-based prevention and intervention approaches in literacy, such as what IMSE offers, could decrease the number of below-level readers from 30% to 5%.

The Science of Reading: What it is

The Science of Reading is a comprehensive body of research that encompasses years of scientific knowledge, spans across many languages, and shares the contributions of experts from relevant disciplines such as education, special education, literacy, psychology, neurology, and more. The Science of Reading has evolved from a wide span of research designs, experimental methods, participants, and statistical analyses. This conclusive, empirically supported research provides us with the information we need to gain a deeper understanding of how we learn to read, what skills are involved, how they work together, and which parts of the brain are responsible for reading development. From this research, we can identify an evidence-based best practice approach for teaching foundational literacy skills called Structured Literacy.

David Kilpatrick stated, "We teach reading in different ways; they [students] learn to read proficiently in only one way." The Science of Reading (SoR) has demystified any wonder of how we learn to read and offers evidence backed by science to confirm that there is one right way to teach reading. In addition to this, the SoR provides vital information to drive IMSE's approach to instruction and to reach all learners.

The Science of Reading: What we know

The SoR helps us to understand the cognitive processes that are essential for reading proficiency. It describes the development of reading skills for both typical and atypical readers.

The SoR has debunked various methods used over the years to teach reading that were not based on scientific evidence.

Most reading difficulties can be prevented in young, at-risk students. In other grades, studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of intensive phonemic awareness training, intensive phonic decoding training, and opportunities for repeated practice with reading controlled text. Intervention in these skills leads to efficient orthographic mapping and the highest degree of success.

Teaching whole word memorization is limited, and learning phonics empowers students with an exponential effect.
If a child memorizes ten words, then the child can read ten words. But, if the child can learn the sounds of ten letters, the child can read...

350 three-sound words

4,320 four-sound words

21,650 five-sound words

Reading development can be divided into three stages:

Letters and sounds: Letter-sound knowledge is essential for both phonic decoding and sight-word learning.

Phonic decoding: Early phonological awareness skills enable the development of letter-sound knowledge and should be targeted for direct instruction through first grade. Advanced phonological awareness skills should continue to be assessed and practiced through third grade to ensure that a solid orthographic lexicon is established.

Orthographic mapping: Understanding orthographic mapping allows for teachers to support students who struggle to read. Orthographic mapping is the process that occurs when unfamiliar words become automatic sight words. The research on orthographic mapping explains how students develop this vast sight word bank for accurate and automatic word retrieval and also why students with reading problems struggle to develop this skill.

Phonics and phonemic manipulation must be proficient to allow for students to build a sight word bank or orthographic lexicon. To support this, students need sufficient practice and review in decoding and encoding, knowledge and application of concept skills, and exposure to decodable text.

Comprehension is the ultimate goal for reading. It is driven by two broad skill sets that are identified in the Simple View of Reading (SVoR).

The Simple View of Reading (SVoR) is further detailed in Scarborough's Reading Rope, which highlights the essential components of reading.

Phonics is an important component in early, effective literacy-based instruction.

Learning to spell is far more complex than just memorizing words. Encoding (spelling) is a developmental process that impacts fluency, writing, pronunciation, and vocabulary.

Most teachers have received little knowledge about language structures that are used in reading, speaking, and writing. The SoR has compounded information but has yet to make it into the professional development of all teachers.

Students with reading difficulties present on a continuum of severity and require highly skilled teachers who have the knowledge and expertise to provide intervention based on the SoR.

The findings of the SoR translate into practices called Structured Literacy™. Structured Literacy is an approach to teach reading that is based on the Science of Reading.

Structured Literacy: How we teach

Through Structured Literacy (SL), teachers implement methods that are appropriate for all students and particularly necessary for students with learning differences.

Orton-Gillingham is an evidence-based SL approach that uses research from the SoR and incorporates recommended multi-sensory instructional techniques. SL supports instruction that is explicit, sequential, systematic, prescriptive, diagnostic, and cumulative.

Instruction is assessment-driven. The diagnostic aspect of SL requires continued progress monitoring to measure outcomes and guide differentiation.

Students are provided repeated opportunities with decodable text that have ample representations of the phonetic elements for code-emphasis.

Through regular dictation of words and sentences containing the phonetic concept, students become skilled in spelling words within and outside of the text.

Structured Literacy: What we teach

The SoR identifies five essential components that make up the Simple View of Reading. Structured Literacy incorporates all five:

Phonemic Awareness

Phonics

Fluency

Vocabulary

Comprehension

Students who have difficulty decoding need a focus on phoneme-grapheme and blending automaticity for both real and nonsense words. Teachers are skilled at differentiating instruction based on assessment results.

Orthography helps students to understand why words are spelled the way they are spelled. Students learn to identify the overlapping features of words including word origin, phoneme-grapheme correspondence, position constraints, and patterns and conventions. This helps them to acquire the alphabetic principle.

Phonemic awareness is emphasized as a necessary pre-reading skill and teachers recognize and target the sequence of skills to build phonological awareness from early to advanced skill levels.

Regular words are taught according to phonetic patterns and irregular words are analyzed for their irregularities. When proficient readers encounter new words, they phonemically analyze the word for the regular grapheme-phoneme patterns and are able to identify the irregular element(s) with ease. Teaching weak readers to activate this process allows them to align the letters to the phonemes in their memory.

Morphology is the study of meaningful units within words. Students are able to expand their vocabulary when they are directly exposed to the study of root words, prefixes, and suffixes.

The Science of Reading has proven that a Structured Literacy approach is a necessary foundation for reading success. As teachers, we make a commitment to continue our education to support the learning of every student. IMSE's Orton-Gillingham training and programs make it possible for teachers to integrate evidence-based and research-based reading instruction and intervention strategies into Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) to empower all students in every classroom.

Sign up for our LIVE virtual Orton-Gillingham training! We are now offering half-day, evening, and weekend options to best fit your schedule.

To learn more about the Science of Reading and Structured Literacy, check out the following great reads:

IMSE's approach allows teachers to incorporate the five components essential to an effective reading program into their daily lessons: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.

The approach is based on the Orton-Gillingham methodology and focuses on explicit, direct instruction that is sequential, structured, and multi-sensory.

It is IMSE's mission that all children must have the ability to read to fully realize their potential. We are committed to providing teachers with the knowledge and tools to deliver proven literacy education to students of all ages and abilities.

About The Author

Dr. Kirstina Ordetx is a Level 4 Master Instructor with The Institute for Multi-Sensory Education (IMSE). She holds a doctorate in Counseling Psychology with a concentration in pediatric neurology. Dr. Ordetx is an educational specialist with over 25 years of clinical experience, research, and consultation. She is a certified Structured Literacy Dyslexia Interventionist through the Center for Effective Reading Instruction, a Certified Nutrition and Wellness Consultant, Executive Functions Coach, and a registered Licensed Mental Health Intern. Dr. Ordetx has published two books that compile her research and practice in Theory of Mind. She has served on accreditation committees for the Florida Council of Independent Schools, is a university adjunct professor in developmental and child psychology, and presents at various national and international conferences. Dr. Ordetx is head of school for a private academy in Lakewood Ranch, Florida specializing in the multi-sensory education of students who have language and learning-based differences. She is the Executive Director of the Pinnacle Pediatric Therapy Group, a multi-disciplinary, pediatric therapy clinic.
Please connect with us on Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest to get tips and tricks from your peers and us. Read the IMSE Journal to hear success stories from other schools and districts, and be sure to read the OG Weekly email series for refreshers and tips.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Being a proficient reader has an impact on a student's entire education. Teaching students to read is the work of educators. While some educators are well-equipped to take on such a significant task, others wish they were better prepared and supported to make an impact that could change a child's life.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Reading-Sourcebook-3rd-2018/dp/1634022351/ref=sr_1_1?crid=256R0EG2ZV4LK&keywords=core+teaching+reading+sourcebook&qid=1690225877&sprefix=core+teaching%2Caps%2C202&sr=8-1&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.006c50ae-5d4c-4777-9bc0-4513d670b6bc

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amazon.com/Comprehensive-Developing-Awareness-Recognition-PlayStation-4/dp/0964690365/ref=sr_1_1?crid=CEVRD4ZTUOVI&keywords=equipped+for+reading+success+david+kilpatrick&qid=1690226037&sprefix=Equipped+for+Reading+Success+%2Caps%2C146&sr=8-1&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.006c50ae-5d4c-4777-9bc0-4513d670b6bc

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Equipped for Reading Success A Comprehensive, Step-By-Step Program for Developing Phonemic Awareness and Fluent Word Recognition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In recent years, scientists have made great strides in understanding how children learn to read, as well as how to prevent and correct most reading difficulties. However, the American Federation for Teachers, the Journal of Learning Disabilities, and School Psychology Review have all highlighted ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Teaching Reading is Rocket Science, 2020 By Louisa Moats

# data[].attributes.subject
Teaching Reading is Rocket Science, 2020 By Louisa Moats

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
of assessment and instruction in today's classrooms. supplies K-12 educators with in-depth knowledge of the structure and function of language-fundamentals they need to deliver successful structured literacy instruction. Renowned literacy expert Louisa Cook Moats gives current and future teachers comprehensive, accurate, and accessible information on the underpinnings of language instruction, including: their students should be taught. Ideal for use in preservice courses and in-service professional development sessions, this essential textbook will give educators the strong foundation they need to teach language and reading skills to students with and without disabilities. Support your instruction with a complete package of online companion materials, including chapter quizzes, a sample syllabus/course outline, PowerPoints to accompany each chapter, PDF handouts for selected concepts, and a video demonstrating production of all the sounds in the English language. Learn more about the new edition! Speech to Print has been a bestselling, widely adopted textbook on explicit, high-quality literacy instruction. Now the anticipated third edition is here, fully updated with ten years of new research, a complete package of supporting materials, and expanded guidance on the how Speech to Print

Filling a critical gap in teacher preparation courses,

the history of the English language and its effect on spelling

English phonology, including speech sounds and their distinctive features

how print represents speech in English

the morphological aspects of words

syntax and its instruction

how meaning is conveyed with language

how
Through case studies, activities, recommended teaching principles, and close analysis of real-world student work samples, teachers will also receive invaluable insight into WHAT'S NEW:

New and expanded practical content on the how of language and reading instruction

New and updated chapter exercises

New faculty support materials

More on key topics like program and curricula selection, frameworks for instructional planning, and problem solving when students are slow to respond to intervention

More accessible, undergraduate-friendly tone and structure

Additional graphics to illustrate key concepts

NEW FACULTY SUPPORT MATERIALS!

Watch the webinar recording

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Speech to Print: Language... by Moats Ed.D., Louisa Cook

# data[].attributes.headline
Transition from a Word Wall to Sound Wall

# data[].attributes.subject
Transition from a Word Wall to Sound Wall

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You are welcome to print copies for non-commercial use, or a limited number for educational purposes, as long as credit is given to Reading Rockets and the author(s). For commercial use, please contact the author or publisher listed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Transitioning from Word Walls to Sound Walls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sound walls support students with learning those tricky high-frequency words. They also support students in retaining and learning to read unfamiliar words on their own. A sound wall does the work of matching our articulation of speech sounds/phonemes to the letters/graphemes that represent those sounds.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sound Walls: Using the Science of Reading to help students spell. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Sound Walls: Using the Science of Reading to help students spell. 

# data[].attributes.body
Sound-Spelling & Sound-Articulation Walls are fantastic for K-2 classrooms.

Morphology Walls are a great tool for grades 3-5.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A hot topic in the field of beginning reading instruction these days is the use of classroom "walls." Word walls, sound walls, spelling walls, morphology walls - so many different kinds of walls! Understanding the difference among these options, and the different purposes for using them can be confusing. To help clear up some of this confusion, here are some brief descriptions and examples of different types of walls:

Vocabulary Word Wall:This kind of "wall" is a list of vocabulary terms that the teacher is teaching in-depth. The words on these lists should change frequently, sometimes with words added and taken off daily. The words are typically chosen because they support important concepts related to current subject area content and reading materials. Unusual words that students find interesting can also be included on a vocabulary word wall. The words might be in a single list, or they might be organized into categories. For essential words that teachers want students to really "own", they need to provide multiple exposures in real contexts to those words. As Beck and colleagues note (2002), students need "rich vocabulary instruction" that includes significant discussion in a content-rich environment that offers students an opportunity to have purposeful interaction with new vocabulary words. Showing an anchor chart with a list of key words serves as a reminder to students and teachers to use these words in context. Instructional suggestions for using this type of word wall are included The Key Vocabulary Routine. The examples below are from primary grade classrooms.

Morphology Wall: This kind of "wall" focuses on instruction related to word parts (morphemes, including prefixes, suffixes and roots or base words). The purpose of these walls is to build students' understanding that words are "constructed" by combining meaningful word parts, to help them build word families, and to learn common prefixes, suffixes, and roots/base words. A morphology wall can take different forms, as shown in the examples below.

Sound-Spelling Wall: This kind of "wall" includes cards that represent speech sounds (phonemes). For each sound, a picture is provided of a word that includes that sound - 44 in total that represent phonemes in spoken English. Spellings that represent a sound are listed under the picture. See the examples below - the one on the left uses the first sound in the word "cat" as the key word prompt for the sound /k/, and 3 spellings are listed underneath (c, k, ck). The cards are usually grouped by sound - i.e., the vowel sounds together and consonant sounds together. Typically, as the teacher focuses on a specific sound, they start by teaching the most common spelling(s) (grapheme) for that sound, which are shown on the card. Less common spellings can be added as they are taught. Sound-spelling walls help students spell words based on the sounds in a word - they listen for each sound in the word, find the picture prompt word related to that sound, and can then view the different options to spell that sound. These types of walls go hand in hand with structured literacy instruction that includes explicit instruction for sound-spelling correspondences, and blending and segmenting of phonemes to decode (read) and encode (spell). And, this type of instruction supports the development of the orthographic mapping process that enables students to become fluent readers by connecting the sounds of words they already know (the phonemes) to the letters in a word (the spellings), and then storing connected sounds and letters of words (along with their meaning) as instantly recognizable words, described as "sight vocabulary" or "sight words". A sound-spelling wall is often described as focused on the students' point of view because it uses a speech-to-print approach that focuses on how a word sounds. View the examples below.

Sound Articulation Wall: Sound articulation "walls" display pictures of students' mouths that show how the 44 sounds of spoken English are produced - i.e., the manner and place of articulation in the mouth. Often, these pictures are displayed alongside sound-spelling cards, to form a "wall" that covers both sound articulation and sound-spelling. The purpose of the pictures is to provide clues to students about what their mouth and tongues are doing when producing a sound. However, this type of wall will not be helpful if the teacher is not also providing explicit instruction about phoneme articulation, including helping students attend to the way their mouths look, feel and act. It also includes making sure that each sound is clearly pronounced without adding "extra sounds" - for example, making sure not to add an "uh" sound for the sound /b/, /t/, or /p/ (e.g., avoid saying /buh/, /tuh/, /puh/). The first example below shows just articulation pictures, the next examples show them combined with sound-spelling cards.

Traditional Alphabet Word Walls: These types of word walls have been found in classrooms for decades, despite not being very helpful in terms of supporting reading or spelling. With this kind of wall, words are listed under each letter of the alphabet based on the first letter of the word, typically high-frequency words. However, grouping words by their sounds instead of letters (i.e., sound-spelling walls) is much more effective. This is especially the case for words that start with a letter that does not match the sound in a word. Unless the student already knows how to read and spell the word, they will not be able to find it on the chart. For example, the word " the" would be listed under "T" but the first sound the student hears is /th/ not /t/. Another example is the word " knee ". It would be listed under "K" but the first sound the student hears is /n/, not /k/. This is why the speech-to-print approach in a sound-spelling wall is a more effective and useful kind of wall. View the example of a traditional alphabet word wall below.

Summary: Any type of word wall will not be useful if the teacher does not reference it on a regular basis. Also, vocabulary walls need to change words (i.e., weekly) and morphology walls need to be updated as new examples of words with suffixes and prefixes are encountered in reading. If walls are not used on a regular basis, they unfortunately will become nothing more than wall paper!
Additional Resources Related to Sound Spelling and Sound Walls:
Reference: Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life. New York: The Guilford Press.

