Running Head: THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
Comparing Three Approaches to Phonics Instruction:
Synthetic, Analytic, and Embedded
Kathryn J. Fry
Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
Capstone
Summer 2010
1
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
2
Abstract
Systematic phonics instruction is a very prominent discussion topic among teachers and
researchers today. This type of instruction relies on teaching letter-sound correspondence and
applying these relationships to beginning reading. Studies have shown that teaching phonics in a
systematic manner benefits future reading progress in primary grade students. Researchers have
also identified the three most common forms of phonics instruction as synthetic, analytic, and
embedded. Synthetic and analytic take the most direct and explicit approaches to teaching
phonics. An embedded approach may also use explicit instruction, but uses authentic reading
material to introduce phonics-based skills. These three approaches differ in their instructional
methods of teaching decoding, phonemic awareness, and the alphabetic principle. The following
paper discusses these three methods as they relate to learners and learning, curriculum and
instructional strategies, learning environment, and assessment. Investigation of several theories
and multiple research studies are discussed, along with their impact on phonics instruction in
classrooms today. The first section addresses the needs of learners, as they begin reading in
primary grades. These needs are addressed through instructional strategies and materials found
within a phonics-based curriculum. Along with classroom materials pertaining to these
approaches, assessment plays an important role of determining the right approach for each
student. The paper concludes with implications of research findings and application. Vast
classroom libraries and exposure to print are crucial to many learners, as well as systematic
instruction of grapheme-phoneme correspondence. The ultimate decision of teaching phonics
through synthetic, analytic, or embedded approaches depends on the needs of individual learners.
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
3
Comparing Three Approaches to Phonics Instruction: Synthetic, Analytic, and Embedded
Three common methods of phonics instruction are synthetic, analytic, and embedded.
These approaches vary in their use of materials, approach to learning, activities, and their effects
on learners. According to scientific based research, and meta-analyses performed by the National
Reading Panel, systematic phonics instruction is the most effective method of teaching beginning
reading (Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001). Since it is a required method of instruction in
school reading programs today, which instructional approach best serves primary grade students?
Most schools use a synthetic approach to phonics instruction, which drills letter-sound
matches during whole group and individual instruction. The analytic approach to phonics
instruction begins with a word that a child knows and breaks the word into its component parts.
A common method in this approach is the use of word families and onset-rime techniques (Stahl,
Duffy-Hester, & Stahl, 1998). Embedded phonics approaches are sometimes referred to as
contextualized or whole language. Instruction relies on authentic reading and writing
experiences, as well as systematic instruction (1998). Teachers need to understand approaches if
they are going to apply them in the classroom. Implications from research reveal that the type of
instruction for a beginning reader needs to be scaffolded to fit individual needs. If systematic
phonics instruction causes improved reading abilities in later grades, then teachers need to know
how much systematic instruction and how much contextualized instruction is necessary for a
child’s success.
Learners and Learning
Synthetic and Analytic Phonics Approaches
The National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis revealed that systematic phonics instruction
helps children read more efficiently than a non-systematic form of instruction (Ehri, Nunes,
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
4
Stahl, & Willows, 2001). The effects of systematic instruction were greater when instruction
started at Kindergarten. Authors of the meta-analysis review also concluded that phonics was
beneficial for low and middle SES readers, younger at-risk learners for reading disabilities, and
older students with reading disabilities (Ehri et al., 2001). The question to be answered is, why
did such improvements occur because of systematic phonics instruction?
Adams, one of the leading researchers of beginning reading, believes that deep
knowledge of letters, spelling patterns, and words, and of the phonological soundings of all three
are absolutely necessary for learners to become good readers (2004). This requires explicit
instruction of language characteristics and reading strategies. One of the leading forms of
instruction is phonics as a prerequisite for learning to read, which relies on research, such as
Adams’ to support its implementation. Adams (2004) asserts that skillful readers process almost
every letter in a word, whether they are displayed in isolation or connected text. Adams also
claims that skillful readers habitually translate spelling to sounds as they read, because spelling
to sound translations are crucial to developing fluency. Congruent with this view, Pressley
(2006) asserts that this association and then blending of sounds allows readers to identify words
that they have never seen before or are nonsense words. This is also a process of sounding out,
which good readers can do very well (Pressley, 2006).
Adams has designed a reading system with four processors to model the strategies and
systems that children use as readers. The first is the orthographic processor, which receives
information directly from the print on the page (Adams, 2004). Students read left to right, lineby-line, and word-by-word to translate text into meaning. She also asserts that students break
words into syllables as they read in order to decode and recognize unfamiliar words. The second
processor is the context processor, which is in charge of constructing ongoing interpretations of
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
5
the print. This requires readers to select word meanings that fit with the text, and it facilitates
awareness of appropriate words. The meaning processor applies meaning to the words that are
read. Readers gain meaning through context, direct vocabulary instruction, prefixes, suffixes, and
roots. However, they always process each letter and associate a sound. The last processor is the
phonological processor, which translates visual phonemes into sounds. According to Adams, this
is the most helpful processor that supports comprehension and the orthographic processor. It
reemphasizes the orthographic aspects of the text, and also increases the reader’s memory for
text by translating letters and syllables into sounds (2004). The phonological processor allows
readers to identify words that they have not seen before, but that are in their speaking or listening
vocabulary.
