“Cracking the Code” – Phonics Instruction Benefits All Students

“Cracking the Code” – Phonics Instruction Benefits All Students

by | Jun 15, 2020 | Evidence-Based Practices Series, Grade 1, Teaching Reading to Struggling Readers

In researching the topic of teaching reading, I was happy to come across the following statements, from two very respected and credible sources, adamantly vouching for phonics instruction:

“The topic is seemingly simple – phonics.  Do children need instruction in phonics?  Why is there an argument?  The answer is “yes” (Fountas & Pinnelll, 2020, p. 1).

“The question of whether to include phonics instruction has been resolved. The answer is yes”  (International Literacy Association, 2019, p. 2).

If you are like me, you may share your enthusiasm about phonics only with a few trusted colleagues.  I picture us whispering in the back corner of the staff room, passing resources to each other under the table. Well friends, now that Fountas and Pinnell, and the ILA have shouted it from the rooftops, we can too!  Phonics instruction works!  Its the best!  I believe in it, because I have seen it work, really work, and I L-O-O-V-E all of the programs out there that break teaching reading down into minute, sequential steps, that follow beautifully, from one to the next.  It is like music to me.

In 1997, the U.S. Congress asked for a review of research on literacy, with the goal of improving reading and writing achievement (Lonigan & Shanahan, 2008, p. v).  As you may know, in the 80’s and 90’s, whole language instruction was mainly used in schools, and the impact on reading scores was dismal. In fact, “a 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress report found 56% of 4th graders in California read below a basic level after embracing Whole Language” (Betker, presentation, 2019, Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/)

The resulting report, which recommended systematic phonics instruction, was “influential in helping to guide reading-education policy and practice in the United States” (Lonigan & Shanahan, p. v).  The report is called the “Report of the National Reading Panel:  Teaching Children to Read” (NICHD, 2000).  This report is very widely cited in articles about teaching reading, and has impacted how we teach reading in Canada, as well. After the report was released by the National Reading Panel in 2000, there was a dramatic increase in the use of systematic, explicit phonics instruction, in schools.

However, it is clear to me, and to many teachers who have heard the research conclusions, knowing that something is supported by science does not automatically lead to implementation in a regular classroom.  The information needs to be interpreted in such a way that it is usable and practical. Also, there are important factors to consider, in ensuring that the method is applied in a way that is congruent with the research.  As you can imagine, not all phonics instruction is equal – the sequence that a teacher uses is vitally important:  “[T]his process is not left to accident but goes according to a superbly designed sequence” ( Fountas & Pinnell, 2020, p. 3).

In teaching reading, and incorporating phonics in one’s program, it is important to consider the following questions:

  1. Who is phonics instruction for?  Isn’t it intended only for students who struggle to learn to read? 

According to Fountas & Pinnell (2020), “[E]ven children who “crack the code” early and appear to have noticed letter-sound relationships and figured out how to use them will benefit from systematizing their knowledge and developing effective, efficient ways to use their knowledge, not only of letters and sounds, but also of patterns involving larger chunks of words” (p. 1).  They go on to say that phonics instruction is “even more critical when we consider the large number of English learners in our schools.  It is our responsibility as educators to ensure equity and access to language for all students” (p. 1).  I would argue that the same need for equity exists among students who are first language English speakers, but whose early experiences have not enabled them to develop pre-literacy skills.

“Research has shown the power of this early instruction in phonics for young students’ reading and writing development. Government-funded documents have shown that phonics instruction is helpful for all students, harmful for none, and crucial for some”  International Literacy Association, 2019, p. 2).

2. Is there a “best” way to teach phonics / decoding? 

“[H]ow we translate …research into instructional practice varies widely, resulting in practices that are sometimes ineffective or unbalanced and instructional materials that too often have serious instructional design flaws. Some phonics instruction is random, incomplete, and implicit. Other instruction is overdone and isolated, devoid of the extensive application to authentic reading and writing needed for mastery. Neither is as effective as it needs to be”  (International Literacy Association, 2019, p. 2).