Joan Sedita

Joan Sedita is the founder of Keys to Literacy and author of the Keys to Literacy professional development programs. She is an experienced educator, nationally recognized speaker and teacher trainer. She has worked for over 35 years in the literacy education field and has presented to thousands of teachers and related professionals at schools, colleges, clinics, and professional conferences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Word Walls, Sounds Walls: What's the difference? - Keys to Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A hot topic in the field of beginning reading instruction these days is the use of classroom "walls." Word walls, sound walls, spelling walls, morphology walls - so many different kinds of walls! Understanding the difference among these options, and the different purposes for using them can be confusing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sound Walls to Support the English Learner: What Teachers Need to Know - edWeb

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This edWebinar will share valuable information about using sound walls in reading instruction with English learners.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a powerful tool to help students break apart a word and prep students for syllabication.

Porter uses this strategy almost everyday to help students recognize different parts of the word and even breaking words into syllables.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A couple of years ago, I was introduced to phonics coding through a curriculum we tried. And while the curriculum wasn't my favorite, the idea of coding words kind of stuck {even though the curriculum didn't}.

Over the past couple of years, we've modified it and made it ours. I've been amazed at how coding phonics words has really helped my struggling learner.

*You can grab the free printable coding chart by scrolling down and clicking on the teal download button.

What is Phonics Coding?

So let's back up for a minute and talk about phonics coding. What in the world is it?

Coding helps learners see and mark certain phonics patterns in words with a symbol of some kind.

The beauty of not following a particular curriculum is that we've been able to make phonics coding our own. We use our own symbols and we don't code every single letter. You can do the same thing.

Here are some simple ways that we code our words {this is a freebie at the end of this post.}:

*Don't see a phonics pattern you need on our chart? Create your own, like we do!

My Favorite Reason for Teaching Phonics Coding

While there are a couple of other reasons, the number one reason I'm a proponent of coding words is that it can help learners see that words are not just strings of random letters. Words, especially longer words, are constructed with chunks of letters.

This can help both our readers and spellers!

Instead of sounding through every single letter as they read, learners can take a word like TEACH and see/code it as three chunks: T - EA - CH.

Instead of trying to remember a word's individual string of letters (N-I-G-H-T), spellers can think about the word in chunks. N-IGH-T. Chunking words this way can help learners visualize the word easier.

Now, is phonics coding for everyone? Nope. I don't believe that all learners need phonics coding. My advanced reader certainly didn't. He cracked the code of reading and spelling and never looked back.

But coding phonics words sure has helped my struggling learner become more confident in her abilities to both read and spell words.
Grab our free phonics coding chart below: You might also like our free sets of Color the Chunk Pages.
Enjoy teaching!
~Becky

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching Phonics Coding to Learners - This Reading Mama

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A couple of years ago, I was introduced to phonics coding through a curriculum we tried. And while the curriculum wasn't my favorite, the idea of coding words kind of stuck {even though the curriculum didn't}. Over the past couple of years, we've modified it and made it ours.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Syllable division rules show us how to break up a multi-syllable word into its syllable parts. There are six main syllable division "rules " to guide us.

How is Syllable Division done?

It all starts with the vowels. Find the vowels in the word. It helps to underline or highlight them.

Find the patten of the consonants and vowels (VCV, VCCV, VCCCV, VCCCCV, C+le, VV).

Use the syllable division rule (shown below) to divide the word into its syllable parts.

Why Should we Teach Syllable Division?

Learning the rules of syllable division provides our students with an effective strategy for chunking up those bigger words into more manageable parts. I see it as another "tool" for their "tool belt" that leads to more accuracy while reading.

Understanding syllable division also helps students to determine what the vowel sound will be. As I learn more, I see this works best when incorporated with morphology (think prefixes, suffixes, and roots). When I first learned syllable division, I only learned syllable division without the consideration of morphemes (which are the smallest units of meaning in our language). I now teach my students to look for familiar prefixes, suffixes, and even roots (for older kids) first. If there aren't any, then begin syllable division.

To get to that point though, we need to teach them those syllable division rules and give them enough practice with them so that it becomes more automatic. All the while, I'm teaching new prefixes and suffixes to them so those can also become more familiar. I think the two actually go together well. But I digress! Back to syllable division!

The first thing to know is that every syllable must have a written vowel. The very definition of a syllable is an uninterrupted unit of speech with one vowel sound.

Syllable Division "Rules"

Here are the syllable division rules on one page:

Here is a picture from my classroom:

As I mentioned above, first thing to know about syllable division is that it's all about vowels!

Every syllable needs a vowel, so we can determine (usually) how many syllables there are based on the number of vowels.

Vowel teams and diphthongs count as one syllable even if there are two vowels because they work together to make one sound.

Same with silent e. The e doesn't make a sound so it doesn't get it's own syllable.
The exception of course is the syllable type consonant -le. This syllable is found in words like little, bubble, table. You cannot hear the e, but it does get its own syllable. It buddies with the l before it and the consonant before the l. More about that later, though!

Syllable Division Rules

The following slides show the main syllable division rules.

Rule #1: Two consonants between the vowels: VCCV Pattern

The first syllable division rule is VC/VC, which stands for vowel-consonant-consonant-vowel. Train your students to find the vowels in the word. They are our starting point. In words with the VCCV pattern, there are two consonants between the two vowels. Usually, we split between those consonants.

See the step by step directions with blue and yellow letters below. (Before teaching this, you should teach your students about open and closed syllable types. For the word basket, split between the s and k. The first syllable is bas and the second syllable is ket. Each syllable has a vowel.

Of course there are always exceptions.

One exception is when there are R or L blends, like in the word secret. We keep R and L blends together, so instead of splitting between those consonants, we keep them together and move them to the second syllable.

We also keep digraphs and units (ing, ink, ang, ank, ost, olt, ind, ild, olt) together. Never split those!

Rule #2 & 3: One Consonant between the Vowels: VCV Pattern

There are two options here! This slide shows both ways.

More commonly, you would split VCV syllables the before that consonant. This leaves your first syllable open, so the vowel would be long.

In the word silent, the letter l is the middle consonant between the vowels. We move that to be with the 2nd syllable: si-lent.

In the word bonus, the letter n is the middle consonant between the vowels. We move that to be with the second syllable, leaving the first syllable open (because it ends with a vowel) bo-nus

Sometimes though, we do the opposite. Sometimes, we split VCV syllables after the consonant. In this case, we close that first syllable, leaving that vowel short.

In the word robin, the middle consonant b moves with the 1st syllable making rob-in. The first syllable rob is closed by the b.

In the word visit, the middle consonant s moves with the 1st syllable making vis-it. The first syllable vis is closed by the v.

Rule #4: Three consonants between the vowels.

In the case of three consonants between the vowels, we usually split after the first consonant.

In the word conflict, the letter nfl are between the vowels. The first consonant n goes with the first syllable and the other two (fl) go to the 2nd syllable: con-flict.

See below that there are the usual exceptions.

We never split digraphs, blends, or units.

Also, a word this big can often be a compound word. Instead, you would split between the two words.

Rule #5: Four Consonants Between the Vowels

This is super similar to the last one. Split after the first consonant, unless it is a compound word. There are not as many of these words, and honestly when you're getting into words this big, I tend to shift my focus to morphology.

Rule #6: Consonant -le

On paper, I've always had this as #6, but I actually found myself teaching this one after #3 because it came up earlier since it is so common. A great example is the word little.

Following this rule, we see the -le at the end and count one back to make lit-tle. Consonant +le in this word is t+le.

This is the syllable type where there is no vowel sound. You only hear the consonant and the /l/ or /ul/.

Rule #7: V/V

When there are two vowels next to each other, but they are not vowel teams or diphthongs (more than one letter making one sound together), then you split between the vowels. These two vowels do not share a sound. I think this is the hardest for my students to decode usually. I wait to teach this one because it can be very confusing!

That first vowel is always long and that second one usually sounds like a schwa.

Compound Words

I've already mentioned this a few times as an exception to the other rules, but it's really a rule all on its own. If the word is a compound words, don't worry about the other rules, just split between those two words.

Affixes: Prefixes and Suffixes

I almost put this one first because it's so important, but I didn't want to confuse. It is super helpful for students to get in the habit of always looking for prefixes and suffixes. This starts in kindergarten with the suffix -s!

I teach my students to always "chunk out" the prefixes and suffixes and to focus on the base word first. This requires direct instruction with all the different prefixes and suffixes.

In first grade, they commonly will see -s, -es, -ing, -ed, -er, -est, re and un. 2nd graders regularly see -ly, -ment, -ful, -less, -able, pre-, dis-, mis-, and so many more!

In some cases, suffixes like -ed don't necessarily make a new syllable (jumped, camped, etc), while in others (rented, busted) it does make another syllable. But that's even more reason to teach them about prefixes and suffixes! Our students will cover the -ed in jumped, then see only one vowel and one syllable. After reading jump, they will then uncover -ed and decide how to pronounce it "jumpt, jump-ed, or jumpd".

You can learn more about this HERE.

3 Syllable Words:

When dividing a word with more than two syllables, first check for affixes (prefixes and suffixes). Then start at the left with the first two vowels, divide those syllables, then move to the right.

If you're interested in just these syllable division posters and some practice pages with all syllable types, you can find them HERE. The practice pages come in two formats: tabbed notebook (shown below) and also regular full-page worksheets.

Resources for Syllable Division

Here is a sneak peak of a few of the practice pages.

And because I'm so indecisive and have created and recreated so many posters over the years, I included all sets of visuals shown in this post. You can just choose your favorite and print!

However, if you already own my S yllable Division with Open and Closed Syllables, I also added these posters to that pack! You can find that HERE.

(If you're wondering what the difference is, this pack above has a lot more practice pages, but just focuses on open and closed syllables because it is part of my systematic units and has detailed lesson plans. The new, smaller pack above that has just the posters and 40 practice pages for all syllable division rules. It includes open and closed syllables then has another section with all the other syllable types. It is not part of the systematic units and does not have the detailed lesson plans.)

Here are a couple of syllable activities that I've done:

For these two, I put the first syllable in one color and the 2nd on another color. Students read the syllables and matched them to make real words.

This next activity was a review activity after learning all syllable types. I wrote words on note cards. I gave each student one at a time. They read the card to the group and then together we determined which pattern it followed. (Students would copy the word on their white board first and do the syllable division individually.) We sorted them into the correct column. The next day I used colored transparencies to chunk a certain syllable. For each word, I would ask for the first or second syllable. Students would say the syllable and then we would highlight that part.

What are Syllable Types?

This post is all about the syllable division rules. But you also will want to know the syllable types. As I mentioned above, I have a pack that focuses on syllable division with only open and closed syllables, which are two of the 7 syllable types. Want to read about the other syllable types? Click HERE to read more about syllable types.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Syllable Division Rules - Sarah's Teaching Snippets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Syllable division rules show us how to break up a multi-syllable word into its syllable parts. There are six main syllable division "rules" to guide us.

# data[].attributes.body
Porter's Word Recognition Instructional Slides Example-PDF

# data[].attributes.headline
Sample Word Recognition Instructional Slides

# data[].attributes.subject
Sample Word Recognition Instructional Slides

# data[].attributes.body
Porter's Word Recognition Instructional Slides-Example

FYI: Specific Fonts are used so it might look different on your computer if you don't have theses fonts.

Fonts Used:
PB Peppermint Mocha
KG Neatly Printed
PB Mugnificent

# data[].attributes.body
Heart words are irregular high frequency words that don't follow phonics rules and patterns.
There can be permanent heart words like said, and temporary heart words. Temporary heart words are irregular because there is a specific phonics concept/pattern that hasn't been taught yet.

Flash Words are words that can be easily decoded since they follow phonics concepts/pattenrs.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a powerful tool to help students break apart a word and prep students for syllabication.

Porter uses this strategy almost everyday to help students recognize different parts of the word and even breaking words into syllables.

# data[].attributes.body
These are to replace the MSV (3-Cuing System) strategies which are based off no scientific research. We want to teach students how to properly decode a word in order to build word recognition and word fluency

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Copy of Decoding Strategy Character Posters

# data[].attributes.body
You can use this to practice sound-spelling patterns that you taught explicitly.

Place in a Write & Wipe Pocket to reuse each day.

You can also use dictation as an assessment in place of traditional spelling tests. However, dictation should not only occur on Fridays but throughout the week as an instructional practice.

# data[].attributes.body
There is so much confusion around Sight Words and High Frequency Words. Sometimes you have heard of Heart Words or Red Words which are irregular High Frequency Words.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Thrive Literacy Corner - Thrive Educational Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This post may contain affiliate links, and I will earn a commission if you purchase through these links. Please read the disclosure policy for more details.

Orthographic mapping is the process where children learn to recognize each letter of the alphabet and how each letter represents one sound. It's how words become sight words. In this post, you'll learn about how orthographic mapping develops, and how to use phoneme grapheme mapping in your literacy instruction to develop students' orthographic mapping skills.

These phoneme grapheme mapping activities follow what the science of reading research shows is most effective for literacy instruction.

What is orthographic mapping?

Orthographic mapping, also called word mapping or phoneme-grapheme mapping, is how words become sight words.

Orthography refers to a system for representing sounds or spoken language with letters or other symbols, such as punctuation marks. Or it can refer to an individual's handwriting style or keyboarding technique because these motor skills are involved in writing out words phonetically (i.e., spelling). The term "orthography" also has a more specific meaning within linguistics: namely that of referring only to the appearance of written language on paper, excluding any consideration of the sound of speech.

Orthographic mapping is how students learn to recognize each letter of the alphabet and how each letter represents one sound. For example, if a student says "O" when you ask them what letter says its name (The letter O), this indicates that they have acquired orthographic mapping for that sound and letter.

This is not an activity that you can do - it's a mental process happening in the background as students learn to read.

What is the difference between decoding and orthographic mapping?

Decoding is breaking down words into sequences of sounds in order to determine the appropriate pronunciation. Orthographic mapping is recognizing the visual outline of a word and using that word without having to sound it out. It's recognizing the sequence of letters that makes the word.
Decoding looks like sounding out words, but if a word was already orthographically mapped it would be read instantly.
What are sight words?

Sight words are the words that we learn to recognize and read without having to sound them out or break them into parts.

As we continue to read, we build a sight word vocabulary. This is because words and word parts become orthographically mapped over time. They are now stored in long term memory.

If you're interested in teaching high frequency words (aka sight words) in a way that develops orthographic mapping, check out my Heart Words Method blog post.

How does orthographic mapping develop?

When children are learning to read, they first start by sounding out each individual sound within a word. They will still be building their vocabulary of sight words at the same time.

Over time, they begin to recognize patterns in what they are reading because certain sounds appear over and over again in words.

They will eventually be able to read these patterns/units quickly without sounding them out every time.

For example, say students have read the word mat so many times that they now come across pat and sat and can read the - at part quickly because it has been orthographically mapped.

When children are introduced to new words, they use their sight word vocabulary to decode the new word because they have already created orthographic maps for these words.

But for this to happen, students need to be proficient in phoneme awareness and have automatic letter-sound associations. Therefore, students need lots of activities focusing on phonemic awareness and letter-sound associations in the early years.

According to David Kilpatrick, Ph.D., author of Equipped for Reading Success, with explicit instruction of phoneme-grapheme relationships (e.g., letter/sound correspondence), children can begin to read new "pseudowords" as accurate as 30% of the time by the end of second grade and 100% accuracy by the end of third grade (page 65-66).

The Role of Advanced Phonemic Awareness in Orthographic Mapping

According to Kilpatrick, weak readers do not naturally acquire orthographic mapping because they lack advanced phonemic awareness skills.

For these students, it is important to provide intervention in phoneme addition, deletion, and substitution.

Below is an example:

1. Say the word nap. Have the student repeat it.

2. Ask them to say it again without the /n/. Be careful to say the sound /n/ and not the letter. The student should say -ap.