Phonics instruction involves teaching students how to utilize letter-sound relationships to
decode and spell words. According to Stahl (1997), every learner goes through a process of
learning to decode in several steps. First, the reader needs to understand what decoding is. This
understanding is based on the concept of phonemic awareness and the knowledge that words can
be divided into letters, and that those letters represent sounds (Stahl, 1997). According to
researchers, phonemic awareness is the strongest predictor of children’s future success in reading
(Adams, 1990). A reader also needs to develop strategies for attacking words. Within a
systematic phonics approach, readers are directly taught ways to decode, such as “sounding it
out” or singling out phonemes and blending them together (Stahl, 1997). Readers might also use
analogy to decode words by comparing unknown words to known words in sight or oral
vocabulary (Cunningham, 1980). A last step in the learning process according to Stahl is to
develop knowledge of letter patterns, which comes from exposure to words in many contexts.
Learning to decode words leads to greater automaticity, and the ability to rapidly read words and
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
6
text fluently. Developing this ability helps learners comprehend texts, therefore supporting the
systematic teaching of phonics (Adams, 1990).
Throughout her work, Adams shares an analytic perspective by emphasizing the
activation of spelling patterns, pronunciations, and meaning as readers come across an unknown
word (Adams, 2004). The automatic translations from the phonological processor allow readers
to recognize visually unfamiliar words in a different way. Even if an entire word is not familiar,
parts of the word’s spelling, perhaps syllables, will be recognized (2004). Good readers can
recognize common English letter combinations most likely due to multiple encounters during
reading (Pressley, 2006). The spelling patterns in the word are translated automatically to their
sound equivalents, learners identify stored words with similar patterns, and then decode the
unknown word (Adams, 2004). Discussed later in this paper is how such processing can aid in
phonics instruction through methods such as Cunningham’s Compare/Contrast Process (1980).
This process does not always come naturally to learners. In Gaskins’ Benchmark School
Approach, phonics instruction was systematic and based on a learner’s store of sight words.
Throughout the years, Gaskins realized that not all learners could memorize and reach into that
store of words automatically. In order to master this strategy, the students are explicitly taught
how to retrieve known words by mastering the alphabetic principle (Gaskins, 2005). According
to Ehri et al. (2001), acquiring the alphabetic principle is the goal of phonics instruction. Several
researchers believe that this happens in stages. The first stage is the pre-alphabetic stage, in
which learners use visual cues of letters to guess words. Learners in the second stage, phonetic
cue reading, use letter-sounds to identify words. The third stage is the full alphabetic stage.
Learners use all letters and sounds in a word to read it, and have mastered the ability to analyze a
whole word (Gaskins, Ehri, Cress, O’Hara, & Donnelly, 1997). The last stage is the consolidated
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
7
phase, in which learners combine letters into chunks of words to create sounds. Then they relate
the blending of these chunks to sight words in their memory. Each of these stages represents a
step on the path to Adams’ goal of automaticity. This process is linked more to an analytic form
of phonics instruction, and require students to recognize unknown words based on known words
(Gaskins et al., 1997).
Embedded Phonics Approach
Proponents of embedded instruction recognize the importance of letter knowledge,
spelling patterns, and words, but believe that understanding should come from exposure to texts
and writing. Children use multiple cuing systems to identify words, so it makes sense to balance
instruction of these cuing systems. To do this, text should be used.
Even whole language reading instruction advocates understand the importance of
decoding abilities. Ken Goodman wrote an entire book on his view of phonics (Goodman, 1993).
His views differ from synthetic and analytic instruction based on how sounds and letters work
together in an alphabetic language. He concludes that “phonic relationships are between the
patterns and systems of oral and written langue, not between individual letters and sounds”
(Goodman, 1993, p. 3). He does not argue that learners do not use phonics, but that they use it in
the process of making sense of what they read.
For theorists like Goodman, phonics is learned through reading, writing, listening, and
speaking experiences. Phonics is both personal and social because learners combine their
personal speech with the language around them and the social conventions of writing (Goodman,
1993). This is parallel with views that when children enter school, they are not blank slates
(Savage, 2001). They bring their own understanding and information to create meaning in
decoding and encoding print. Background knowledge, prior reading experiences, and oral
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
8
language all affect the beginnings of learning to read (2001). Automaticity skills described by
Adams (1990) and Pressley (2006) are not good enough to produce excellent readers, according
to Goodman (1993). Good readers read text fluently and with expression, not word-by-word
recognition. This way, learners are most likely comprehending or understanding syntactical
elements of the text.
Curriculum and Instructional Strategies
Synthetic Phonics Approach
Phonics instruction prior to the 1920s was synthetic. Instruction began with teaching the
sounds of letters and then teaching blending skills (Bear, 1964). Instructional methods were
based on letter-sound drills, and actual reading was put off until students had mastered phonemic
awareness. Phonics instructions today continues to use this part-to-whole approach, which
teaches learners to convert graphemes into phonemes, and then blend the phonemes together to
create words (Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001).
Synthetic phonics is an accelerated form of phonics instruction that begins with teaching
students grapheme-phoneme relationships, and does not begin by establishing initial sight word
vocabulary (Johnston & Watson, 2005). Synthetic phonics is based upon the prerequisite
argument, which states that students must develop phonemic awareness as a first step toward
learning to read, and children need to be able to identify sound segments in spoken words before
they begin to read an alphabetic written language (Morris, 2010). An example of segmenting is
identifying the three phonemes in cat, /c/ /a/ /t/. It is not contested that teaching letters in
phonemic awareness training helps children read and spell words. However, the way to teach
such sounds and letters is under debate, and a synthetic approach is just one way. Bowey (2006)
believes that English writing represents a sound written down. This defines synthetic phonics,
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
9
and the process involved in teaching phonemic awareness as a prerequisite. Bowey also believes
that synthetic phonics instruction teaches children to teach themselves new words by sounding
letters out and blending phonemes. Decoding and blending are explicitly taught to children so
that they can employ these strategies during reading (2006).