“There is no one best way to teach phonics…That is, there is no single method that has been shown to be the most effective approach” (Cunningham, as cited in Allington, 2013, p. 522). However, some methods certainly are better than others, and some programs are more easily applied and adopted, I would argue. The main point here is that, students do need to learn to decode, and that this is an important part of becoming an effective reader (Allington, 2013, p. 522).

You may have heard the term “the science of reading”.  In the last few decades, an incredible amount of research has been done, that actually looks at what happens in people’s brains, when they learn to read.  In fact, we now know an astronomical amount more about teaching reading than we did only 40 years ago, according to Dr. Kilpatrick (2016, p. 46) a reading researcher and doctor of psychology. The science of reading essentially tells us how the brain changes as it learns to read. This information can help us to know which teaching methods would result in developing a reading brain.

A recent brain research study out of Stanford explained how beginning readers who focus on letter–sound relationships, or phonics, instead of trying to learn whole words, increase activity in the area of the brain best wired for reading.  This has resulted in the conclusion that phonics instruction has a strong impact on students’ early reading growth”  (International Literacy Association, 2019, p. 2, Retreived from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-meeting-challenges-early-literacy-phonics-instruction.pdf).

The Orton-Gillingham approach is one example of how to teach students to read, using systematic, explicit phonics instruction. This approach is recommended for students with Dyslexia, however it has been applied to students of varied abilities, with success. If you are looking for a place to begin, I highly recommend learning as much as you can about this approach.

Some other specific phonics methods that you may be interested in looking into, especially if you are an early years teacher, are the use of word families, and teaching of onset and rimes.  David Kilpatrick recommends the use of word families for Grade 1 students who can identify the first sounds and letters in words, but cannot yet decipher the middle and ending sounds (2016, p. 50). Additionally, colour-coded onset-rime phonics-based intervention has been shown to be effective with struggling readers, and is recommended as an intervention for students at Tier 2 and Tier 3 (Wall, Rafferty, Camizzi, Max & VanBlargan, 2016, p. 8).

What else is there to consider?

Teaching students to read through decoding is only part of phonics instruction. It is important to have students apply their developing phonics skills in writing. Using inventive spelling in kindergarten and first grade is an effective way to reinforce letter-sound correspondence, because children who get the chance to write suddenly become “interested in using those letter-sound relationships to read and write” (Adams, as cited in Allington, 2013, p. 522)

It is important to note that phonics instruction must not stand on its own.  It must be taught “within a comprehensive literacy design that must also include reading high-quality books aloud to children, engaging them in shared reading, interactive read-aloud, small group guided reading instruction, small group book clubs, independent choice reading, and a wide range of writing contexts that support the expansive knowledge of words and how words work”  (Fountas & Pinnell, 2020, p. 1).

“We must design lessons that provide the opportunities for struggling readers to actually read” (p. 526). Often lessons for struggling readers differ from lesson for good readers, in that there is less reading activity and more work on skills in isolation (p. 526).  This limits the volume of reading that these students do.  Additionally, they tend to read less overall, since a person who struggles at something tends to do less of it.  Struggling readers may tend to choose to read less often, as a result of the difficulty they experience in reading.

It is a good idea to have explicit phonics instruction as part of a lesson, but this should be sandwiched between opportunities for the child to read connected text, at a level that they can read with success. It is best to provide an opportunity for the child to apply the phonics skills that they have been taught, in connected text immediately after. (Lourenzo, C., 2019, lecture in course “Diagnostic & Remedial Techniques in ELA, University of Manitoba).

Kilpatrick (2016) explains that we, as teachers, do not need to choose one approach to reading. Kilpatrick explains that each of the traditional approaches (from phonics, to whole words to whole language) is appropriate at specific stages in the process (p. 48).  At the very beginning stages of reading instruction, he asserts that a more phonological approach is appropriate, and as students develop along the reading continuum, whole language or other approaches are suitable.  Once students learn sound-symbol relationships, and are able to decode easily and automatically, using the strategy methods from whole language, would be appropriate and useful.