3. Ask them to say nap again, but this time instead of /n/ say /l/. The student should say lap.

4. Ask the student to say lap, but add a /s/ to the beginning. The student should say slap.

Now you would not actually do it as above as those tasks are on different difficulty levels, but I just wanted to give you an example of what advanced phonemic awareness tasks look like. You usually focus on one at a time, like just deleting the beginning sound, then you move on to deleting the ending sound.

Check out my daily Phonemic Awareness Task Cards for quick daily activities that include advanced phonemic awareness skills.

Phoneme Graphing Mapping Activities To Develop Orthographic Mapping

Aside from doing phonological and phonemic awareness activities like the ones above, phoneme-grapheme mapping also develops orthographic mapping.

What is Phoneme-Grapheme Mapping?

Phoneme grapheme mapping is a visual way to represent the relationship between phonemes (sounds) and their graphemes (letters). Students connect the sound they hear with the letter or letters that represent that sound.

This can also be called word mapping.

Word Mapping Activities

Here is how you would phoneme-grapheme map any word:

1. Say the word. Students repeat the word.

2. Finger tap the word to sound it out and count the phonemes.

3. Use a manipulative to represent each sound. You can draw something on the board, like a line or dot to do this. It helps to use a different color for each sound.

4. Spell each sound. Ask students what letters make the sound. Write the letters above the manipulative used to represent the sound. Students write the letters that represent each sound in the boxes.

5. Discuss any irregular spelling patterns. Talk about the origin of the word, or the rule or pattern to help students remember it. Draw a heart above the tricky letters. Tell students they need to remember this part by heart.

6. Ask questions relating to the sequence of the letters: What's the first sound? Which letter says /b/? What sound does the letter t say? What letter comes after the /b/ sound?

7. Students slide their finger across the line under the boxes while saying each sounds to blend the word.

8. Students read the word aloud.

9. Students write the word on the lines saying each letter as they write it.

You can grab my free template (pictured above) from my freebies library, or the paid version (pictured below) which includes teaching tips, lesson outline, and blank templates for words with 2 to 5 sounds.

I use the Heart Word Method for irregularly spelled high frequency words. You can read more about that here, and find my Heart Words Mapping templates below.

Elkonin Boxes

Long time readers know how I love Elkonin boxes! I use them all the time because they really help develop these critical reading skills all students need.

Use sound boxes with chips to count phonemes, match phonemes to sounds, write the graphemes (letters) in the boxes to spell words, blend sounds together, delete, add, and substitute sounds, and more!

Grab my free sound boxes template in my freebies library ( sign up here to access it).

Rimes

The rime is the word part that follows the onset of a word.

In the word sat, the onset is /s/ and the rime is /at/.

Working with rimes helps develop automaticity.

Start off with 2 sounds. Let's use the example word top. Start with /o/ and /p/. Have students map those 2 sounds and blend them together to say /op/.

Next, add a sound before the /op/. Say something like, "this manipulative says /t/" and place it before /op/. Ask students to say the new word. Ask them to underline /op/.

Do this with a few other words and ask students to find the letters that say /op/ in all the words.

Blending Drills With Rimes

Another rime activity is using phonogram cards (phonics sound spelling cards) to blend initial sounds with a rime.

Set up 3 piles of phonogram cards: the initial sound, and the 2 cards that make the rime. Then swap the initial letter so students can sound out the new word using the same rime.

Using the image below as an example, you would swap the p card to reveal a new letter. Continue swapping that initial sound. Students should focus on decoding that sound, and quickly blend it with /ain/ so they're not sounding out /ain/ every time the initial sound is changed.

You can buy the phonogram cards I use here.

Word Sorts

Word sorts work with rimes so be sure to teach rimes first.

You can create word sort walls in the classroom too, to display some of the rimes you have taught and have students practice drills blending the onset and rime.

Silicone Bubble Poppers

Students love using these bubble poppers and they're such a great tool for segmenting phonemes. Below you can see they can be used to listen to or say a word and pop a bubble for each sound they hear with the option of writing the word after. I have a free template for this bubble popper worksheet in my freebies library.

Sound Walls

Instead of a word wall, try a sound wall. Because sound walls focus on phonemes and their different graphemes, it's a great foundation. Students learn the sounds and the different spellings for each sound in a way that makes sense phonetically.

Check out my post on sound walls here. And you can grab my sound wall resources in my TPT shop to quickly and easily put a sound wall up in your room.

Bottom Line

I hope this post has helped you learn more about the process of orthographic mapping and how it affects literacy instruction. Hopefully, you can add some phoneme grapheme mapping activities to your lessons to help students develop their orthographic mapping skills.

And don't forget to check out my word mapping resources below!
Visit my Teachers Pay Teachers shop to see all my literacy products.
Sources:
Want to remember this? Save Orthographic Mapping Activities to your favorite Pinterest board!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Phoneme Grapheme Mapping Activities For Orthographic Mapping

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This post may contain affiliate links, and I will earn a commission if you purchase through these links. Please read the disclosure policy for more details. Orthographic mapping is the process where children learn to recognize each letter of the alphabet and how each letter represents one sound.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Four-Part Processing Model for word recognition is a simplified model that illustrates how the brain reads or recognizes words. (Based on Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989)

Magnetoencephalography (MEG) imaging studies have shown the directionality of brain processes when seeing/hearing a word.

Watch Dr. Carol Tolman introduce her Tolman Hourglass Figure and its relation to the Four-Part Processor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Four-Part Processing Model for word recognition is a simplified model that illustrates how the brain reads or recognizes words. (Based on Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989)Magnetoencephalography (MEG) imaging studies have shown the directionality of brain processes when seeing/hearing a word.

# data[].attributes.body
Templates to take notes on students during small group instruction by group.

# data[].attributes.body
Perfect for small group instruction for K-2 and struggling readers in 3-5. This tool focuses on the rime (vowel & everything after) of a word.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I've chosen 10 things to recommend. I've read hundreds of books and articles since I started getting interested in this topic five years ago, so it was hard to narrow it down. This is by no means a comprehensive list. But it's a start. Here goes:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Want to know more about the science of reading?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here's a reading list put together by Emily Hanford, host and lead producer of our podcast Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
This is great to use in small group instruction for K-2 as well as upper elementary for struggling readers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Decoding in Reading

What is phonics, why is it important and at what ages should children learn to read?

Secret Stories® Method

Secret Stories® brain based approach to phonics brings the study of words to life in an engaging and playful way that deepens learning and makes it stick.

Secret Stories® is always teaching.

The Secrets are always brought into reading and writing with kids using what they are learning. Skill transfer occurs naturally within every reading and writing experience-all day long, making Secret Stories® the easiest thing you will ever teach.

Not More, Just Better Reading Instruction
Secret Stories® is the brain based gas that makes the learning go at "warp-speed!"
While it may seem impossible that kids could actually own more of the code in less time and with less effort than it takes to learn a letter a week in kindergarten, it's not.

And it's easy. Just do what you're already doing, but do it with the Secrets!

What About Sight Words?

Stanford University's study on brain waves shows how different teaching methods affect reading development... "Teaching students to sound out "C-A-T" sparks more optimal brain circuitry than instructing them to memorize the word 'cat,' ...even on future encounters with the word. This groundbreaking study provides some of the first evidence that a specific teaching strategy for reading has direct neural impact."

Phonics Stories Examples

Au and aw have a HUGE crush on each other, so whenever they have to stand side-by-side in a word, they get so embarrassed, that they always put their heads down and say, "Ahhhhhhhhhhh...."

Kindergarten & First Grade Writing Samples

Phonics Success Stories

Travis Burke vetted over 20 resources submitted and his favorite was the "The Better Alphabet Song" created by Katie Garner. Her Secret Stories® resource provides educators with an amazing body of brain research and a high-quality model for young learners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is phonics, why is it important and at what ages should children learn to read? Secret Stories® brain based approach to phonics brings the study of words to life in an engaging and playful way that deepens learning and makes it stick. Secret Stories® is always teaching.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Thrive Literacy Corner - Thrive Educational Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since I have written about the science of reading, heart words, and explicit phonics instruction, so many of you have reached out and asked, "so how do I set up my literacy block and work with students in small groups?"

I know it can be overwhelming learning that what you've been doing needs to change, especially with all the challenges teachers face with time and curriculum restraints.

In this post, I'm sharing a literacy block template you can use to set up your reading and writing instruction, just in time for the new school year!

But before I get into it, make sure you complete the right literacy assessments before planning out anything for the year.

What should literacy instruction include?

The 3 main areas that you want to focus on in your literacy instruction are:

When planning out your literacy block, make sure every activity targets one of these three areas.

Decoding

Decoding requires phonological awareness, phonics, and blending and segmenting. Students should be able to hear and manipulate sounds in words, understand relationships between graphemes and phonemes, and manipulate parts of words. These are the things you will focus on in your phonics lessons and activities.

Some activities that you can include in your lessons that address decoding include:

Elkonin boxes

Syllable splitting

Syllable blending

Segmenting phonemes

Blending phonemes

Phoneme deletion and subsitution

Highlight target phonics pattern

Phonics games

Memory or matching game

Word building

Search for target phonics pattern

Word work worksheets

Heart words (high frequency words)

Fluency

Fluency requires the ability to read smoothly, with expression, at the right pace, and with attention to punctuation. Including activities that build fluency is important.

Some activities that address fluency include:

Read alouds

Shared reading

Re-reading

Independent reading

Listening to an audio book

Choral reading

Partner reding

Readers' Theatre

Grammar instruction

Comprehension

Comprehension requires vocabulary knowledge, background knowledge, and language comprehension. These are the things you will focus on in your comprehension instruction.

Some activities that address comprehension include:

Reading a nonfiction passage to increase background knowledge

Voabulary instruction

Retelling

Summarizing

Shared reading

Read-Alouds

Independent reading

Science & social studies content (increases background knowledge)

Think alouds

Stop and retell

Visualization

Literacy Block Schedule Template

I know that every school has different time requirements and even specific activity requirements for reading and writing instruction. You might be able to adapt what you are currently doing and swap some activities or change up the timing to fit with what research says actually works to improve reading.

Sometimes administrators need a little education on why certain programs or activities need to be updated or changed, and hopefully, you don't encounter a lot of pushback with this.

Here is a sample of what a literacy block should look like for kindergarten through second grade:

Sound Manipulation - 10 minutes of activities that build phonological awareness

Phonics - about 30 minutes of activities that focus on decoding, encoding, phonological awareness, high frequency words, and vocabulary

Shared or close reading - 10 minutes of activities that adress print and book skills, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary

Read-aloud & vocabulary - 15 minutes of activities that focus on comprehension, vocabulary, and modeling fluency

Writing - 30-45 minutes of acvities that teach encoding, fine motor skills, and grammar

Independent Reading - 10 minutes or less

Small Groups - 30-45 minutes of activities that reinforce phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocbaulary

These activities DO NOT have to be scheduled in this order, nor do the activities need to stick within these recommended time frames.

Think of transition times that you can do phonemic awareness activities like while walking to lunch. You could do a read-aloud while students eat their morning or afternoon snack. Some of these activities could be independent small group activities that your students work on while you work with another group.

Break up the longer time frames if needed. For example, in Kindergarten you may do half of your small group instruction in the morning and the other half in the afternoon, so that the other students are not doing independent work for so long (because you know they will get off task after about 10 minutes or so).

Think about what programs you're currently using and assess which areas they address: decoding, fluency, and/or comprehension. You don't need to include everything every day. You can do certain activities less often, or try a schedule that alternates activities so it takes 2 days to go through all the areas.

What you do want to have each day is a little bit of instruction that addresses decoding, fluency, and comprehension. But be flexible and realistic. Some people can't fit all this into their daily schedule. Do the best that you can with what you have available to you.

What do students do for independent work while you are working with a small group?

I get this question so often, so I'm betting you were thinking about this while looking at that schedule.

Here are a few ideas for independent work:

Follow up activity from the small group lesson

Independent reading

Read a decodable text

Partner reading

Summary writing or filling out a graphic organizer about a text

Listening to an audiobook

Spelling practice

Handwriting practice

Word work

Peer dictation

Phonics games students can play with a partner or small group

Heart word practice

Phonics apps or computer games

Writing activity/journal

You want students to practice what you have taught previously. Choose activities that don't require you to check their work too often and that have little room for error. This time can easily be wasted if students don't understand what to do or do not have enough instruction to practice the target skills.

Using decodable texts is key for independent activities to be beneficial for students. Students should be using texts that they can read 100% on their own.

How to make small groups/centers and Daily 5 work with the Science of Reading

During your small group instruction, you can choose to set up groups or centers for students to do their independent work. You can adapt the Daily 5 to work with this by modifying centers a bit.

Choose the 4 activities that you want students to work on independently. Choose activities that you can easily swap out the skill without creating new materials or a completely new activity that needs to be taught. For example, you can choose Summary Writing as an activity where students use a graphic organizer to write a short summary of a story. Or you could use a partner phonics game where you simply need to swap out the words used in the game to align with current instruction. Just make sure every activity includes skills the students can do on their own.

And you probably already know this, but make sure to explicitly teach all of these before you set them off to work independently!

Example Literacy Block

Below is an example of a literacy block for one week.

I hope this post helps you plan out your literacy instruction. If you need a more specific guide and outline to follow, I recommend the book How to Plan Differentiated Reading Instruction (grades k-3).
Visit my Teachers Pay Teachers shop to see all my literacy products.
Want to remember this? Save How To Set Up Literacy Blocks Thatr Align With the Science of Reading to your favorite Pinterest board!

If you're looking for more tips on teaching reading to struggling learners, check out these other posts:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Literacy Block Scheduling That Aligns With the Science of Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since I have written about the science of reading, heart words, and explicit phonics instruction, so many of you have reached out and asked, "so how do I set up my literacy block and work with students in small groups?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this post, I offer a 90-minute literacy block schedule aligned to the Science of Reading and can be used in kindergarten, first and second-grade classrooms. The SoR-aligned literacy block is broken up into whole group phonics instruction, small group instruction, and whole group language comprehension. I explain what skills should be taught in each part of the literacy block and leave you with a FREE downloadable template to help you plan your 90-minute literacy block.
Research shows that ALL students need at least 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction each day to become strong readers. This instructional time must be systematic, explicit, scaffolded, and differentiated. I hear from many teachers who are told they need to spend 90 minutes on literacy but they aren't told what to do with that time or how to structure it! I frequently get asked the question, "What should I be doing in my 90-minute literacy block?"

Today I am excited to begin sharing a series of blog posts that will help to answer that question. In this first post, I outline a suggested schedule for your 90-minute science of reading-aligned literacy block. This framework can be used in kindergarten, first and second-grade classrooms.

Skills to Teach During Your 90-Minute Literacy Block

The Simple View of Reading tells us that Word Recognition x Languange Comprehension = Skilled Reader.

Therefore, it is essential we use the 90 minutes to provide students with explicit and systematic instruction and practice with the following skills:

To provide instruction on all of these skills, I suggest splitting up your 90-minute block into three separate parts. My preference is to do 20 min block, 50 min block, and another 20 min block. You can tweak those minutes based on the needs of your students, your schedule, or the requirements of your school.

Let's take a closer look at what to do in each part of your literacy block....

Block #1: 20 Minutes of Whole Group Word Recognition Instruction

To start your literacy block, gather students in your meeting for 20 minutes of whole-class word recognition instruction. During this time you will focus on phonemic awareness, decoding, encoding and fluency. You can begin by reviewing previously learned material and then introduce the new reading/spelling pattern you are focusing on that week. Offer guided practice opportunities and monitored independent practice with that skill. This is also a great time for dictation practice.

Block #2: 50 Minutes of Small Group Instruction and Literacy Centers

After your whole-group word recognition instruction, you will transition to a 50-minute block where you will provide students with targeted, small-group instruction. Your small group groupings should be based on data from a universal screening, not based on assumptions. Use weekly progress monitoring and observation to adjust your groups. They should be flexible. As needs change, groups change.