A synthetic approach to phonics instruction teaches children to use individual letters to
decode and read unknown words. This strategy is most helpful when there are no context clues to
make a prediction, or any meaning units for readers to break the words into (Duffy & Roehler,
1986). Having full phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge allows children to come up
with a close approximation of almost every word. One method to support this skill is the use of
manipulative letter tiles (Jennings, Caldwell, & Lerner, 2010). Using these, students can practice
exchanging letters to make new words, using the same first consonant to make another word,
blending sounds together, or spelling words that a teacher recites. Alphabet cards are also a good
resource to help students master alphabet knowledge (Savage, 2001). Large upper case and lower
case letters are laminated and used for several types of activities. Students can each be assigned a
letter and practice putting them in the correct order. They can also match the lower case with the
upper case letters. Another fun activity to do with alphabet cards is to make a path with them on
the floor, and as children hop from one letter to the next, they say the letter that they land on and
it’s corresponding sound (2001). Computer programs are also available for students to practice
their phonics. Books on CD-ROMs allow students to listen to a story and interact with the words
on the computer screen at the same time.
After teaching the alphabet, phonics is taught in a sequence. It should be based upon the
individual learners in the class, but many programs suggest teaching consonants, then vowels,
and then syllables, including prefixes and suffixes, compound words, contractions, and
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
10
inflectional endings (Starrett, 2007). Some researchers believe that you cannot teach consonants
before vowels because a string of letters cannot be a word without at least one vowel (Beck,
2006). They do not suggest that you teach the complexities of vowels having more than one
sound, but you must teach a few vowels if children are to figure out pronunciation. Blending is
the way to form words once students have learned to decode. Learning a few consonants and at
least one vowel will allow learners to blend those together and make small words (2006).
There is a multitude of activities to practice phonemic awareness and the alphabet, but
actually teaching phonics synthetically is a very explicit and direct method. It relies heavily on
one to one letter-sound correspondence and should be implemented in conjunction with other
reading exposure. Synthetic phonics is compatible with a more comprehensive reading program,
such as an analytic method, but the determinant of instruction should ultimately be on the needs
of the individual learners.
Analytic Phonics Approach
Analytic phonics instruction consists of methods to analyze words. There are several
examples of this approach, such as the Benchmark School Approach and Patricia Cunningham’s
Compare/Contrast Process that serve as the models for this instruction in this section. Analytic
phonics is a whole-to-part approach that does not focus on individual letter-sound
correspondence (Ehri et al., 2001). One way to analyze and read an unknown word is to look for
meaning units and root words that the unknown word can be broken into. For example,
“unneeded” can be broken into un- and need, which students may have in their oral and sight
vocabulary (Duffy & Roehler, 1986). Students using this method are to examine the structural
elements of a word, break the units apart, pronounce the units in order, and blend them together.
In order to check the correctness of the guess, students should use a semantic cuing device to
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
11
check meaning within the context of a sentence (1986). Understanding rhyme, learning to use
key words and their spelling patterns to decode words by analogy, and learning to read and spell
high-frequency words are ways to integrate multiple strategies in analytic phonics instruction
(Jennings, Caldwell, & Lerner, 2010). Teachers should explicitly model these strategies and offer
opportunities for students to use them as well. These analytic strategies are demonstrated in
programs such as the Benchmark School Approach and a compare/contrast process.
According to Gaskins and her colleagues, “good readers read familiar words accurately
and rapidly. They remember spelling patterns shared by known words and use this knowledge in
decoding unknown words” (Gaskins, Ehri, Cress, O’Hara, & Donnelly, 1997, p. 312). Taking
this view into account, they created the Benchmark Word Identification (BWI) program. In this
program, students are taught a set of high-frequency key words that have common spelling
patterns, which are displayed on the word wall in the classroom. When students come to a word
they don’t know, they should use the key words to read the unknown words. Despite the effort to
teach this strategy, struggling readers at the Benchmark School were having trouble calling to
mind the key words that would help them. Students were guessing the pronunciation of a word
based on context alone, the first letters, or on pictures in the text (1997).
Gaskins et al. (1997) realized that they must teach students procedures for how to analyze
words, instead of expecting them to figure out the spelling system on their own. The word
analysis process starts with stretching out the pronunciations of words to analyze basic sounds in
the words. Students then analyze the visual forms of the words and discuss the matches between
sounds and letters, particularly chunks of words. Students need to note similarities to sounds and
letters in other words that they have learned, and remember how to spell those words (Gaskins et
al., 1997). This explicit instruction is the basis of the Benchmark Approach and its parts.
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
12
Beginning Word Detectives is another analytic method that Irene Gaskins developed
within the Benchmark School Approach. This program provides activities for daily application
of decoding and phonemic awareness concepts (Gaskins, 2005). The purpose is to help students
develop mature habits of word reading and fluency. In the program, “students 1) participate in
teacher modeling of words on sentence strips; 2) repeatedly read predictable-rhyme and echoreading books containing words with the spelling patterns they have learned; 3) write words with
the high-frequency spelling patterns that have been introduced; and 4) as they read, keep a log of
discoveries they make about how our language works” (p. 169). This activity type builds upon
the BWI program to provide greater interaction between words and students in the form of
analogies. Students are taught to look for consistencies and patterns in the ways that sounds and
letters match up. They are also encouraged to analyze the surrounding letters of the sound-letter
matches to identify words that have that specific sound. After noticing these matches and
patterns, students share their theories about how language works, and practice strategies for
analyzing words (Gaskins, 2005). One theory might be that “consonant sounds are usually
represented only one way, but vowel sounds often are represented by several letter combinations
(e.g., -ain, -ate, -ay)” (p. 174).