Most of all, what really matters, is having effective “expert” teachers working with struggling readers, according to Allington (2013, p. 523).

The expertise of the teacher is “the critical factor in the quality of reading lessons” according to research (Allington, 2013, p. 523)

The way to increase the reading abilities in students is to teach their teachers “about reading development and how to facilitate it” (Allington, 2013, p. 523). Allington recommends that each school employ a reading specialist with a graduate degree in literacy, to support teachers to this end. Additionally, he recommends that we move away from having educational assistants work with the students who struggle the most.  Instead, those students should work with teachers who have the most expertise in teaching reading (p. 523).

In order to become good readers, all students need lots and lots of experience reading books that are matched to their reading level, not their grade. This is especially important for struggling readers (Allington, 2013, p. 525).

Self teaching occurs when students are engaged in reading books at their independent reading level (p. 525). For this reason, it is the “volume of reading activity” that is most important in developing strong readers (p. 526).

Allington provides teachers with the following list,that can be used to guide one’s practice.  This list is for teachers to use, to check their lessons against the characteristics of research-based reading lessons (Allington, 2013, p. 528).

  • “Do we expect our struggling readers to read and write more every day than our achieving readers?

 

  • Have we ensured that every intervention for our struggling readers is taught only by our most effective and most expert teachers?

 

  • Have we designed our reading lessons such that struggling readers spend at least two thirds of every lesson engaged in the actual reading of texts?

 

  • Do we ensure that the texts we provide struggling readers across the full school day are texts they can read with at least 98% word recognition accuracy and 90% comprehension?

 

  • Does every struggling reader leave the building each day with at least one book that they can read and that they also want to read?” (Allington, 2013, p. 528)

 

I see this as being so helpful to myself and to the teachers I work with, that I want to paint it on the sky!.  I trust that you will find this as helpful as I have!

Onward we go, in developing our abilities as expert teachers!  It is the teacher, not the method, that makes the difference for struggling readers! (p. 523).  But don’t leave out the phonics!

I would also like to recommend the following two articles, for more information on phonics instruction:

Twelve Compelling Principles from the Research on Effective Phonics Instruction by Fountas & Pinnell, 2020

Literacy Leadership Brief:  Meeting the Challenges of Early Literacy Phonics Instruction by The International Literacy Association, 2019

Thank you for being part of this contemplation on teaching reading.

What questions do you have, with regards to phonics instruction?  What conclusions have you arrived at?

 

 

 

References

Allington, R. (2013).  What Really Matters When Working with Struggling Readers. The Reading Teacher, 66 (7), 520-529.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2020)  Twelve Compelling Principles from the Research on Effective Phonics Instruction.  Heinemann.  Retrieved on June 16, 2020 from https://www.fountasandpinnell.com/resourcelibrary/resource?id=484

The International Literacy Association (2019).  Literacy Leadership Brief:  Meeting the Challenges of Early Literacy Phonics Instruction.  Retrieved on June 16, 2020 from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-meeting-challenges-early-literacy-phonics-instruction.pdf

Kilpatrick, D. (2016). Equipped for Reading Success: A comprehensive, step by step program for developing phoneme awareness and fluent word recognition. Casey & Kirsch Publishers.

National Institute for Literacy (2008). Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. National Centre for Family Literacy.

Wall, C. A., Rafferty, L. A., Camizzi, M. A., Max, C. A., & Van Blargan, D. M. (2015).  Action Research of a Color-Coded, Onset-Rime Decoding Intervention:  Examining the effects with first grade students identified as at risk.  Preventing School Failure:  An Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60 (1), 1-9.