In the group, you will provide students with the targeted remediation and review they need to master the skill you have identified as their need. Skills you will work on in small groups include:

You may be left wondering, "what do my other students do while I am working with my small group?" The answer is they are engaging in intentional literacy center activities that reinforce skills you have already taught. Wiley Blevins tells us that in order for a skill to stick, it must be purposefully and systematically reviewed for 4-6 weeks. Centers offer students the practice and review they need to master the skills we teach.

Block 3: 20 Minutes of Whole Class Language Comprehension

For the final 20 minutes, bring the students back to the meeting area and focus your instruction on language comprehension. During this time, you can build background knowledge, develop oral language, build vocabulary, and teach language structures, and comprehension skills through your read-aloud.
To help you plan your 90-minute block, I am happy to offer you this FREE download>> 90-minute structured literacy block planning template.
When Do I Teach Writing?

This framework does not include a specified time for writing and handwriting instruction but writing practice is naturally woven in. Students should get practice with writing in the word recognition block of instruction. Research shows us that students learn letter-sound relationships and spelling as they write. They can also get practice with writing in small groups and through the literacy center activities you choose.

If time allows, I do recommend using 20 or so minutes after your language comprehension instruction to focus on writing. This is a good time to do it because as students get older their writing becomes more connected to the reading and read alouds that take place during that time.

I hope that the information I have shared in this post helps to provide you with a framework for how to structure your literacy block. Be on the lookout for the next post in this series that will focus on SoR-aligned small group instruction. I will explain what you should do with your small groups, what other students should be doing while you work with your small group, and offer you resources to help you do it all with ease!

- PIN for LATER -

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Schedule for Your 90-Minute Literacy Block

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I suggest a schedule for your 90-minute literacy block that can be used in kindergarten, first, and second-grade classrooms. I break it into three parts 1) whole group phonics instruction 2) small group instruction and 3) whole group language comprehension. I explain what specific literacy skills should be taught in each part of the 90-minute block.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What Is Structured Literacy?

The International Dyslexia Association originated the term structured literacy. It encompasses a science-based, structured approach to literacy instruction. It provides explicit, systematic, engaging, multisensory, and developmentally appropriate instruction. It teaches students the key skills they need to become efficient and accurate decoders. These skills lead not only to strong word identification but also to deeper text comprehension. Learn how to bring structured literacy into your classroom, take our Science of Reading eLearning Courses>>

What Are the Teaching Principles of Structured Literacy?

Structured literacy instruction uses evidence-based principles for instruction. These principles are:

Systematic and Cumulative refers to the instructional order of concepts and the strategies for introducing those new concepts. In this approach, literacy instruction begins with the easiest concepts first and then moves on to more advanced concepts. Cumulative means that as each new concept is introduced, it is practiced in conjunction with the concepts that have been previously learned. Systematic and cumulative instruction logically builds on what students have already learned and focuses on the most useful concepts and skills first so that students can immediately put them to use reading real words.

Explicit instruction means that there is direct student-teacher interaction in which the teacher clearly provides the needed information to the student in a palatable manner, not expecting the students to discover the information on their own. Explicit instruction levels the playing field because it does not assume prior knowledge. All students are given equal access to the concepts and skills needed to succeed.

Diagnostic literacy instruction consists of ongoing assessment, formal and informal, of student needs and progress. The goal of instruction is student automaticity of key literacy concepts, enabling them to focus on meaning rather than the mechanics of decoding.

What Are the Elements of Structured Literacy?

Successful literacy instruction and interventions provide highly explicit, systematic teaching of foundational decoding and spelling skills as well as explicit teaching of other important components of literacy, such as vocabulary, comprehension, and writing. (IDA 2021)

Phonemic Awareness and Phonological Awareness

Phonemic awareness is what enables you to hear and manipulate the smallest units of speech sounds, phonemes. Your phonemic awareness gets the credit when you identify that the word map has three sounds, /m/ /ă/ /p/, while the word split has five, /s/ /p/ /l/ /ĭ/ /t/. Strong phonemic awareness skills lead to strong readers because phonemic awareness is the underlying framework for reading (decoding) and writing (encoding) (Trehearne, 2003).

Phonological awareness, on the other hand, is what enables you to hear the sentence, "My dog ran away," and immediately determine that it contains four spoken words. It allows you to quickly identify that bat and mat rhyme, while bat and boat do not. And it enables you to determine that the word loquacious has three syllables, lo-qua-cious.

Sound-Symbol Association and the Alphabetic Principle

Phonics instruction uses the alphabetic principle to teach sound-symbol association. The alphabetic principle, the idea that spoken words are made of individual sounds and that letters represent those sounds, is a key concept for developing reading skills. We believe in moving from speech to sound, from phonemes to graphemes. Grasping the alphabetic principle by moving from speech to print prevents errors, guessing, and other issues with decoding. Through explicit, structured activities, students develop the ability to use the alphabetic principle to match phonemes and graphemes.

Syllable Instruction

Syllable instruction is taught as part of phonics instruction. Phonics is the knowledge of the regular relationships between speech sounds and their spellings found in English. Phonics is the practical application of the alphabetic principle. This knowledge allows students to read words they have not encountered before. Phonics education should build automaticity in matching graphemes to phonemes through systematic, explicit instruction. When decoding (reading), knowledge of syllable types aids students in correctly identifying vowel phonemes; segmenting syllables; and, ultimately, blending the syllables together, leading to correct pronunciation. When encoding (spelling), the ability to segment syllables and identify their types helps students accurately match phonemes to graphemes.

Morphology

What is Morphology? It is the study of words and their parts. Morphemes are meaningful morphological units of a language that cannot be further divided. They are the smallest meaningful units of a language. Morphemes can be divided into prefixes, suffixes, and roots/bases. Morphemes are important for phonics in both reading and spelling, as well as in vocabulary and comprehension. By breaking words into six syllable types, we help students see patterns in decodable chunks. When this happens, morphemes naturally expose themselves.

Syntax

What is Syntax? It is defined as the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language. Syntax includes grammar and the structure, or rules, of written and spoken language. Good readers possess a variety of skills that, when combined, lead to text comprehension proficiency. These skills include decoding, fluency, a rich vocabulary, an understanding of various types of text, strong background knowledge, and an understanding of syntax.

Semantics

What is Semantics? It is defined as the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.When students can decode words accurately and automatically, they are better able to derive correct meaning when they read. Accurate and automatic reading can also lead to improvement in fluency because students will not stumble as frequently over unknown words, causing them to slow down and lose the meaning of the text. Improved accuracy, automaticity, and fluency lead to more confident readers.

Literacy is the Road to Human Progress

Kofi Annan, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations said, "Literacy is, finally, the road to human progress and the means through which every man, woman, and child can realize his or her full potential." As all educators know, literacy is a key foundational skill for all students. Using a structured literacy approach for reading enables students to succeed in all subjects. Reading well is a skill that students carry with them through life.

Science of Reading eLearning Courses

Are Your Classroom Practices Aligned With the Science of Reading?

Launching in July of 2022, our Science of Reading eLearning Courses are exceptional, self-paced, asynchronous professional development.

These courses help teachers master the fundamentals of literacy instruction and model how to align classroom practices with the Science of Reading.

Teachers learn what researchers know about how the brain learns to read, store, and retrieve words.

The courses explore the skills and knowledge it takes to become a fluent, highly capable, decoder.

They teach a practical, scientifically aligned, evidence-based, foundational skill approach.

Topics include phonemic awareness and phonics, orthographic mapping, the alphabetic principle, word-level knowledge strategies that help students easily attack multi-syllabic words, and so much more.

In short, they are a treasure trove of learning.

We train tens of thousands of teachers per year, and we have 15 years of experience in teaching the science behind reading. Bring the Science of Reading to life in your classrooms! Select from two levels: Emerging Reader for grades PreK-1st, and Developing Reader for grades 1-12.

Affordable. Efficient. Engaging. Empowering. Compared to many other professional learning courses, our courses are a fraction of the time, a fraction of the cost, but they leave teachers with deep knowledge and practical functional solutions!
Purchase Single Seat Now Purchase Site Licenses Now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What Is Structured Literacy?The International Dyslexia Association originated the term structured literacy. It encompasses a science-based, structured approach to literacy instruction. It provides explicit, systematic, engaging, multisensory, and developmentally appropriate instruction. It teaches students the key skills they need to become efficient and accurate decoders.

# data[].attributes.body
Citations & Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Science of Reading: Defining Guide provides a firm definition of what the science of reading is, what it is not, and how all stakeholders can understand its potential to transform reading instruction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Understanding the Relationship Between Orton‑Gillingham, Structured Literacy, and the Science of Reading

Orton-Gillingham

Orton-Gillingham is a highly structured multi-sensory approach that breaks reading and spelling down into smaller skills involving letters and sounds, and then building on these skills over time.

Learn More

Structured Literacy

Structured Literacy supports explicit, sequential, systematic, prescriptive, diagnostic, and cumulative instruction to benefit all learners, both general education and remedial.

Learn More

The Science of Reading

The Science of Reading is a comprehensive body of scientifically-based research about reading and writing that helps to explain how it is that people best learn to read.

Learn More

How to Teach Structured Literacy

Structured Literacy Emphasizes the Structure of Language Through

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Orton-Gillingham | What is Structured Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Structured Literacy is a highly explicit teaching approach based on the Science of Reading, methodologies like Orton-Gillingham, and all five pillars of literacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated: Dec 23, 2021

For more than a century, reading instruction has been involved in a high-stakes battle between supporters of two opposing methods for teaching a child to read. While this battle is often characterized as "Phonics" versus "Whole Word," I think it's more accurate to describe the two methodologies as "Bottom-Up" versus "Top-Down." (Alternatively, "Parts-to-Whole" versus "Whole-to-Parts").

Top-down methods start instruction with whole words - typically called "sight words." The child rote-memorizes a cache of such words based on their visual characteristics rather than on the sound value of their individual letters. The reason I don't like calling this battle "Phonics" versus "Whole Word" is there are several types of phonics that are top-down in their orientation. Analogy phonics, analytic phonics, and onset-rime phonics all require that the child memorize a large collection of sight words before such phonics can commence. (For a more complete description of all these types of phonics, see this blog.)

The only bottom-up method that exists is a specific type of phonics called Synthetic Phonics. Here instruction starts, not with whole words, but with the most basic sounds in English, called phonemes. These phonemes are connected to the letters ( graphemes) that symbolize them in our alphabetic system. Whole words are then built (bottom-up) by blending these individual sounds. (For more on Synthetic Phonics, see here.) (For a more thorough definition of phoneme and grapheme, see here.)

The two methods are not compatible. One starts with the final product (a whole word) and then may (or may not) eventually get down to the phoneme-grapheme level; the other starts with phonemes and graphemes and then builds up to a whole word. Top-down methods stress "meaning" from the start; the bottom-up method stresses knowledge of the code as a necessary condition for reading comprehension. (See the Simple View of Reading here.)

It may surprise some readers to find out that the battle between various top-down methods and synthetic phonics has been going on since the mid-nineteenth century. Here, then, is a short history of reading instruction from the viewpoint of one (somewhat biased) observer. (Spoiler: synthetic phonics - the bottom-up method - has been losing this battle for a long time.)

McGuffey then reveals his bias against a strict Word approach:

1900 - 1930: A transitional period. The Beacon Readers, an improved phonics series, gradually supplants the McGuffey Readers. In the Beacon Readers, the sound of individual letters (phonics) is taught from the start, as well as memorization of whole words:

"It should be clearly understood that at first there must be two distinct lines of teaching carried on side by side: (1) the drill upon phonetic lists for the purpose of developing phonetic power in the child; (2) the reading of simple lessons [stories], mainly by the Word method, until the child's power in phonetics is far enough advanced to enable him to apply it in his reading." [2]

"Even if the child substitutes words of his own for some that are on the page, provided that those express the meaning, it is an encouraging sign that the reading has been real... The shock that such a statement will give to many a practical teacher of reading is but an accurate measure of the hold that a false ideal has taken of us, viz., that to read is to say just what is upon the page, instead of to think, each in his own way, the meaning that the page suggests...It may even be necessary, if the reader is to really tell what the page suggests, to tell it in words that are somewhat variant; for reading is always in the nature of translation and, to be truthful, it must be free." [3] (emphasis mine)

"That it will be the part of wisdom to curtail phonetic instruction in the first grade very greatly is strongly implied; indeed, it is not improbable that it should be eliminated entirely." [4]

By 1930, phonics - meaning explicit teaching of the code - has been abandoned in most of the nation's classrooms.

Logically enough, this Whole Word method becomes known as Look/Say. Once children learn 30-50 sight words in this manner, they are given repetitive readers consisting largely of these exact words. An unknown word in these readers is accompanied by a picture to allow its identification. The most famous basal reader of this period is the beautifully illustrated Dick and Jane series. See above for a sampling from a "story" from this series, whose main purpose is to drill sight words.

"Memorizing or guessing the meaning of whole words is not reading; on the contrary, it is an acquired bad habit that stands in the way of your child's ever learning to read properly... My advice is, teach your child yourself how to read." [5]

Unfortunately, the phonics program offered by Flesch, taking up the final third of his book, is inadequate. There are only two pages of instructions, followed by page after page of nothing but word lists. The publication of this book ignites the "Reading Wars," a battle over how to teach beginning reading that, to this day, remains unresolved.

"The results are better, not only in terms of the mechanical aspect of literacy alone, but also in terms of the ultimate goals of reading instruction - comprehension and possibly even speed of reading. The long-existing fear that an initial code emphasis produces readers who do not read for meaning, or with enjoyment, is unfounded. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that better results in terms of reading for meaning are achieved with the programs that emphasize code right at the start..." [6]

"The pronunciation of a visually presented word involves assigning to a sequence of letters some kind of acoustic or articulatory coding. There are presumably two alternative ways in which this coding can be assigned. First, the pronunciation could be computed by application of a set of grapheme-phoneme rules, or letter-sound correspondence rules. This coding can be carried out independently of any consideration of the meaning or familiarity of the letter sequence, as in the pronunciation of previously unencountered sequences, such as ﬂitch, mantiness and streep. Alternatively, the pronunciation may be determined by searching long-term memory for stored information about how to pronounce familiar letter sequences, obtaining the necessary information by a direct dictionary look-up, instead of rule application. Obviously, this procedure would work only for familiar words."

Note: In the 80s, 90s, and 00s, this theory will be further refined by reading researchers Max Coltheart, Mark Seidenberg, and James McClelland, leading (by 2005) to general acceptance of Coltheart's Dual-Route Cascaded (DRC) model of word recognition.

1981: Rudolf Flesch publishes Why Johnny Still Can't Read, again condemning the Whole Word method, as well as the analytic phonics that it now includes. Looking back over the 26 years since he published his first book, he criticizes analytic phonics as being "a minimum of phonics, served up in a look-and-say sauce of context clues and guesswork." [7]

"That was due to the Dewey revolt in the Twenties in which they threw out phonics and went to word recognition, as if you're reading Chinese pictographs instead of blending sounds of different letters. I think killing phonics was one of the greatest causes of illiteracy in the country."