Research presented by Patricia Cunningham also revolves around an analytical form of
reading and phonics instruction. Her work discusses the use of analogy or compare/contrast
strategies to identify unfamiliar words. Students use an interactive process in which parts of an
unknown word are compared and contrasted to parts of known words, which individuals have
stored in memory (Cunningham, 1980). The major tenets of the compare/contrast mediated word
identification theory are:
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
13
1. Mediated word identification is not a process of applying adult-taught rules, but of
searching through a store and comparing the unknown to the known.
2. An unfamiliar word which cannot be recognized as a whole is segmented into the largest
manageable units.
3. These units are then compared to known words, non-words, or fragments, or are tested
against feature lists (i.e., mental lists of the distinguishing features of written symbols).
4. A recombining process results in a word for which the reader has an acoustic and/or
semantic category.
5. Some kind of transfer is involved in the process of mediated word identification.
6. Readers form their own rules for analyzing unknown words by comparing and
contrasting the unknown with the known.
These tenets are the framework for Cunningham’s work, and outline the key aspects of students’
mediation of word identification skills and phonics application.
Applying rules of phonemes may be helpful to sound out one and two syllable words, but
it is much more difficult to identify polysyllabic words that are unknown to a reader.
Cunningham (1980) aimed to discover whether training in comparing and contrasting strategies
with polysyllable words would increase a student’s ability to correctly identify those more
difficult words. Cunningham’s data support the claim that a relatively short treatment in
comparing and contrasting unknown words with a store of known words can improve individual
word identification ability (1980). This study discovered how students use internal mediating
strategies, such as pulling from memory words or complete word identification. The results of
the study also indicated gains on a measure of reading words in context. Fourth and fifth graders
in the study were more familiar with the reading process, so they were able to integrate their new
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
14
strategy into their reading skills. Younger children are not as familiar with the reading process,
so they may not be able to integrate this strategy as much (Cunningham, 1980). However, this
may indicate that they need greater explicit instruction, such as that provided by the Benchmark
Approach.
In order to support the Compare/Contrast Process, Cunningham also created a spelling
activity used for discovering patterns, called Making Words (Cunningham & Cunningham,
1992). It is used as a supplemental writing activity in first and second grade, and is intended to
increase children’s decoding abilities. Making Words is a 15-minute activity in which students
create 12-15 words using tiles with individual capital and lower cases letters printed on them.
Students are given six to eight different cards, and the teacher calls out words with two or more
letters that can be formed from the given cards (Stahl, Duffy-Hester, & Stahl, 1998). The words
should be made and then sorted based on common spelling patterns or other orthographic
features. The end goal is to create a word using all of the letters, and typically this word relates to
something that the students are reading at the time. One benefit of Making Words is that it is a
hands-on activity in which students actively engage in discovering sound-letter relationships and
look for patterns in words, such as word families (Cunningham & Cunningham, 1992). This
activity is used to build phonics skills through oral decoding and sound-letter matching. It is an
opportunity for students to develop phonemic awareness through participation, because students
are active in their own success.
Embedded Phonics Approach
An embedded approach to phonics instruction wants students to gain phonemic
awareness and print knowledge, however it does not always include explicit instruction. Savage
(2001) suggests multiple activities that can be used within an embedded curriculum class, such
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
15
as shared reading, guided reading, authentic reading experiences, and encounters with other
literature. Reading recovery is another instructional method that contextualizes phonics for
struggling readers (Pinnell, Fried, & Estice, 1990).
During shared reading, students and teachers read a book together (Savage, 2001). They
read the story several times so that children can become involved in the reading experience in
three steps. The first step is a teacher reading, which displays fluency and expression, and
exposes the mood and content of the story. The second step is for the teacher to read the story at
least one more time and the children are supposed to join in during reading. This is an
opportunity for the teacher to pause and point out familiar words in the story, as well as
demonstrate decoding strategies. The children become more engaged by repeating familiar lines
in the text, locating recognizable words, commenting about events in the story, and predicting
future events. The third step is to have students participate in an activity based on the shared
reading. Examples of such activities are discussing alternative endings, role-playing scenes from
the story, or drawing pictures about the story (Savage, 2001). Shared reading provides phonics
instruction by creating opportunities for teachers to pause and focus on specific letter-sound
elements. It also helps students relate decoding skills with literature.
Another activity suggested by Savage (2001) is guided reading. Guided reading is a more
personalized opportunity for teachers to help students employ strategies for reading unknown
words. Phonics practice is just one strategy that can be reinforced during the activity. Guided
reading starts with the teacher introducing the book and previewing the story through
illustrations with a group of students on similar reading levels. The teacher should use language
in the story so that students are familiar with the words when they begin to read. Each child reads
the book independently in a soft voice so that the teacher can hear, and as the teacher observes
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
16
difficulties, he or she provides support and guidance to the student. After reading, students
engage in discussion of text meaning and share personal responses to the story. This process of
guided reading is beneficial for phonics instruction by providing teachable moments (Savage,
2001). When students struggle with words, the common response is to “sound it out,” which is a
synthetic method of using sound-symbol relationship knowledge. This is an activity that provides
phonics practice for students embedded in meaningful print.