Fred Penner Taught Me Phonological Awareness

Fred Penner Taught Me Phonological Awareness

by | Jun 3, 2020 | Evidence-Based Practices Series, Grade 1, Teaching Reading to Struggling Readers

I have been reading Dr. Kilpatrick’s book, Equipped for Reading Success (2016), which was very enthusiastically recommended to me by two colleagues. This book is about teaching reading through developing phonological awareness in students. Phonological awareness is the understanding that spoken language is composed of smaller units such as phrases, words, syllables, and phonemes (sounds).“Children need to be able to distinguish sounds so that they can attach them to letters” when learning to read and spell (Fountas & Pinnell, 2009, p. 174).

 

Kilpatrick explains that each of the traditional approaches (from phonics, to whole words to whole language) is appropriate at specific stages in the process of learning to read (p. 48). At the very beginning stages of reading instruction, he asserts that a more phonological approach is appropriate, and as students develop along the reading continuum, whole language or other approaches become suitable.

 

In fact, the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) Report (2008) states that “children’s early Phonological Awareness –that is, their ability to distinguish among sounds within auditory language–[is] an important predictor of later literacy achievement” (Lonigan & Shanahan, p. viii).

 

Many of the songs that you remember from your childhood likely targeted various phonological awareness skills. My favorite one was The A – Z Name Game by Sharon Lois and Bram.   I learned rhyming through singing, “Lori-Anne, Lori-Anne, banana, fanna, fo – Fori-Anne, Me, mi, mo, Mori-Anne, Lori-Anne!” Rhyming and word play in poems, books and songs, train students to distinguish the sounds in words. Some of these silly songs actually teach children complex phonemic awareness skills.

 

Developing phonological awareness comes before phonics instruction.  Being able to hear the individual sounds in words is the first step in learning to read and spell.  Next, students are taught to connect those sounds to letters.  When letters become part of the instruction, it is no long phonological awareness that is being taught, but phonics.  When kindergarten teachers and day care educators read books that have rhyming phrases in them, or sing songs in which different sounds are substituted in words, they are actually working on important skills that support literacy development.

 

Being a child in Canada in the 80s, I was raised on songs by Fred Penner and Raffi. You can’t imagine how star struck I was when one day, about five years ago, I actually saw Fred Penner in real life, having lunch in a restaurant in Winnipeg, at the table next to mine. I had seen him at a concert when I was really young, but this was different! He was ten feet away! I could barely keep myself from starting at him! He had to have been pretty amazing for me to still recognize his greatness over 30 years later!

 

In kindergarten and Grade 1, phonological awareness can be directly taught, as a stepping stone toward reading and spelling. It is important to teach these skills, because children “do not automatically identify sounds just because they can speak and understand language” (Fountas & Pinnell, 2009, p. 178). In fact, “[S]peakers focus their attention on the meaning of utterances, not sounds. Unless they are trying to learn an alphabetic code, there is no reason to notice and ponder the phonemic level of language” (National Reading Panel Report, as cited in Fountas & Pinnell, 2009, p. 175).

 

Some children transition from nursery rhymes and songs right into the next level, in which they associate sounds with specific letters. Not all children need phonological awareness training, and it may be beneficial only for those who struggle with reading problems (Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1999, p. 404). Some students, however, need to be specifically taught to hear the distinct sounds within words, and to “map” those sounds to letters, which is called “orthographic mapping” (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 45). “Orthography” has to do with writing letters and words.

 

Students need to be able to connect “what is heard in the mind (phoneme awareness) with what is seen on the page (letter-sound skills)” (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 45). Phonemic awareness and connecting letters with their most common sounds (phonics) are “prerequisites” to learning to read. In fact, early literacy teachers will not be able to move their students along in literacy, until the students are “proficient” with these two skills (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 49). Letters and their sounds need to be connected easily and automatically for the child, before they can benefit from “formal reading instruction”, according to Dr. Kilpatrick (p. 49).