"It would seem that many of the characteristics of direct phonics, such as teaching letter sounds directly, separating the letter sounds from the words, giving practice in blending the sounds, and so forth, are more effective than the less direct procedures used in current analytic phonics programs." [9]

Developed by Kenneth Goodman and Frank Smith in the 1970's, Whole Language differs from Look/Say in some fundamental ways. First, it rejects the boring, artificial, and repetitive readers of the Look/Say era, claiming to replace those readers with real children's stories. (Those stories, however, are read to the children. What the children read initially are repetitive "little books" whose main function is to drill sight words.) Second, phonics, understood as explicit, systematic teaching of the full code, is outright rejected. According to Goodman, "matching letters with sounds (decoding) is a flat-earth view of the world, since it rejects modern science about reading and writing and how they develop." [10] Frank Smith is just as adamant: "Reliance on phonics - or spelling-to-sound correspondence - is dysfunctional in fluent reading and interferes with learning to read." [11]

Third, writing is emphasized at the earliest stages of learning to read, even if it requires, as it must, "invented spelling." Fourth, learning to read is to be as easy and natural as learning to speak. Children will discover the necessary letter/sound relationships as they read books and express themselves in writing, using their invented spellings. Finally, an unfamiliar word is to be identified, not by sounding it out, but by "asking somebody what the word is" - or by guessing what the word might be using context or "similarity to words that are already known." [12]

Despite its differences with Look/Say, Whole Language is another top-down approach for teaching reading. In the first couple years of instruction, reading consists largely of memorizing sight words and guessing - with some incidental phonics taught on an as-needed basis. Ken Goodman is famous for his characterization of reading as "a psycholinguistic guessing game." [13] For Frank Smith, guessing - in the sense of making predictions and thus eliminating unlikely alternatives - "is the most efficient manner in which to read and learn to read." [14] Whole Language spreads throughout the US at an unprecedented pace, even though there is no research whatever for its effectiveness.

1983: Reading researchers David Share and Anthony Jorm propose their Self-Teaching Hypothesis (further elaborated in 1995 by Share). Recognizing that skilled, educated readers have a sight word vocabulary of 60,000 or more words, and that such a feat would be impossible via rote-memorization or via guessing based on context, Jorm and Share propose that only the independent decoding of unknown words could explain the ability of skilled readers. Such decoding depends on only two factors: knowledge of letter/sound (phoneme/grapheme) relationships and the ability to blend an unknown word's individual sounds (phonemes) into a recognizable pronunciation. Share calls these twin co-requisites the sine qua non of reading acquisition [15]. This places Share and Jorm in direct opposition to Whole Language methodology.

1986: Reading researchers Philip Gough and William Tunmer propose their Simple View of Reading. Under the Simple View, reading comprehension (RC) is the product of two independent factors: word recognition (WR) and language comprehension (LC). The model states succinctly: RC = WR x LC. Word recognition, made possible by decoding, thus takes its rightful place as a necessary (though by itself, insufficient) condition for reading comprehension to occur. This places Gough and Tunmer in direct opposition to Whole Language methodology. [ Note: my separate blog on the Simple View can be found here.]

1998: Reading researcher Linnea Ehri proposes four phases of sight word learning [18]. Her studies reveal that it is only when beginning readers can form "complete connections" between all the letters (graphemes) seen in a word's written form and all the sounds (phonemes) heard in its spoken form, that sight word learning becomes unconscious and automatic - a process she calls orthographic mapping. This re-emphasizes the importance of knowing grapheme/phoneme correspondences and being able to blend (decode) unknown words by sounding them out. Share's Self-Teaching Hypothesis and Ehri's complement each other. Both theories are in direct opposition to Whole Language.

Because this report is such a thorough rejection of 25 years of Whole Language methodology, I think it best to allow the Panel members to speak for themselves. The numbers after the quote use the pagination found in the Final Report, available online here.

"Systematic phonics instruction makes a bigger contribution to children's growth in reading than alternative programs providing unsystematic or no phonics instruction." (2-92)

"The hallmark of systematic phonics programs is that they delineate a planned, sequential set of phonic elements [letter-sound correspondences] and that they teach these elements explicitly... A key feature that distinguishes systematic phonics instruction from nonsystematic phonics is in the identification of a full array of letter-sound correspondences to be taught. The array includes not only the major correspondences between consonant letters and sounds but also short and long-vowel letters and sounds, and vowel and consonant digraphs (e.g., oi, ea, ou, sh, ch, th)... Learning vowel and digraph spelling patterns is harder for children; therefore, special attention is devoted to learning these relations." (2-99)

"Phonics instruction, taught early, proved much more effective than phonics instruction introduced after first grade... Phonics instruction produces the biggest impact on growth in reading when it begins in kindergarten or 1st grade, before children have learned to read independently." (2-93)

Stating that it is "not sufficient" simply to teach the code, the Panel offers three specific ways to apply code knowledge to reading and writing:

"Programs provide practice in various ways. Phonics programs may teach children decoding strategies that involve sounding out and blending individual letters and digraphs... Programs may provide children with text whose words can be decoded using the letter-sound relations already taught. Programs may have children write their own text using the letter-sounds relations already taught and then have children read their own and others' stories." (2-99) [emphasis added]

Stressing the importance of phonemic awareness (PA), the Panel strongly endorses two types of PA exercises: blending and segmenting. Both are to be done "with letters." The Panel does not endorse any type of "advanced" oral-only PA exercises such as phoneme deletion or phoneme substitution.

"PA training is more effective when it is taught by having children manipulate letters than when manipulation is limited to speech." (2-26)

"Teaching children to manipulate phonemes using letters produced bigger effects than teaching without letters. Blending and segmenting instruction showed a much larger effect size on reading than multiple-skill instruction did." (2-29)

"In the rush to teach phonemic awareness, it is important not to overlook the need to teach letters as well. The NRP analysis showed that PA instruction was more effective when it was taught with letters. Using letters to manipulate phonemes helps children make the transfer to reading and writing." (2-33)

The Panel goes out of its way to counter the notion that phonemic awareness training is something new, or something that should be done apart from phonics:

"It is important to note that when PA is taught with letters, it qualifies as phonics instruction. When PA training involves teaching students to pronounce the sounds associated with letters and to blend the sounds to form words, it qualifies as synthetic phonics. When PA training involves teaching students to segment words into phonemes and to select letters for those phonemes, it is the equivalent of teaching students to spell words phonemically, which is another form of phonics instruction. These methods of teaching phonics existed long before they became identified as forms of phonemic awareness training. Although teaching children to manipulate sounds in spoken words may be new, phonemic awareness training that involves segmenting and blending with letters is not. Only the label is new." (2-34)

Contrasted with the above approval of systematic phonics, blending (with letters), and segmenting (with letters), the Panel presents a strong critique of Whole Language:

"Beginning reading programs that do not teach phonics explicitly and systematically may be of several types. In Whole Language programs, the emphasis is upon meaning-based reading and writing activities. Phonics instruction is integrated into these activities but taught incidentally as teachers decide it is needed." (2-90)

"Whole Language teachers typically provide some instruction in phonics, usually as part of invented spelling activities or through the use of grapheme-to-phoneme prompts during reading. However, their approach is to teach it unsystematically and incidentally in context as the need arises... Whole language teachers believe that phonics instruction should be integrated into meaningful reading, writing, listening, and speaking activities and taught incidentally when they perceive it is needed. As children attempt to use written Language for communication, they will discover naturally what they need to know about letter-sound relationships and how letters function in reading and writing." (2-102)

"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 reading 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." (2-94)

Unfortunately, the Panel's 14 experts are themselves divided on many matters of importance in reading instruction. One Panel member goes so far as to publish her own Minority Review, calling the work of her fellow Panel members "unbalanced and, to some extent, irrelevant." The disagreements result in a final report with a soothing call for "systematic" phonics (a planned, sequential set of letter-sound correspondences taught explicitly) and with an explicit approval of all types of phonics: the bottom-up method that is synthetic phonics, or top-down methods like analytic phonics, analogy phonics, and onset-rime phonics. (2-99) This makes it easy (and utterly predictable) for what happens next: supporters of Whole Language agree to embrace some ineffective top-down phonics, and they change the name of their method to Balanced Literacy.

Note: Balanced Literacy is described in detail in another blog on this site. Balanced Literacy is Whole Language, but now with a veneer of top-down phonics: analytic phonics and/or analogy phonics.

At the end of the 16-week program, the group taught by synthetic phonics were:

(a) reading words seven months ahead of the other two groups

(b) reading seven months ahead for their chronological age

(c) spelling eight to nine months ahead of the other groups

(d) spelling seven months ahead for their chronological age.

The synthetic-phonics-taught group also read irregular words better than the other groups and was the only group that could read unfamiliar words by analogy.

These 300 children were then followed for 7 additional years to see if these gains persisted. They not only persisted, they accelerated. By the end of the children's seventh year of primary schooling, the gains made in reading achievement by the children who had been taught synthetic phonics during their ﬁrst year had increased six-fold, increasing from seven months to three years and six months ahead of chronological age. The gain in spelling was 4.5-fold, improving from seven months to one year and nine months ahead of chronological age. (The full study can be found here.)

2005: Australia publishes its own national inquiry into the teaching of reading, available online here. The study closely follows the lead of the US National Reading Panel in that it rejects Whole Language and, in its place, recommends systematic phonics. Like the NRP, it also recommends an "integrated" approach to reading instruction that includes the Big Five: phonemic awareness, phonics, ﬂuency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

"Essentially, the whole-language approach to teaching and learning reﬂects a constructivist philosophy of learning in which children are viewed as inherently active, self-regulating learners who construct knowledge for themselves, with little or no explicit decoding instruction." (p28)

"Constructivism is a mixture of Piagetian stage theory with postmodernist ideology that is devoid of evidence-based justiﬁcation for its adoption as an effective method of teaching... Too many faculties and schools of education in Australian higher education institutions currently providing pre-service teacher education base their programs on constructivist views of teaching." (pp29-30)

"At the same time as constructivist approaches have been promoted, direct teaching methods have been overtly or covertly criticized and dismissed as inappropriate, with the suggestion that they simply don't work and are dull and boring for learners. The message that most teachers appear to have absorbed is that all direct teaching is old-fashioned and should be abandoned in favor of student-centered enquiry and activity-based learning." (p37)

My favorite quote from the Report, however, is this:

"In sum, the incontrovertible ﬁnding from the extensive body of local and international evidence-based literacy research is that for children during the early years of schooling to be able to link their knowledge of spoken language to their knowledge of written language, they must ﬁrst master the alphabetic code - the system of grapheme-phoneme correspondences that link written words to their pronunciations. Because these are both foundational and essential skills for the development of competence in reading, writing and spelling, they must be taught explicitly, systematically, early and well."

2006: Yet another national inquiry, the Rose Report, is published in England, available online here. Unlike the national reports published in the US and Australia, the Rose Report singles out and fully embraces only bottom-up synthetic phonics rather than the more inclusive umbrella term, "systematic" phonics:

"Synthetic phonics is the form of systematic phonics that offers the vast majority of beginners the best route to becoming skilled readers. Among other strengths, this is because it teaches children directly what they need to know, i.e. the four principles set out below, whereas other approaches, such as 'analytic' phonics, expect children to deduce them." (section 47)

The Rose Report is quite specific about what these four principles of synthetic phonics are: "Having considered a wide range of evidence, the review has concluded that the case for systematic phonic work is overwhelming and much strengthened by a synthetic approach, the key features of which are to teach beginner readers:

1) grapheme/phoneme (letter/sound) correspondences (the alphabetic principle) in a clearly defined, incremental sequence

2) to apply the highly important skill of blending (synthesizing) phonemes in order, all through a word to read it

3) to apply the skills of segmenting words into their constituent phonemes to spell

4) that blending and segmenting are reversible processes." (section 51)

The Rose Report also devotes an entire section (Appendix 1) to a discussion of the , a topic inexplicably missing from the national reports of the US and Australia.

The Rose Report is a game-changer for England. From this point on, reading instruction in England starts to diverge from that of the rest of the English-speaking world. The main reason is that the Rose Report avoids two pitfalls:

1) It opts specifically for the only bottom-up approach to reading instruction that exists: synthetic phonics. The reports from the US and Australia, in recommending only systematic phonics, left the door wide open for top-down forms of phonics (analytic and analogy phonics) to be grafted onto Whole Language. The result: Balanced Literacy.

2) It avoids making the anodyne call for the Big Five (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), focusing attention instead on the . Those who understand the Simple View understand reading comprehension correctly: it's the product of both Word Recognition and Language Comprehension. Recognizing that, for most children, Language Comprehension is already age-appropriate, Synthetic Phonics teachers place an early emphasis on decoding - the skill that makes Word Recognition possible.

"Two information processing pathways coexist and supplement each other when we read. When words are regular, rare, or novel, we preferentially process them using a 'phonological route,' in which we first convert the letter string into a pronunciation, and then attempt to access the meaning of the sound pattern (if any). Conversely, when we are confronted with words that are frequent, or whose pronunciation is exceptional, our reading takes a direct route that first recovers the meaning of the word and then uses the lexical information to recover its pronunciation... Both routes are in constant collaboration and each contributes to the specification of word pronunciation." (p38)

"The goal of reading instruction is clear. It must aim to lay down an efficient neuronal hierarchy, so that the child can recognize letters and graphemes and easily turn them into speech sounds. All other aspects of the literate mind depend on this crucial step. There is no point in describing the delights of reading to children if they are not provided with the means to get there... Considerable research converges on the fact that grapheme-phoneme conversion radically transforms the child's brain. This [decoding] process must be taught explicitly. It does not develop spontaneously; it must be acquired. Reading via the direct route, which leads straight from letter strings to their meaning, only works after many years of practice using the phonological decoding route." (p219)

"Only the teaching of letter-to-sound conversion allows children to blossom, because only this method gives them the freedom to read novel words in any domain they choose. It is therefore misguided to pit the intellectual freedom of a child against rigorous drill. If a child is to learn quickly and well, he must be given well-structured grapheme-phoneme instruction. The effort is real, but the payoff in independence is immediate when children discover, often with awe, that they can decode words they never learned in class." (p227)

"Performance is best when children are, from the beginning, directly taught the mapping of letters onto speech sounds. Regardless of their social background, children who do not learn this suffer from reading delays." (p227)

The bottom line for Dehaene is this:

"The punch line is quite simple: we know that conversion of letters into sounds is the key stage in reading acquisition. All teaching efforts should be initially focused on a single goal: the grasp of the alphabetic principle whereby each letter or grapheme represents a phoneme... Children need to understand that only the analysis of letters one by one will allow them to discover a word's identity." (p228)

Last, Dehaene is adamant about using only decodable text in the early stages:

"At each step, the words and sentences introduced in class must only include graphemes and phonemes that have already been explicitly taught. Reading lessons provide little room for improvisation... The words given to beginning readers must be analyzed letter by letter in order to ensure that they do not contain spelling problems that are beyond the child's current knowledge." If teachers do not follow this advice, "it can make children think that reading is arbitrary and not worth studying." (p230)

With the single exception of England, the landscape for beginning reading instruction worldwide is disheartening: Balanced Literacy, lists of sight words to be memorized, three-cueing, guessing from pictures, guessing from a word's first letter, guessing what might make sense, invented spellings, reading levels, learning styles, "predictable" books, and, of course, "discovery" learning. Many of the teachers using these techniques know little of reading science because they were not exposed to it during their teacher training.

Reading teachers are far more likely to be familiar with Constructivist authors like Ken Goodman, Frank Smith, Lucy Calkins, Irene Fountas, Gay Su Pinnell, and Jennifer Serravallo than they are to be with serious researchers like Jeanne Chall, David Share, Philip Gough, Linnea Ehri, Max Coltheart, and Stanislas Dehaene. Few reading teachers are conversant about such essential topics as the Simple View of Reading, Dual-Route Theory, the Self-Teaching Hypothesis, and Orthographic Mapping.

Reading researcher Mark Seidenberg, in Language at the Speed of Sight, states "there is a profound disconnect between the science of reading and educational practice. Very little of what we've learned about reading as scientists has had any impact on what happens in schools because the cultures of science and education are so different." (p11) And, of course, big money is involved. "Education is a multi-billion-dollar industry involving multiple stakeholders - governments, business, educators, parents, children, taxpayers, unions, interest groups - whose perspectives and interests often conflict." (p11).

Take a look at the cost in the picture below (copied from an internet advertisement) for a single grade school to outfit a single grade 1 classroom with Balanced Literacy reading materials from Heinemann Publishing. Similar materials are marketed by Heinemann for each of grades K through 6. [Taxpayers: this is your money.]

In an interview with NPR, Seidenberg adds: "The Reading Wars are over, and science lost." I think, however, this statement may be a bit of hyperbole. Science has not lost in England where, with synthetic phonics and decodable books mandated, reading outcomes continue to improve. Many reformers, myself included, are not ready to concede defeat in this century-old battle between top-down and bottom-up instruction. Given the resources available online, any reading teacher or parent wishing to educate themself can, with some effort, do so.