Authentic reading experiences provide an even more contextualized approach to phonics
instruction. Authentic text is used more for pleasure and information reading, but can also be
applied to phonics practice (Savage, 2001). Children practice analytic phonics during these
experiences by looking for little words within larger words. Students may not recognize many
words in hard or informational texts, so they can use analogy and sight word memory to notice
patterns in unknown words.
Another contextualized program is Reading Recovery, created by Marie Clay, to help
struggling readers gain grade levels in literacy. Although the program focuses on repeated
reading of texts and running records, there is an important step for letter practice included in the
pullout process (Pinnell, Fried, & Estice, 1990). In the Working with Letters part of Reading
Recovery, children use individual magnetic letters to create words and engage in word analysis
throughout story reading. This activity occurs at various points in the lesson as children record
words in their writing books. These letters are also helpful during the “writing a message”
portion of Reading Recovering to practice spelling based on oral vocabulary (Pinnell et al.,
1990).
Good phonics instruction should involve a focus on words and then an opportunity to
apply that focus (Jennings, Caldwell, & Lerner, 2010). Explicit instruction within the embedded
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
17
phonics approach strongly supports this method, and teachers can introduce skills prior to
reading or during reading. Teachers and students can review the book several times to continue
applying more than just phonics skills.
Assessment
Synthetic Phonics Approach
Methods of systematic phonics instruction rely heavily on individual phonemes and
letter-sound correspondence. Therefore, studying grapheme-phoneme relations is most common
during assessment. In K-2 classrooms, phonics assessment can be used in informal ways to see
where students are in their understanding of word formation, letter sounds, and decoding
abilities. Phonics assessment is often given shortly or directly after whole class or group
instruction with synthetic teaching materials (Starrett, 2007). Some tests assess knowledge of
letter formation, beginning and ending consonants, and vowel sounds. Teachers can simply
assess letter knowledge of students through a Manuscript Alphabet test, in which students fill in
the blanks of the alphabet, and write each letter in uppercase and lowercase format (2007). A
suggested assessment for first and second graders is beginning and ending consonant tests. In a
beginning and ending consonant sound test, students receive a piece of paper with word endings
or beginnings on it. The teacher reads words orally, students listen as the teacher repeats the
word, and then they fill in the sound that they hear (Starrett, 2007). A Common Endings
assessment is appropriate for systematic and analytic phonics assessment. During this test,
students are provided with a list of word endings and they are supposed to fill in the blank with
any consonant that will make a word.
These tests can be useful for instruction based upon curriculum requirements and
instructional approaches. They are short and to the point, meant for diagnostic purposes only.
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
18
They can be examples to show parents during parent-teacher conferences, and theoretically show
student successes or needs in phonics (Starrett, 2007). The examples listed above are not
intended for grading, instead simply to give feedback and differentiate instruction for individual
needs.
In Diagnostic Reading Scales, there are eight supplementary tests for phonics. The final
eight tests are typically representative of a synthetic phonics program. They assess consonant
sounds, vowel sounds, consonant blends and digraphs, common syllables or phonograms,
blending, letter sounds, initial consonant substitution, and auditory discrimination (Spache,
1972). The benefit of testing such isolated skills is that the students have no opportunity to use
context clues.
Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty was created to observe the reading performance of
students (Durrell, 1955). There are multiple sub-tests that measure weaknesses and bad habits
during reading, and three specific phonics sub-tests, the Phonic Spelling of Words Test, the
Spelling Test, and the Handwriting Test. The purpose of the first test is to measure a student’s
ability to spell words as they sound. This is a very synthetic form of testing phonics skills. It is
not a generic knowledge of sounds test, which gives it more validity, because it measures the
specific skill of knowing phonemes in words (1955). In the primary Hearing Sounds in Words
tests, children are to separate initial and final sounds in spoken words. Teachers dictate words
one at a time, and the child must identify the word in which the initial or final sound matches that
of the dictated word. The words that students choose from are difficult, and they may not even
know how to read them. However, they should recognize the sound in the dictated word and
match it to the letter in the written, more difficult word. This indicates the distinct testing of
letters corresponding to isolated sounds (Durrell, 1955).
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
19
Another form of phonics assessment is the Names Test. The Names Test allows teachers
to assess students’ decoding skills by using one and two syllable names. Patricia Cunningham
developed the Names Test to assess students’ decoding abilities in second grade and above
(Cunningham, 1990). The most relevant information for lower elementary teachers is responses
to two syllable names. Cunningham selected names as the assessment material because they are a
type of word not often seen in print, yet present in most children’s listening vocabularies
(Cunningham, 1990). Her goal was to develop a list of 25 first and last names that would
measure the ability to decode unfamiliar words. She selected 62 names that met four different
criteria: 1) the names are not too common, 2) the names are fully decodable with vowel rules
and/or analogy approaches to decoding, 3) the names represent some of the most common
English spelling patterns, and 4) the names represent a equal number of long and short names
(1990).
This test is a way for teachers to assess how well students decode words that are in
students’ listening vocabulary, but not in sight vocabulary. For second grade students, teachers
should be concerned when students cannot pronounce one-syllable names. Similar to the
nonsense words tests, the most common mistake at this age according to Cunningham (1990)
was that students wouldn’t even try to pronounce the longer names, they would only pronounce
the first syllable, or they would guess a big word that started like the name on the list.