 

Formal reading instruction in Grade 1 usually includes “word study”, or phonics instruction. However, Dr. Kilpatrick recommends that prior to teaching students the beginning, middle, and ending sounds in words, which is part of the phonics instruction that usually happens at the start of Grade 1, it is a better idea to teach them word families. (Word families, I am sure you will recall, are sets of words that follow the same spelling pattern, like rat, cat, fat, mat, pat, sat).  This would allow the children to apply their developing skills at letter-sound association with the first sound, in each of the word family words, and then use the rhyme to help them along, so that they can read full words.

 

Since most students are not able to map full words yet, in the first month of Grade 1, using word families is like providing “training wheels” for the students at this earlier stage in reading (Kilpatrick, 2016, p. 50). Many students at this stage can map the first sound in a word only, and so this approach could be used first, prior to phonics. The word family approach is called the “Linguistic Approach”, and Dr. Kilpatrick recommends that Grade 1 teachers use “a ‘linguistics first, phonics second approach, while systematically training phonological awareness” (p. 50).

 

Dr. Kilpatrick (2016) asserts that if Grade 1 teachers were to follow his advice on this, they would “reduce the number of struggling readers to a fraction of what any traditional method (including phonics alone) would produce” (p. 50). Currently there is a portion of students in every school who read far below grade level. If we apply the research that tells us about how reading progresses, we can dramatically lessen the number of students who struggle (p. 45).

 

It is at this point that I have some questions, and am curious to learn more about the best way Grade 1 teachers might spend their first months with their students. The idea that there is an absolute best way to spend this time, and that doing so will eliminate the likelihood that any students will struggle to read is very appealing! I have always been very interested in teaching reading, and I am constantly learning and growing as a teacher of reading. The reason why the first few months of Grade 1 is especially interesting to me now, however, is that I will be transitioning to a new position in my school division next September. My first task in this new role is to provide support to Grade 1 teachers, as our division moves away from Reading Recovery and toward a new approach.

 

I am questioning the use of word families, despite Dr. Kilpatrick’s very convincing argument, because I have recently been taking part in Orton-Gillingham training. My instructor explained the other day that she is opposed to using word families, because she believes it can lead students down the road to guessing, or to not attending to each letter and sound in words (V. Bjornson, presentation, May 30, 2020). Once students begin to guess, they are moving away from word mapping, and are not learning the core skills they will need to become strong readers. It is better, instead, to have the students attend to each letter in a word, one at a time. To me, this makes more sense, as I have spent lots of time working with students who think that reading is about guessing.

 

Dr. Kilpatrick seems to concur with some aspects of Bjornson’s argument when he says the following: “For beginning reading instruction we need to make use of reading materials that are appropriate to the level at which the student can phonologically and orthographically deal with words” (2016, p. 49). If students are asked to read texts that are above the level that they can decode, or if they are taught to memorize full words before they learn the letter-sound connections, they can sometimes develop unhealthy coping behaviors that can lead them down the wrong path (p. 49).  Would word family words not be considered inappropriate for students who are not yet able to deal with three letter words, in the first month of Grade 1, I wonder?

 

However, I can also see benefits to word families, as they would help to build confidence in struggling readers.   If time is spent on word families for a brief period while students solidify their letter-sound skills, and phonemic awareness, it can give them the satisfying feeling of reading words, even if they are actually reading just the first letter, and recalling the rhyme, when solving the rest of the word.

 

I am curious what your perspective is on this question. Have you used word families in the past? Have you noticed a tendency toward guessing words after having used it, or is it a helpful transition that segues into reading CVC words? What are your thoughts on phonological awareness training and phonics instruction?

 

 

References:

Bus, A. G., van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Phonological Awareness and Early Reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (3), 403-414.

Lonigan, C. J., & Shanigan, T. (2008). Executive Summary of the Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. National Centre for Family Literacy.

Kilpatrick, D. (2016). Equipped for Reading Success: A comprehensive, step by step program for developing phoneme awareness and fluent word recognition. Casey & Kirsch Publishers.

National Institute for Literacy (2008). Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. National Centre for Family Literacy.

Pinnell, G. S. & Fountas, I. C. (2009). When Readers Struggle: Teaching that works. Heinemann.