According to the US Nation's Report Card, nearly two out of every three students in grades 4 and 8 do not read at a proficient level. Instead, they read at a "basic" level or they're functionally illiterate. Needless, easily avoidable suffering should be an affront to everyone. In primary schools around the English-speaking world, this type of suffering is endemic, due in large part to the top-down manner in which so many children are forced to learn the vital skill of reading. The Reading Wars cannot, and should not, be over. Reading Science, with more clarity now than it has ever had regarding reading instruction, can't afford to lose this battle; far too much is at stake.

Reading Teachers and Parents - My bottom-up Synthetic Phonics books are available, absolutely FREE (with no strings attached) right here. I invite you to download an appropriate copy for yourself and to help me spread the word. You can also find me on Twitter @ParkerPhonics. Thank you.

[1] William McGuffey, The Eclectic Manual of Methods (New York: Van Antwerp, Bragg, & Co, 1885), 24-26.

[7] Rudolf Flesch, Why Johnny Still Can't Read (New York: Harper & Row, 1981), 5.

[8] Chall, Learning to Read, 43.

[15] Share, D.L. (1995) "Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition," Cognition, 55, 151-218.

[16] U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading

For more than a century, reading instruction has been involved in a high-stakes battle between supporters of two opposing methods for teaching a child to read. While this battle is often characterized as "Phonics" versus "Whole Word," I think it's more accurate to describe the two methodologies as "Bottom-Up" versus "Top-Down." (Alternatively, "Parts-to-Whole" versus "Whole-to-Parts").

Top-down methods start instruction with whole words - typically called "sight words." The child rote-memorizes a cache of such words based on their visual characteristics rather than on the sound value of their individual letters. The reason I don't like calling this battle "Phonics" versus "Whole Word" is there are several types of phonics that are top-down in their orientation. Analogy phonics, analytic phonics, and onset-rime phonics all require that the child memorize a large collection of sight words before such phonics can commence. (For a more complete description of all these types of phonics, see this blog.)

The only bottom-up method that exists is a specific type of phonics called Synthetic Phonics. Here instruction starts, not with whole words, but with the most basic sounds in English, called phonemes. These phonemes are connected to the letters ( graphemes) that symbolize them in our alphabetic system. Whole words are then built (bottom-up) by blending these individual sounds. (For more on Synthetic Phonics, see here.) (For a more thorough definition of phoneme and grapheme, see here.)

The two methods are not compatible. One starts with the final product (a whole word) and then may (or may not) eventually get down to the phoneme-grapheme level; the other starts with phonemes and graphemes and then builds up to a whole word. Top-down methods stress "meaning" from the start; the bottom-up method stresses knowledge of the code as a necessary condition for reading comprehension. (See the Simple View of Reading here.)

It may surprise some readers to find out that the battle between various top-down methods and synthetic phonics has been going on since the mid-nineteenth century. Here, then, is a short history of reading instruction from the viewpoint of one (somewhat biased) observer. (Spoiler: synthetic phonics - the bottom-up method - has been losing this battle for a long time.)

McGuffey then reveals his bias against a strict Word approach:

1900 - 1930: A transitional period. The Beacon Readers, an improved phonics series, gradually supplants the McGuffey Readers. In the Beacon Readers, the sound of individual letters (phonics) is taught from the start, as well as memorization of whole words:

"It should be clearly understood that at first there must be two distinct lines of teaching carried on side by side: (1) the drill upon phonetic lists for the purpose of developing phonetic power in the child; (2) the reading of simple lessons [stories], mainly by the Word method, until the child's power in phonetics is far enough advanced to enable him to apply it in his reading." [2]

"Even if the child substitutes words of his own for some that are on the page, provided that those express the meaning, it is an encouraging sign that the reading has been real... The shock that such a statement will give to many a practical teacher of reading is but an accurate measure of the hold that a false ideal has taken of us, viz., that to read is to say just what is upon the page, instead of to think, each in his own way, the meaning that the page suggests...It may even be necessary, if the reader is to really tell what the page suggests, to tell it in words that are somewhat variant; for reading is always in the nature of translation and, to be truthful, it must be free." [3] (emphasis mine)

"That it will be the part of wisdom to curtail phonetic instruction in the first grade very greatly is strongly implied; indeed, it is not improbable that it should be eliminated entirely." [4]

By 1930, phonics - meaning explicit teaching of the code - has been abandoned in most of the nation's classrooms.

Logically enough, this Whole Word method becomes known as Look/Say. Once children learn 30-50 sight words in this manner, they are given repetitive readers consisting largely of these exact words. An unknown word in these readers is accompanied by a picture to allow its identification. The most famous basal reader of this period is the beautifully illustrated Dick and Jane series. See above for a sampling from a "story" from this series, whose main purpose is to drill sight words.

"Memorizing or guessing the meaning of whole words is not reading; on the contrary, it is an acquired bad habit that stands in the way of your child's ever learning to read properly... My advice is, teach your child yourself how to read." [5]

Unfortunately, the phonics program offered by Flesch, taking up the final third of his book, is inadequate. There are only two pages of instructions, followed by page after page of nothing but word lists. The publication of this book ignites the "Reading Wars," a battle over how to teach beginning reading that, to this day, remains unresolved.

"The results are better, not only in terms of the mechanical aspect of literacy alone, but also in terms of the ultimate goals of reading instruction - comprehension and possibly even speed of reading. The long-existing fear that an initial code emphasis produces readers who do not read for meaning, or with enjoyment, is unfounded. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that better results in terms of reading for meaning are achieved with the programs that emphasize code right at the start..." [6]

"The pronunciation of a visually presented word involves assigning to a sequence of letters some kind of acoustic or articulatory coding. There are presumably two alternative ways in which this coding can be assigned. First, the pronunciation could be computed by application of a set of grapheme-phoneme rules, or letter-sound correspondence rules. This coding can be carried out independently of any consideration of the meaning or familiarity of the letter sequence, as in the pronunciation of previously unencountered sequences, such as ﬂitch, mantiness and streep. Alternatively, the pronunciation may be determined by searching long-term memory for stored information about how to pronounce familiar letter sequences, obtaining the necessary information by a direct dictionary look-up, instead of rule application. Obviously, this procedure would work only for familiar words."

Note: In the 80s, 90s, and 00s, this theory will be further refined by reading researchers Max Coltheart, Mark Seidenberg, and James McClelland, leading (by 2005) to general acceptance of Coltheart's Dual-Route Cascaded (DRC) model of word recognition.

1981: Rudolf Flesch publishes Why Johnny Still Can't Read, again condemning the Whole Word method, as well as the analytic phonics that it now includes. Looking back over the 26 years since he published his first book, he criticizes analytic phonics as being "a minimum of phonics, served up in a look-and-say sauce of context clues and guesswork." [7]

"That was due to the Dewey revolt in the Twenties in which they threw out phonics and went to word recognition, as if you're reading Chinese pictographs instead of blending sounds of different letters. I think killing phonics was one of the greatest causes of illiteracy in the country."

"It would seem that many of the characteristics of direct phonics, such as teaching letter sounds directly, separating the letter sounds from the words, giving practice in blending the sounds, and so forth, are more effective than the less direct procedures used in current analytic phonics programs." [9]

Developed by Kenneth Goodman and Frank Smith in the 1970's, Whole Language differs from Look/Say in some fundamental ways. First, it rejects the boring, artificial, and repetitive readers of the Look/Say era, claiming to replace those readers with real children's stories. (Those stories, however, are read to the children. What the children read initially are repetitive "little books" whose main function is to drill sight words.) Second, phonics, understood as explicit, systematic teaching of the full code, is outright rejected. According to Goodman, "matching letters with sounds (decoding) is a flat-earth view of the world, since it rejects modern science about reading and writing and how they develop." [10] Frank Smith is just as adamant: "Reliance on phonics - or spelling-to-sound correspondence - is dysfunctional in fluent reading and interferes with learning to read." [11]

Third, writing is emphasized at the earliest stages of learning to read, even if it requires, as it must, "invented spelling." Fourth, learning to read is to be as easy and natural as learning to speak. Children will discover the necessary letter/sound relationships as they read books and express themselves in writing, using their invented spellings. Finally, an unfamiliar word is to be identified, not by sounding it out, but by "asking somebody what the word is" - or by guessing what the word might be using context or "similarity to words that are already known." [12]

Despite its differences with Look/Say, Whole Language is another top-down approach for teaching reading. In the first couple years of instruction, reading consists largely of memorizing sight words and guessing - with some incidental phonics taught on an as-needed basis. Ken Goodman is famous for his characterization of reading as "a psycholinguistic guessing game." [13] For Frank Smith, guessing - in the sense of making predictions and thus eliminating unlikely alternatives - "is the most efficient manner in which to read and learn to read." [14] Whole Language spreads throughout the US at an unprecedented pace, even though there is no research whatever for its effectiveness.

1983: Reading researchers David Share and Anthony Jorm propose their Self-Teaching Hypothesis (further elaborated in 1995 by Share). Recognizing that skilled, educated readers have a sight word vocabulary of 60,000 or more words, and that such a feat would be impossible via rote-memorization or via guessing based on context, Jorm and Share propose that only the independent decoding of unknown words could explain the ability of skilled readers. Such decoding depends on only two factors: knowledge of letter/sound (phoneme/grapheme) relationships and the ability to blend an unknown word's individual sounds (phonemes) into a recognizable pronunciation. Share calls these twin co-requisites the sine qua non of reading acquisition [15]. This places Share and Jorm in direct opposition to Whole Language methodology.

1986: Reading researchers Philip Gough and William Tunmer propose their Simple View of Reading. Under the Simple View, reading comprehension (RC) is the product of two independent factors: word recognition (WR) and language comprehension (LC). The model states succinctly: RC = WR x LC. Word recognition, made possible by decoding, thus takes its rightful place as a necessary (though by itself, insufficient) condition for reading comprehension to occur. This places Gough and Tunmer in direct opposition to Whole Language methodology. [ Note: my separate blog on the Simple View can be found here.]

1998: Reading researcher Linnea Ehri proposes four phases of sight word learning [18]. Her studies reveal that it is only when beginning readers can form "complete connections" between all the letters (graphemes) seen in a word's written form and all the sounds (phonemes) heard in its spoken form, that sight word learning becomes unconscious and automatic - a process she calls orthographic mapping. This re-emphasizes the importance of knowing grapheme/phoneme correspondences and being able to blend (decode) unknown words by sounding them out. Share's Self-Teaching Hypothesis and Ehri's complement each other. Both theories are in direct opposition to Whole Language.

Because this report is such a thorough rejection of 25 years of Whole Language methodology, I think it best to allow the Panel members to speak for themselves. The numbers after the quote use the pagination found in the Final Report, available online here.

"Systematic phonics instruction makes a bigger contribution to children's growth in reading than alternative programs providing unsystematic or no phonics instruction." (2-92)

"The hallmark of systematic phonics programs is that they delineate a planned, sequential set of phonic elements [letter-sound correspondences] and that they teach these elements explicitly... A key feature that distinguishes systematic phonics instruction from nonsystematic phonics is in the identification of a full array of letter-sound correspondences to be taught. The array includes not only the major correspondences between consonant letters and sounds but also short and long-vowel letters and sounds, and vowel and consonant digraphs (e.g., oi, ea, ou, sh, ch, th)... Learning vowel and digraph spelling patterns is harder for children; therefore, special attention is devoted to learning these relations." (2-99)

"Phonics instruction, taught early, proved much more effective than phonics instruction introduced after first grade... Phonics instruction produces the biggest impact on growth in reading when it begins in kindergarten or 1st grade, before children have learned to read independently." (2-93)

Stating that it is "not sufficient" simply to teach the code, the Panel offers three specific ways to apply code knowledge to reading and writing:

"Programs provide practice in various ways. Phonics programs may teach children decoding strategies that involve sounding out and blending individual letters and digraphs... Programs may provide children with text whose words can be decoded using the letter-sound relations already taught. Programs may have children write their own text using the letter-sounds relations already taught and then have children read their own and others' stories." (2-99) [emphasis added]

Stressing the importance of phonemic awareness (PA), the Panel strongly endorses two types of PA exercises: blending and segmenting. Both are to be done "with letters." The Panel does not endorse any type of "advanced" oral-only PA exercises such as phoneme deletion or phoneme substitution.

"PA training is more effective when it is taught by having children manipulate letters than when manipulation is limited to speech." (2-26)

"Teaching children to manipulate phonemes using letters produced bigger effects than teaching without letters. Blending and segmenting instruction showed a much larger effect size on reading than multiple-skill instruction did." (2-29)

"In the rush to teach phonemic awareness, it is important not to overlook the need to teach letters as well. The NRP analysis showed that PA instruction was more effective when it was taught with letters. Using letters to manipulate phonemes helps children make the transfer to reading and writing." (2-33)

The Panel goes out of its way to counter the notion that phonemic awareness training is something new, or something that should be done apart from phonics:

"It is important to note that when PA is taught with letters, it qualifies as phonics instruction. When PA training involves teaching students to pronounce the sounds associated with letters and to blend the sounds to form words, it qualifies as synthetic phonics. When PA training involves teaching students to segment words into phonemes and to select letters for those phonemes, it is the equivalent of teaching students to spell words phonemically, which is another form of phonics instruction. These methods of teaching phonics existed long before they became identified as forms of phonemic awareness training. Although teaching children to manipulate sounds in spoken words may be new, phonemic awareness training that involves segmenting and blending with letters is not. Only the label is new." (2-34)

Contrasted with the above approval of systematic phonics, blending (with letters), and segmenting (with letters), the Panel presents a strong critique of Whole Language:

"Beginning reading programs that do not teach phonics explicitly and systematically may be of several types. In Whole Language programs, the emphasis is upon meaning-based reading and writing activities. Phonics instruction is integrated into these activities but taught incidentally as teachers decide it is needed." (2-90)

"Whole Language teachers typically provide some instruction in phonics, usually as part of invented spelling activities or through the use of grapheme-to-phoneme prompts during reading. However, their approach is to teach it unsystematically and incidentally in context as the need arises... Whole language teachers believe that phonics instruction should be integrated into meaningful reading, writing, listening, and speaking activities and taught incidentally when they perceive it is needed. As children attempt to use written Language for communication, they will discover naturally what they need to know about letter-sound relationships and how letters function in reading and writing." (2-102)

"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 reading 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." (2-94)

Unfortunately, the Panel's 14 experts are themselves divided on many matters of importance in reading instruction. One Panel member goes so far as to publish her own Minority Review, calling the work of her fellow Panel members "unbalanced and, to some extent, irrelevant." The disagreements result in a final report with a soothing call for "systematic" phonics (a planned, sequential set of letter-sound correspondences taught explicitly) and with an explicit approval of all types of phonics: the bottom-up method that is synthetic phonics, or top-down methods like analytic phonics, analogy phonics, and onset-rime phonics. (2-99) This makes it easy (and utterly predictable) for what happens next: supporters of Whole Language agree to embrace some ineffective top-down phonics, and they change the name of their method to Balanced Literacy.

Note: Balanced Literacy is described in detail in another blog on this site. Balanced Literacy is Whole Language, but now with a veneer of top-down phonics: analytic phonics and/or analogy phonics.

At the end of the 16-week program, the group taught by synthetic phonics were:

(a) reading words seven months ahead of the other two groups

(b) reading seven months ahead for their chronological age

(c) spelling eight to nine months ahead of the other groups

(d) spelling seven months ahead for their chronological age.

The synthetic-phonics-taught group also read irregular words better than the other groups and was the only group that could read unfamiliar words by analogy.

These 300 children were then followed for 7 additional years to see if these gains persisted. They not only persisted, they accelerated. By the end of the children's seventh year of primary schooling, the gains made in reading achievement by the children who had been taught synthetic phonics during their ﬁrst year had increased six-fold, increasing from seven months to three years and six months ahead of chronological age. The gain in spelling was 4.5-fold, improving from seven months to one year and nine months ahead of chronological age. (The full study can be found here.)