Cunningham believes that this information can reveal instructional recommendations. For
example, second graders with these problems might benefit from instruction on decoding longer
words (Cunningham, 1990), or analyzing words using an analogous strategy. There are two
limitations of the Names Test. One is that there were very few three-syllable names, however
this is not as applicable for second graders. Also, there is a lack of ethnic names. Given the
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
20
diversity in this country, this can affect performance due to students’ different background
knowledge of names (1990).
Mather, Sammons, & Schwartz (2006) used a Names Test as an alternative to a nonsense
word test, by adapting Cunningham’s (1990) test. They believed that nonword reading was seen
as a nonsensical task that had no application to the real world. Therefore, they reordered the
names by difficulty level and adapted names to work for first graders and struggling readers
(Mather, Sammons, & Schwartz, 2006). The study tested 443 children at the beginning of second
grade. 4.5% of students were receiving special education and 3.8% of students were Englishlanguage learners. The Early Names Test was also administered to 30 fourth and fifth grade
students who were in special education resource classes. The test was administered individually
in a quiet environment. All errors were written above the names, and the total number of first and
last names read correctly was recorded. Out of 60 first and last names, the average score for the
second graders was 43, and a statistical test revealed a high estimate of reliability. Out of the 30
fourth and fifth grade students, the average correct pronunciation was 34 names.
These results have several implications for instruction, and comparison of the two groups
is also useful to the authors. The lower success of the fourth and fifth grade students showed
unsuccessful decoding abilities, and gave further reason to believe that the second grade students
were employing such strategies (Mather et al., 2006). For second grade students who struggled
with the test, the authors of the study suggest some instructional strategies. These students should
work more with word study activities to increase their linguistic awareness because teaching
children about regularities in the English language is more productive than teaching them
phonics and spelling rules (2006). The second grade students who read all of the names with
ease, have probably mastered early phonics skills, and instructional time should not be wasted on
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
21
teaching grapheme-phoneme relationships. This is a problem in most synthetic phonics
programs. The results of this study support more embedded and analytic instruction to increase
knowledge of how language works. This test might not reveal revolutionary results for
instructional implications, but it does a good job of targeting a specific skill, decoding.
Analytic Phonics Approach
Diagnostic Reading Scales is a test set that assesses patterns of reading skills, such as
word attack, word analysis, sight word recognition, and auditory discrimination (Spache, 1972).
The scales begin for first grade readers and consist of three word recognition lists, and eight
supplementary phonics tests. The word lists are intended to discover how a student analyzes
words and how he or she recognizes sight words in isolation. Words in this section are only
counted as correctly read if they are pronounced immediately with no pause (1972). This
indicates a heavy emphasis on memorization and automaticity. There is no context in which to
analyze the words, so students must rely on their explicitly taught word identification skills.
Another form of decoding assessment is the use of non-words and nonsense words tests.
Nonsense word reading helps eliminate use of prior word knowledge during phonics testing and
requires students to apply the phonics principles directly to decoding (Mather, Sammons, &
Schwartz, 2006). However, students may see this as a useless task. Some students refuse to
attempt to pronounce nonsense words, and others will attempt to change nonsense words into
real words using word recognition abilities or beginning and ending letter-sound correspondence
(2006).
One study investigated decoding assessment from an onset-rime perspective
(Cunningham, Erickson, Spadorcia, Koppemhaver, Cunningham, Yoder, & McKenna, 1999).
The authors of this study were skeptical of a nonsense word assessment because of an additional
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
22
strategy students might need to decode unfamiliar words. The onset-rime part of the assessment
is most closely related to an analytic assessment, as the rime part refers to a word family. 128
first and second grade students in a public elementary school were administered four tests. The
authors argue against the use of a nonword assessment for their specific purposes, because they
believe decoding nonsense words requires an additional ability (1999). This ability was
illustrated when one student knew both onsets of d and dr, but could only correctly decode dash,
not drash (Cunningham et al., 1999, p. 407). Nonwords may be harder to decode because they
requires task-specific kind of self-regulation, which decreases the validity of nonsense word
assessments of decoding ability.
Embedded Phonics Approach
A miscue analysis can assess students in multiple ways with the option to use authentic
texts (Jennings, Caldweel, & Lerner, 2010). It is typically administered during an informal
reading inventory, one on one with a student. Miscue analyses are designed to measure
comprehension and phonics skills. The way to use it for phonics assessment is to analyze which
particular letter-sound patterns students use. For example, they could be using the beginning
sounds, ending sounds, or a combination of beginning, middle, and ending sounds. Students may
also be using letter knowledge to read a word by using the form of the letter, not the sound it
makes (2010). This type of assessment allows a teacher to see how a student is combining their
comprehension and phonics strategies.
Retrospective miscue analysis was designed to help students recognize their own
mistakes and learn from them (Goodman, 1996). During these procedures, students reflect on
their own reading process. Teachers can pick out miscues for the students to review or students
can choose miscues themselves. Either method allows students to consider their roles as active
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
23
readers and to learn about themselves. This is a productive method for teachers to gather the
thoughts of students and assess reasons for mistakes.
Individual, group, or whole class instructional time can be dedicated to another informal
measure of phonics knowledge. Using a trade book that students are interested in, teachers can
identify words that the students might struggle with, and focus on those during instruction. This
can then be turned into a teaching strategy, similar to the Benchmark Approach lessons. Instead,
these lessons use an embedded approach with meaningful texts.
Learning Environment
A phonics-based classroom should include multiple types of print and text. Students need
to have opportunities to practice what they are explicitly taught and apply their knowledge to
activities and texts. Each of the three approaches to systematic phonics instruction requires some
sort of text, either for assessment purposes or practice. The teacher needs to be aware of the
impact that texts have on children’s learning (Barr, Blachowicz, Bates, Katz, & Kaufman, 2007).
Texts that support various aspects of phonics instruction are phonetically controlled, trade books,
predictable or patterned, or contain high-frequency words. Each type provides opportunities for
students to gain proficiency in various reading skills, but a teacher needs to encourage variety.
Too much reliance on one type of text to improve one skill or strategy can inhibit learning of
other strategies (2007).
Decodable books are associated closely with synthetic phonics instruction in the lower
grades. They are highly controlled texts, which contain patterned language and repetition
(Savage, 2001). Decodable and controlled texts are associated most often with synthetic phonics.
They focus on segmenting words into letters, sounding them out, and blending them together.
Some texts might be predictable. In these books, context supports word recognition and children
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
24
use more meaning cues to figure out words (Stahl, Duffy-Hester, & Stahl, 1998). These books
can be used for phonics if teachers draw specific attention to words in the text. Poetry is another
positive resource to have in the classroom. Rhyming poetry is a good way for teachers to
reinforce analytic phonics instruction. Students are able to segment words, identify word
families, and use an onset-rime word identification strategy (Savage, 2001).
To support phonics instruction, the walls of the classroom and other areas should contain
a variety of printed materials. Word walls are a crucial part of a literacy rich classroom,
particular to any type of phonics instruction. The wall should be visible from anywhere in the
room that children might be writing (Lapp, Flood, Moore, & Nichols, 2005). Having multiple
word walls is even better. The English language has many exception words that are not
phonetically decodable. High-frequency sight words like these could be listed on one word wall.
Another word wall in the class could have high-frequency words that are decodable (2005). An
analytic approach based classroom should have high-frequency sight words on a wall that the
students have memorized. Learners should be able to manipulate the words, as well as recognize
the parts of the words (Gaskins, 2005).
Alphabet and phonics cards are good for any primary grade classroom. They are helpful
when letters are associated with pictures or words that students are able to recognize (Lapp et al.,
2005). The cards should be big and laminated, so that students can see them from around the
room. Smaller cards for individual use provide more practice for students. Another great
resource is the individual pocket chart (Beck, 2006). Pocket charts can be used for synthetic or
analytic instruction, depending on how letter cards are segmented. Students can also use this
resource in pairs by spelling words based on individual phoneme sounds.
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
25
In every classroom, there should be multiple spots for students to practice literacy skills.
Embedded approaches, such as guided reading, shared reading, and independent reading, require
areas for practice. A guided reading area where a teacher chooses to conduct the activity should
have phonics resources at the table, and word walls should be visible to the students (Lapp et al.,
2005). The same should be the case during shared reading. If a teacher is using a whole group
embedded approach, every student needs the opportunity to see letters and words on the walls.
Students should have spots for independent reading. Teachers need to encourage them to use the
resources posted around the room to strategically decode and recognize unknown words in the
text (2005).
Phonics instruction, especially synthetic, can consist of drills and worksheets, but this
doesn’t have to be the case. Teachers should try to make systematic instruction as social as
possible. Games, word sorts, and rhymes allow learners to experiment with sounds, and engage
with each other (Lapp et al., 2005). Yopp (as cited in Starrett, 2007) gives five general
recommendations to keep phonics activities engaging:

Keep a sense of playfulness and fun; avoid drill and rote memorization.

Use group settings that encourage interaction among children.

Encourage children’s curiosity about language and their experience with it.

Allow for, and be prepared for, individual differences.

Make sure the tone of the activity is not evaluative but rather fun and informal.
These recommendations should be taken into account when planning opportunities for
students to practice what they are taught. In addition to having a supportive and positive learning
environment, there must be sufficient visual reinforcement. Every classroom should be print rich,
but classrooms that stress phonics instruction should be even more decorated with resources.
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
26
Books to practice reading strategies are extremely important as well. It is harmful to only have
one type of practice book for students who are learning to read. In order to use their phonics
skills, they must also have the opportunity to understand what they are reading. Phonics is
necessary, but it is not sufficient for learning to read (Adams, 2004).
Implications
This paper is not a debate between opposite types of instructional reading approaches. It
is an investigation within reading approaches of three methods of phonics instruction and their
plausible effects on learners and learning. Scientific based research shows that systematic
phonics should be implemented as soon as students enter school, but how much time should be
spent on this instruction and what approach is best for learners? Good reading instruction might
involve embedded forms of phonics instruction, more direct approaches, or whole language
instruction (Stahl, 1992). The emphasis upon these elements should depend on the needs of
children and their background knowledge. Students with low literacy backgrounds might need
more direct instruction on letter-sound correspondence and alphabet knowledge (1992). Some
children might enter school with strong print knowledge backgrounds, and need more time to
interact with authentic reading activities.
Stanovich (1980) asserts that “good readers are superior at context-free word
recognition” (Stanovich, 1980, p. 64). Not only this, but they are better at comprehending large
text passages. Stanovich found that readers who do not have sufficient alphabet knowledge or
phonemic awareness tend to over rely on context to decode words. This poses a problem when a
student gets older and texts become more difficult. Without vocabulary and word recognition
strategies, a student will not comprehend passages nor have other strategies to rely on. Therefore,
teachers need to teach phonics skills and strategies as well as comprehension strategies in an
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
27
integrated, systematic embedded approach. This way there will not be an over reliance on one or
the other.