2005: Australia publishes its own national inquiry into the teaching of reading, available online here. The study closely follows the lead of the US National Reading Panel in that it rejects Whole Language and, in its place, recommends systematic phonics. Like the NRP, it also recommends an "integrated" approach to reading instruction that includes the Big Five: phonemic awareness, phonics, ﬂuency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

"Essentially, the whole-language approach to teaching and learning reﬂects a constructivist philosophy of learning in which children are viewed as inherently active, self-regulating learners who construct knowledge for themselves, with little or no explicit decoding instruction." (p28)

"Constructivism is a mixture of Piagetian stage theory with postmodernist ideology that is devoid of evidence-based justiﬁcation for its adoption as an effective method of teaching... Too many faculties and schools of education in Australian higher education institutions currently providing pre-service teacher education base their programs on constructivist views of teaching." (pp29-30)

"At the same time as constructivist approaches have been promoted, direct teaching methods have been overtly or covertly criticized and dismissed as inappropriate, with the suggestion that they simply don't work and are dull and boring for learners. The message that most teachers appear to have absorbed is that all direct teaching is old-fashioned and should be abandoned in favor of student-centered enquiry and activity-based learning." (p37)

My favorite quote from the Report, however, is this:

"In sum, the incontrovertible ﬁnding from the extensive body of local and international evidence-based literacy research is that for children during the early years of schooling to be able to link their knowledge of spoken language to their knowledge of written language, they must ﬁrst master the alphabetic code - the system of grapheme-phoneme correspondences that link written words to their pronunciations. Because these are both foundational and essential skills for the development of competence in reading, writing and spelling, they must be taught explicitly, systematically, early and well."

2006: Yet another national inquiry, the Rose Report, is published in England, available online here. Unlike the national reports published in the US and Australia, the Rose Report singles out and fully embraces only bottom-up synthetic phonics rather than the more inclusive umbrella term, "systematic" phonics:

"Synthetic phonics is the form of systematic phonics that offers the vast majority of beginners the best route to becoming skilled readers. Among other strengths, this is because it teaches children directly what they need to know, i.e. the four principles set out below, whereas other approaches, such as 'analytic' phonics, expect children to deduce them." (section 47)

The Rose Report is quite specific about what these four principles of synthetic phonics are: "Having considered a wide range of evidence, the review has concluded that the case for systematic phonic work is overwhelming and much strengthened by a synthetic approach, the key features of which are to teach beginner readers:

1) grapheme/phoneme (letter/sound) correspondences (the alphabetic principle) in a clearly defined, incremental sequence

2) to apply the highly important skill of blending (synthesizing) phonemes in order, all through a word to read it

3) to apply the skills of segmenting words into their constituent phonemes to spell

4) that blending and segmenting are reversible processes." (section 51)

The Rose Report also devotes an entire section (Appendix 1) to a discussion of the , a topic inexplicably missing from the national reports of the US and Australia.

The Rose Report is a game-changer for England. From this point on, reading instruction in England starts to diverge from that of the rest of the English-speaking world. The main reason is that the Rose Report avoids two pitfalls:

1) It opts specifically for the only bottom-up approach to reading instruction that exists: synthetic phonics. The reports from the US and Australia, in recommending only systematic phonics, left the door wide open for top-down forms of phonics (analytic and analogy phonics) to be grafted onto Whole Language. The result: Balanced Literacy.

2) It avoids making the anodyne call for the Big Five (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), focusing attention instead on the . Those who understand the Simple View understand reading comprehension correctly: it's the product of both Word Recognition and Language Comprehension. Recognizing that, for most children, Language Comprehension is already age-appropriate, Synthetic Phonics teachers place an early emphasis on decoding - the skill that makes Word Recognition possible.

"Two information processing pathways coexist and supplement each other when we read. When words are regular, rare, or novel, we preferentially process them using a 'phonological route,' in which we first convert the letter string into a pronunciation, and then attempt to access the meaning of the sound pattern (if any). Conversely, when we are confronted with words that are frequent, or whose pronunciation is exceptional, our reading takes a direct route that first recovers the meaning of the word and then uses the lexical information to recover its pronunciation... Both routes are in constant collaboration and each contributes to the specification of word pronunciation." (p38)

"The goal of reading instruction is clear. It must aim to lay down an efficient neuronal hierarchy, so that the child can recognize letters and graphemes and easily turn them into speech sounds. All other aspects of the literate mind depend on this crucial step. There is no point in describing the delights of reading to children if they are not provided with the means to get there... Considerable research converges on the fact that grapheme-phoneme conversion radically transforms the child's brain. This [decoding] process must be taught explicitly. It does not develop spontaneously; it must be acquired. Reading via the direct route, which leads straight from letter strings to their meaning, only works after many years of practice using the phonological decoding route." (p219)

"Only the teaching of letter-to-sound conversion allows children to blossom, because only this method gives them the freedom to read novel words in any domain they choose. It is therefore misguided to pit the intellectual freedom of a child against rigorous drill. If a child is to learn quickly and well, he must be given well-structured grapheme-phoneme instruction. The effort is real, but the payoff in independence is immediate when children discover, often with awe, that they can decode words they never learned in class." (p227)

"Performance is best when children are, from the beginning, directly taught the mapping of letters onto speech sounds. Regardless of their social background, children who do not learn this suffer from reading delays." (p227)

The bottom line for Dehaene is this:

"The punch line is quite simple: we know that conversion of letters into sounds is the key stage in reading acquisition. All teaching efforts should be initially focused on a single goal: the grasp of the alphabetic principle whereby each letter or grapheme represents a phoneme... Children need to understand that only the analysis of letters one by one will allow them to discover a word's identity." (p228)

Last, Dehaene is adamant about using only decodable text in the early stages:

"At each step, the words and sentences introduced in class must only include graphemes and phonemes that have already been explicitly taught. Reading lessons provide little room for improvisation... The words given to beginning readers must be analyzed letter by letter in order to ensure that they do not contain spelling problems that are beyond the child's current knowledge." If teachers do not follow this advice, "it can make children think that reading is arbitrary and not worth studying." (p230)

With the single exception of England, the landscape for beginning reading instruction worldwide is disheartening: Balanced Literacy, lists of sight words to be memorized, three-cueing, guessing from pictures, guessing from a word's first letter, guessing what might make sense, invented spellings, reading levels, learning styles, "predictable" books, and, of course, "discovery" learning. Many of the teachers using these techniques know little of reading science because they were not exposed to it during their teacher training.

Reading teachers are far more likely to be familiar with Constructivist authors like Ken Goodman, Frank Smith, Lucy Calkins, Irene Fountas, Gay Su Pinnell, and Jennifer Serravallo than they are to be with serious researchers like Jeanne Chall, David Share, Philip Gough, Linnea Ehri, Max Coltheart, and Stanislas Dehaene. Few reading teachers are conversant about such essential topics as the Simple View of Reading, Dual-Route Theory, the Self-Teaching Hypothesis, and Orthographic Mapping.

Reading researcher Mark Seidenberg, in Language at the Speed of Sight, states "there is a profound disconnect between the science of reading and educational practice. Very little of what we've learned about reading as scientists has had any impact on what happens in schools because the cultures of science and education are so different." (p11) And, of course, big money is involved. "Education is a multi-billion-dollar industry involving multiple stakeholders - governments, business, educators, parents, children, taxpayers, unions, interest groups - whose perspectives and interests often conflict." (p11).

Take a look at the cost in the picture below (copied from an internet advertisement) for a single grade school to outfit a single grade 1 classroom with Balanced Literacy reading materials from Heinemann Publishing. Similar materials are marketed by Heinemann for each of grades K through 6. [Taxpayers: this is your money.]

In an interview with NPR, Seidenberg adds: "The Reading Wars are over, and science lost." I think, however, this statement may be a bit of hyperbole. Science has not lost in England where, with synthetic phonics and decodable books mandated, reading outcomes continue to improve. Many reformers, myself included, are not ready to concede defeat in this century-old battle between top-down and bottom-up instruction. Given the resources available online, any reading teacher or parent wishing to educate themself can, with some effort, do so.

According to the US Nation's Report Card, nearly two out of every three students in grades 4 and 8 do not read at a proficient level. Instead, they read at a "basic" level or they're functionally illiterate. Needless, easily avoidable suffering should be an affront to everyone. In primary schools around the English-speaking world, this type of suffering is endemic, due in large part to the top-down manner in which so many children are forced to learn the vital skill of reading. The Reading Wars cannot, and should not, be over. Reading Science, with more clarity now than it has ever had regarding reading instruction, can't afford to lose this battle; far too much is at stake.

Reading Teachers and Parents - My bottom-up Synthetic Phonics books are available, absolutely FREE (with no strings attached) right here. I invite you to download an appropriate copy for yourself and to help me spread the word. You can also find me on Twitter @ParkerPhonics. Thank you.

[1] William McGuffey, The Eclectic Manual of Methods (New York: Van Antwerp, Bragg, & Co, 1885), 24-26.

[7] Rudolf Flesch, Why Johnny Still Can't Read (New York: Harper & Row, 1981), 5.

[8] Chall, Learning to Read, 43.

[15] Share, D.L. (1995) "Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition," Cognition, 55, 151-218.

[16] U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Introduction For more than a century, reading instruction has been involved in a high-stakes battle between supporters of two opposing methods for teaching a child to read. While this battle is often characterized as "Phonics" versus "Whole Word," I think it's more accurate to describe the two methodologies as "Bottom-Up" versus "Top-Down."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Aouad, J. and Savage, R. (2009). The component structure of preliteracy skills: Further evidence for the simple view of reading. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24 (2), 183-200.

Catts, H., Adlof, S., and Weismer, S. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278-293.

Gough, P., Hoover, W., and Patterson, C. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In C. Cornoldi and J. Oakhill (eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 1-13). Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

*Gough, P. and Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.

Hoover, W. and Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127-160.

*Kamhi, A. (2007). Knowledge deficits: the true crisis in education. ASHA Leader, 12 (7), 28-29.

*These articles are short and easy to read.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Simple View of Reading is a formula demonstrating the widely accepted view that reading has two basic components: word recognition (decoding) and language comprehension. Research studies show that a student's reading comprehension score can be predicted if decoding skills and language comprehension abilities are known.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scarborough’s Reading Rope | Really Great Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
[row][oneHalf][/oneHalf][oneHalf]What is Scarborough’s Reading Rope?In 2001, Dr. Hollis Scarborough created the Reading Rope using pipe cleaners to convey how the different “strands” of reading are all interconnected yet independent of one another. For many students, learning to read is a challenge. Scarborough’s Rope captures the complexity of learning to read. Scarborough’s

# data[].attributes.body
These are great to be used in a small group instruction to build words.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For years now, the early literacy education community has been talking about the need to reform our practice to align to the science of reading. But what is the science of reading? And how can it improve our practice so kids become better readers?

What is the science of reading?

The science of reading is the converging evidence of what matters and what works in literacy instruction, organized around models that describe how and why.

One research study does not make a science. In early literacy alone, tens of thousands of studies have been published, and some even show results that are at odds with one another. For educators to be able to consume research meaningfully, we need to look for a convergence of evidence. When many well-designed studies point to a similar result, we should pay attention.

How does it help us make sense of reading?

An important model in early reading research is the simple view of reading. It says that reading comprehension (RC) is the product of decoding (D) and language comprehension (LC), or RC = D x LC.

Learning to read for understanding requires sounding out and recognizing words-decoding-but it also requires making meaning of the words and sentences we hear-language comprehension. While taking a microscope to any one aspect of reading reveals more complexity, the simple view continues to be supported as a strong core model in reading development, as it has been for decades.

What guidance does the science of reading offer?

Research is clear about what matters to teach in early literacy instruction: phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, fluency, vocabulary and oral language comprehension, and text comprehension. For each of these, a convergence of evidence tells us what works, in practice.

Phonological awareness: Teach students to recognize and manipulate the sounds within words. Move from syllables to the individual sounds, or phonemes. Explicitly connect phonemes to letters to more effectively support word decoding.

Phonics and word recognition: Teach letter sounds and sound-spelling patterns explicitly and systematically. Practices that include both reading and writing of words in isolation and in text are most supportive of taught phonics.

Fluency: Include frequent chances for students to read and re-read orally from connected text-sentences, paragraphs, and passages. Focus on the development of both automatic word recognition and fluent expression, keeping understanding of the text as the central goal.

Vocabulary and oral language comprehension: Include high-quality, language-rich interactions in instruction. With read-aloud texts, unpack academic and inferential language. Explicitly build students' recognition of shared morphemes (e.g., root words, affixes) across words, both in oral and written language.

Text comprehension: Even before young students can read on their own, teach from rich texts via read-alouds and scaffolded reading. Teach students to use metacognitive strategies like setting a purpose, monitoring for meaning, and building inferences while reading. Discuss texts, including focusing on their organizational structures.

What could a science-of-reading classroom be like?

To align more closely to what the science tells us, we should start seeing and hearing some change. We should stop seeing only incidental teaching of sound-spelling patterns. Instead of just happening to notice a silent E on the page we have open-aha! Teachable moment!-we should teach decoding skills systematically. We should see a dedicated portion of the literacy block where phonics is taught clearly and sequentially from an identifiable curriculum. When kids learn from our planned sequence how that silent E works, we should see engaging practice-word work, often masquerading as play-followed by both reading and writing practice that applies those silent E skills purposefully.

The science of reading is the converging evidence of what matters and what works in literacy instruction.

We should also stop seeing comprehension taught via leveled reading groups, where each group visits the teacher for round-robin reading through a new text "at the right level." Instead, we should see use of a rich, complex text for all the students in a class. We should hear multiple reads of the same text, beginning with teacher modeling and moving to student practice. We should see partnering for repeated readings to develop fluency. We should hear the voices of students and the teacher in high-quality conversations about the text that focus on language, structure, and deepened understanding.

Where can we learn more?

Lots of good materials have been produced to get this research into practice, much of it paid for by our tax dollars.

These excellent research-to-practice materials can only help if we actually use them. Commit to building a learning community around one or more of these materials, beginning by downloading and reading as a group. Then discuss, try things with students, reflect, and repeat. This is how the science of reading matters, and how it works: by helping all our kids to become empowered and thoughtful readers.

For more on the science of reading, see "The science of reading and balanced literacy: What you need to know" and Everything you need to know about the science of reading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The science of reading is the converging evidence of what matters and what works in literacy instruction. It guides how to teach reading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
So, What Is Structured Literacy?

In the 1920s, Dr. Samuel T. Orton and Anna Gillingham created a method that was phonics-based, systematic, explicit, highly structured, and multi-sensory to help students with dyslexia - known as the Orton-Gillingham method. Over time educators and academic researchers built upon this method to develop what we know today as Structured Literacy™.

Structured Literacy supports explicit, sequential, systematic, prescriptive, diagnostic, and cumulative instruction to benefit all learners, both general education and remedial. Through the IMSE Impact Structured Literacy programs, IMSE-trained educators can implement appropriate literacy instruction for all students that can especially benefit students with learning differences.

Comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading, driven by two broad skill sets identified in the Simple View of Reading as word recognition and language comprehension. The Science of Reading identifies five essential components that make up the Simple View of Reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Structured Literacy incorporates all five.

The Science of Reading has proven that a Structured Literacy approach is a necessary foundation for reading success.

Structured Literacy emphasizes the structure of language through:

Phonology - Speech sounds

Sound-Symbol Association - The relationship between sounds and symbols

Syllables - A word or part of a word that contains one vowel phoneme

Morphology - The study of the forms of words

Syntax - Sentence structure

Semantics - Meaning of words

How the elements of Structured Literacy are taught:

Systematic - The delivery of instruction follows a well-defined scope and sequence, which provides a logical progression of skills that move from simple to more complex.

Cumulative - Newly introduced concepts are layered upon previously learned concepts. The foundation of knowledge for phoneme-grapheme relationships, reliable spelling patterns, and generalization of rules is frequently reviewed to build automaticity.

Explicit - The teacher gives a direct and clear explanation for each new concept during explicit instruction. Instruction should be enhanced with multi-sensory strategies to involve the visual, auditory, and tactile/kinesthetic senses in learning to improve memory.

Diagnostic - Continuous formative assessment informs progress monitoring and allows teachers to measure outcomes and make decisions for prescriptive teaching and differentiation.

The Ladder of Reading

Up to 50 percent of children require direct, or explicit, instruction to learn to read proficiently, while up to 15 percent of children need explicit instruction to learn to read. Each sound and symbol is taught in isolation (as a discrete unit) until children can manipulate the sounds and symbols to create words and sentences independently.

Some children learn to read regardless of the type of reading instruction received. Approximately 40 percent of children learn to read relatively easily with broad, or implicit, instruction. These students can recognize patterns and words as a whole. However, all children still benefit from explicit instruction to reach their maximum reading potential.

Be sure to check out the rest of our blog series on Structured Literacy vs. Balanced Literacy:
IMSE believes that all children should be able to read. To achieve this end, IMSE wants to bring Structured Literacy and Learn more about what you can do to improve literacy for all using the Please connect with us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Pinterest to get tips and tricks from your peers and us. Read the IMSE Journal to hear success stories from other schools and districts, and be sure to read the OG Weekly email series for refreshers and tips. Institute for Multi-Sensory Education's Structured Literacy training. Orton-Gillingham to all educators to give children the best literacy instruction possible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is Structured Literacy? Part 1 of Structured Literacy vs. Balanced Literacy - IMSE - Journal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Structured Literacy is a highly explicit teaching approach based on the Science of Reading, Orton-Gillingham, and all five pillars of literacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The International Dyslexia Association Ontario Branch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Structured Literacy instruction - The International Dyslexia Association Ontario Branch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People with dyslexia can learn to read through explicit, systematic instruction in the structure of the English language.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Structured Literacy - Sarah’s Teaching Snippets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Structured Literacy is an approach to reading instruction that is explicit and systematic, with a focus on the structure of the English language.

# data[].attributes.headline
Balanced Literacy vs the Science of Reading

# data[].attributes.subject
Balanced Literacy vs the Science of Reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
8/23/2022
This post is Part Three of a three-blog series about the science of reading and balanced literacy. This series will explore what the science of reading is, how it differs from balanced literacy, and why these differences matter. Missed Parts One or Two? Don't forget to go back and read them!
Reading is an equity issue. Only about 35% of American children are reading proficiently, and these opportunity gaps are even more significant for underprivileged students. The good news is, we know how to close those gaps and help every child learn to read proficiently. The solution lies in evidence-based instruction because while learning to speak is an innate process, neuroscience research has shown that learning to read is not.

Through decades of studies in neuroscience, education, psychology, and more, experts have determined the best practices for teaching literacy, and we are seeing this evidence-based instruction make a difference in childrens' lives.

In fact, as of August 2022, 30 states have passed laws or implemented policies around evidence-based reading instruction to ensure every child is given their best chance to become successful, confident readers.

So, what is this evidence-based instruction? Simply put, it is instruction based on the science of reading.
What is the Science of Reading?
Thanks to the reading wars, it is often assumed that the science of reading is just a fancy new term for phonics instruction. But the science of reading includes much more than phonics.

The science of reading is a body of research that definitively answers the question: "How does the human brain learn to read?" It spans more than 100 papers and the research has been growing for more than five decades. With studies from education, linguistics, psychology, and neurology, the science of reading includes research about how our brains process written words.

The skills required to read can be broken down in many different ways.

Gough and Tumner (1986) described reading comprehension as the product of decoding and language comprehension. This was known as The Simple View of Reading.

This equation can be further broken down into the underpinning components of each group:

In 2000, the National Reading Panel summed up effective reading instruction as requiring the following five concepts: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

Dr. Hollis Scarborough (2001) devised the Reading Rope as a more in-depth visual on the skills required for fluent reading.

Based on how each skill or concept is defined, the terms used by a model or instructional method may be different. For example, phonological awareness (Reading Rope) and phonemic awareness (National Reading Panel) are both part of phonology, the study of sounds in a language, which in turn is a component of decoding (Simple View of Reading). When we incorporate the alphabet, we can introduce phonics as a way to teach sound-letter or sound-spelling correspondences; thus, phonics is tied to orthography as it begins to incorporate written symbols. Similarly, semantics and vocabulary go hand-in-hand as components of linguistic or language comprehension, and are just as necessary as the components of decoding or word recognition.

Through the science of reading, we can better understand how we learn to read, what skills are involved in reading, and how those skills work together. But more than that, this research helps us to understand how educators can best teach those skills.

See, the science of reading is not a literacy method in and of itself. However, it can inform literacy instruction to ensure all students are given the opportunity to become successful readers. Today, there are several approaches based in the science of reading, including Orton-Gillingham and the Wilson Reading System. These approaches, and others that teach foundational reading skills through explicit instruction are encompassed by the umbrella term: Structured Literacy.
What is Structured Literacy?
Structured Literacy is the application of knowledge from the science of reading which teaches children to read in an evidence-based and systematic way.

Any Structured Literacy approach weaves together an array of skills from the science of reading including at a minimum:

But more importantly, Structured Literacy approaches are explicit, systematic, cumulative, diagnostic, and responsive. Explicit means the concepts are directly taught and practiced. Systematic means the skills are taught in a "stairstep" fashion: Each skill builds on the last, and they are taught in a logical order that starts with the simple information and becomes progressively more complex. Cumulative means all the information builds upon earlier knowledge. Diagnostic and responsive means students' unique strengths and weaknesses are identified using differentiated instruction.

With sufficient direct instruction on the foundational skills of reading, 95% of students can learn to read. This is why a Structured Literacy approach is crucial. Without it, only 30% of students will learn to read. Fifty percent require explicit and direct instruction in foundational skills to learn to read, and a further 15% require additional attention and support.

Any instructional method that does not teach the components of the science of reading in an explicit, cumulative, and responsive way will leave children behind, often without understanding why the student is struggling. That is the unfortunate impact of many literacy approaches schools use today, like balanced literacy, when educators don't have the evidence-based knowledge they need to help every student.
What is Balanced Literacy?
Balanced literacy is a popular method of teaching reading and writing. In 2019, A national survey found that about 72% of American educators report using balanced literacy to teach reading. One of the reasons for its popularity is its openness to interpretation.

Fountas and Pinnell (1996), early proponents of balanced literacy, define the method as a "philosophical orientation that assumes that reading and writing achievement are developed through instruction and support in multiple environments using various approaches that differ by level of teacher support and child control." Their method involves a combination of whole-group instruction, small-group instruction, and independent learning with a focus on authentic texts.

Lucy Calkins, another proponent of balanced literacy, uses a workshop model for her method. Skills are demonstrated, then students practice, with minimal direct instruction.

For Michael Pressely, balanced literacy is about the balance -there should be a plethora of reading materials, an emphasis on writing, and explicit decoding instruction.

In other words, balanced literacy is difficult to define, and can vary from classroom to classroom. For most balanced literacy educators, it means teaching reading in a way that meets student's needs while also promoting a love of reading.

This is a goal all educators should aspire to-but without a standard implementation, balanced literacy's success in achieving that goal is inconsistent at best. Despite balanced literacy being the most popular literacy method for the last few decades, national reading scores have remained low.

Balanced literacy can be understood as a "little bit of everything" approach that incorporates some good ideas and practices as it strives for a laudable goal. It will even help many students discover a love of reading. But because it may or may not include phonics and other evidence-based concepts, and because it lacks the structured, explicit instruction and content needed for students with learning disabilities like dyslexia, it will never work for all students. As seen in the pie chart above, most students need explicit and direct instruction in foundational reading skills (and not just phonics). Without additional intervention, balanced literacy will only help 30% of students become successful readers.
Is the Science of Reading Better than Balanced Literacy?
Balanced literacy is not "bad." But when it comes to reading proficiency, it doesn't work for all students, or even most. The science of reading, through approaches like Structured Literacy, will help 95% of students become confident, capable readers. For balanced literacy to be effective, it must include explicit instruction in ALL the skills necessary for reading. For students to develop a love of reading, they first must learn to read.

Literacy is one of the cornerstones of educational equity, and is crucial for lifelong success. Transitioning to a Structured Literacy approach or incorporating more science of reading-based instruction in a balanced literacy approach will help us achieve a more equitable world in which every student can confidently enjoy reading.
Want to learn more about the reading wars or the science of reading? Check out Parts One and Two of this series.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Science of Reading vs. Balanced Literacy | Lexia Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why are only 35% of students reading proficiently when we know 95% of students can learn to read? Discover the differences between the two most popular approaches to reading today (it's not just phonics!), and learn how to help every student succeed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reading is a relatively new cultural development. While there were some people who could read dating back to the invention of writing during the 4th millennium BC, it was not until after the Industrial Revolution in the 1800's that large numbers of the population in many countries learned to read. The human brain did not evolve to be able to read the way it did for spoken language. In order to read, the brain has to learn to re-purpose brain functions that were developed over thousands of years for other, more basic needs. Dehaene (2009) describes it this way:

"The brain circuitry inherited from our primate evolution is co-opted to the task of recognizing printed words - the brain's existing neural networks are "recycled" for reading. Because of something called brain plasticity, during brain development a range of brain circuits can adapt for new uses. When we learn a new skill such as reading, we recycle some of our old brain circuits."
What parts of the brain are involved in reading?
There is no specific place in the brain that we use to read. Reading involves multiple processes that tap into different regions of the brain. Advances in neuroscience since the 1980's have enabled scientists to unravel the principles underlying the brain's reading circuits. Brain imaging using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (FMRI) enables researchers to create images that reveal information about brain anatomy and activity while reading. It reveals the parts of the brain that activate when we read.

People who become experienced readers use and integrate several regions of their brain, primarily in the left hemisphere including (Cunningham & Rose; Eden; Hudson et al., 2016):

The parietal-temporal region (towards the back) which does the job of breaking a written word into its sounds (i.e., word analysis, sounding out words).

The occipital-temporal region (at the back) where the brain stores the appearance and meaning of words (i.e., letter-word recognition, automaticity, and language comprehension). This is critical for automatic, fluent reading so that a reader can quickly identify words without having to sound each one out.

The frontal region (at the front) which allows a person to speak (i.e., processing speech sounds as we listen and speak).

It is important to remember that while different regions can be identified in terms of playing certain roles in the reading process, multiple parts of the brain during reading are in constant collaboration. Seidenberg (2018) notes that some scientists hold the view that "each major type of information during reading is supported by a network of brain structures rather than localized to a single area and that each brain area is responsive to and participates in the processing of multiple types of information." (p. 204)
The Brain Changes as We Learn to Read
Every child's brain has to change the way it functions as the child learns to read. For most students, instruction and practice during the primary grades is sufficient to "train" the regions in the brain to learn to read. Brain imaging research has revealed anatomical and functional changes in typically developing readers as they learn to read (Turkeltaub et al., 2003 as cited in Eden). Cunningham and Rose note that activation patterns in areas of the brain will be different depending on a student's reading ability.

"For example, beginning readers show more activity in the parietal-temporal (word analysis) region while more experienced readers become increasingly active in the occipital-temporal (word recognition) region. Rich language experiences early in life contribute to making the brain more receptive to the acquisition of reading skills (skills such as phonemic awareness, decoding and word recognition)."
What does brain imaging reveal about struggling readers?
Cunningham and Rose point out that the brain scans of struggling readers show that the patterns of activity are notably different (more scattered than those of strong readers). The pathways for language and cognition are not as efficient and established, so the work of reading is harder for the child even though he or she is trying just as hard.

For children with dyslexia, their brains often do not develop in a way that makes them efficient readers. Brain imaging studies have found that the reading process works differently in the brains of dyslexics because there is a neurological cause of dyslexia. Dyslexic readers show under-activation in areas where they are weaker and over-activation in other areas in order to compensate. Instead of using the parts of the brain in the left hemisphere (which is designed to process language), dyslexics who struggle to read use different parts of the right hemisphere which is not efficient (Hudson, High, Otaiba, 2007; Eden, 2016).

Shaywitz et al. (2002) found that children who were good decoders had more activation in the areas important for reading in the left hemisphere and less in the right hemisphere than children with dyslexia. Furthermore, many people with dyslexia often show greater activation in the lower frontal areas of the brain, possibly because their frontal regions may compensate for problems in the regions in the back of the brain (Shaywitz, 2003). The visual above illustrates how the dyslexic brain is activated more in the frontal region, while the non-dyslexic brain is activated in several parts of the left hemisphere.
Can we rewire the brain through instruction?
The good news for people with dyslexia is that their brains will "rewire" themselves if reading instruction is provided that explicitly teaches phonological awareness and decoding skills. The brain has plasticity through our lifetime which means our brains are able to change in order to learn new things. Cunningham and Rose suggest that two variables contribute to strengthening neural pathways that allow students to become strong and successful readers:

Deliberate practice. Students need to hear and read many different kinds of texts as often as possible.

Intense instruction. In order to prepare the brain for the increasingly complex texts they will encounter in school, most students need intense instruction toward early mastery of core reading skills - like phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension.

Brain imaging studies have shown that when dyslexics are taught to read (and given sufficient practice to become automatic with decoding), their brains create new circuits that connect the language processing parts of the brain with the visual processing part - the same as brains of non-dyslexics. Neuroscientist Guinevere Eden (2016) notes that difficulty mapping language to print is at the heart of dyslexia, and if that skill is addressed through intervention, it gives students the key they need to read. She notes that imaging studies have shown a change in the brain after intervention that targets these skills has occurred and reading is improved. This is not only true for young students, but also for adult dyslexic non-readers. Brain plasticity allows the brain to learn and change even as we get older. The big difference is that the older the student, the more intense the instruction and practice needs to be. The sooner that intervention can be provided, the better.

References

Cunningham, A. & Rose, D. This is your brain on reading. Retrieved from https://www.hmhco.com/products/iread/pdfs/EdWeek_OpEd5_brain_on_reading.pdf

Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain. New York, Penguin Group.

Eden, G.F. Dyslexia and the brain. International Dyslexia Society. Retrieved from https://app.box.com/s/q2cjihwikwncohy3vmv747h04md6eevn

Eden, G.F. (2016). Dyslexia and the brain. YouTube video. Posted by Understood, Oct 14, 2016. Retrieve from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrF6m1mRsCQ

Hudson,
N., Scheff, J., Tarsha, M., & Cutting, L.E. (2016). Reading comprehension
and executive function: Neurobiological findings. Perspectives on Language
and Literacy, Spring 2016.

Hudson, R.F., High, L. Al Otaiba, S. (2007). Dyslexia and the brain: What does current research tell us? The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 506-515.

Seidenberg, M. (2018). Language at the speed of sight. New
York: Basic Books.

Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming
dyslexia. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Shaywitz, B.A., Shaywitz,
S.E., Pugh, K.R., Mencl, W.E., Fulbright, R.K., Skudlarksi, P., et al. (2002).
Disruption of posterior brain systems for reading in children with
developmental dyslexia. Biological
Psychiatry, 52, 101-110.

Joan Sedita

Joan Sedita is the founder of Keys to Literacy and author of the Keys to Literacy professional development programs. She is an experienced educator, nationally recognized speaker and teacher trainer. She has worked for over 35 years in the literacy education field and has presented to thousands of teachers and related professionals at schools, colleges, clinics, and professional conferences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Brain Learns to Read - Keys to Literacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reading is a relatively new cultural development. While there were some people who could read dating back to the invention of writing during the 4th millennium BC, it was not until after the Industrial Revolution in the 1800's that large numbers of the population in many countries learned to read.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a great center activity to have students build words based on a the phonics concept/pattern that is being focused on during the week.

# data[].attributes.body
You can use these to teach irregular and regular high frequency words as well as practicing words based on the phonics concept of the week.

Use in a Write & Wipe Pocket Sheet, so they can be reused throughout the year. Perfect for Whole Group & Small Group Instruction!