One method of combining skills is a cross-checking method. During this activity the
teacher writes a sentence with one word covered (Jennings, Caldwell, & Lerner, 2010). Students
are supposed to use phonics clues and context clues to identify the word. First, students read the
sentence, and then offer suggestions of what the word might be. After suggestions, the teacher
uncovers the letters of the word one by one, and all suggested words that do not begin with the
first letter are crossed off. Once all the letters are uncovered the teacher emphasizes that although
the word might fit the context, the pronunciation must also match the letters. Another method of
using multiple strategies is a four-step strategy. Students learn the steps that skilled readers take
to identify words that they do not know. They use context clues first, then phonics, and lastly
structural analysis clues. The four steps are (Jennings et al., 2010, p. 200):
1. If you don’t know a word in your reading, first reread the sentence and try to figure it out.
(context clues)
2. If that doesn’t work, sound out the first part and reread the sentence. (phonics slues)
3. If you still don’t know it, look for word endings and try to figure out the base word.
(structural analysis clues)
4. If you still haven’t figured it out, sound out the whole word. Remember you may have to
change a few sounds to make the word make sense. (phonics clues)
The balanced method within this strategy is the direct instruction given before this activity.
Teachers can explicitly teach phonics through analogy or blending of single phonemes.
As stated earlier, the alphabetic principle is the goal of phonics instruction according to
Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows (2001). If this is the case then systematic phonics cannot reflect
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
28
the amount of positive effects that researchers claim it has. It does not seem that knowledge that
letters are linked to sounds should be the ultimate goal of instruction. The goal should be
improved reading and effective intervention. Ways to do this include systematic phonics
instruction integrated into a total reading program (Stahl, 1992). Phonics instruction should not
take up more than 25% of reading instruction time, according to Stahl (1992). Teachers should
vary their instruction by bringing in various types of text. A vast selection of book types will
increase practice of skills that students are struggling with. For example, if a student is struggling
with phonemic decoding strategies then they should practice more with decodable texts
(McEwan, 2009). Students who are lacking this ability should not be reading predictable texts
because they may already be relying too much on context, or they may need to work with more
common sight words. Good reading instruction is difficult, and involves extensive knowledge of
students’ backgrounds and reading skills. Requiring teachers to implement synthetic phonics
instruction in their classes might not benefit every student, especially those who enter school
with alphabet knowledge (Stahl, 1992).
The strongest implication from this research is that phonics is necessary but not sufficient
to learn to read. This includes the need for explicit instruction as well as use in an embedded
approach. Classrooms must be print rich and allow students to practice the skills that they are
directly taught. The focus of good phonics instruction should be on reading words, not learning
rules (Stahl, 1992). When experienced readers read, they do not refer to a set of rules that they
have memorized. They use analytic techniques to recognize familiar parts of words (1992).
Effective decoders do not see words as a set of rules. Rules will only get beginning readers so far
until they come across the many exceptions in the English language.
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
29
Conclusion
During my research of these three instructional approaches to teaching phonics, I’ve
realized that instruction depends on the learner. Some students enter school having had much
more exposure to text and reading than other students. These students already have background
knowledge to apply phonics instruction to. However, students who have had little exposure to
text before entering school will struggle even more with the abstract concepts of letters and
sounds unless they are reinforced by text exposure. The point from all this is that teachers must
balance their methods of phonics instruction based upon the individual learner. The environment
within a phonics-based classroom does not differ on the need for a vast classroom library or print
displays all over the room. Any form of exposure is effective to encourage visual learning and
practice. Materials and activities need to involve more than reciting sounds and letters. Students
can engage in embedded experiences such as shared and guided reading. They can also use
manipulatives to reinforce learning. Phonics instruction may positively influence future reading
progress, but the type of instruction and the amount of instruction needs to be planned and
balanced based on learners’ needs.
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
30
References
Adams, M.J. (2004). Modeling the connections between word recognition and reading. In T.B. Ruddell
& N.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1219-1243).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Barr, R., Blachowicz, C.L., Bates, A., Katz, C., & Kaufman, B. (2007). Reading diagnosis for teachers:
An instructional approach (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Bear, D.E. (1964). Two methods of teaching phonics: A longitudinal study. The Elementary School
Journal.
Beck, I.L. (2006). Making sense of phonics: The hows and whys. New York: The Guilford Press.
Cunningham, P. (1990). The Names Test: A quick assessment of decoding ability. The Reading
Teacher, 44, 124-129.
Cunningham, J.W., Erickson, K.A., Spadorcia, S.A., Koppenhaver, D.A., Cunningham, P.A., Yoder,
D.A., & McKenna, M.C. (1999). Assessing decoding from an onset-rime perspective. Journal of
Literacy Research, 31 (4), 391-414.
Cunningham, P.M. (1980). Applying a compare/contrast process to identifying polysyllabic words.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 12 (3).
Duffy, G.G., & Roehler, L.R. (1986). Improving classroom reading instruction: A decision-making
approach. New York, NY: Random House.
Durrell, D.D. (1955). Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty. In Schell, L.M. (Ed.), Diagnostic and
criterion-referenced reading tests: Review and evaluation. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
31
Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Stahl, S.A., & Willows, D.M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps
students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 71, 393-447.
Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Willows, D.M., Schuster, B.V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001).
Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National
Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36 (3), 250-287).
Goodman, K. (1993). Phonics phacts: A common-sense look at the most controversial issue affecting
today’s classroom!. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, Y.M. (1996). Revaluing readers while readers revalue themselves: Retrospective Miscue
Analysis. The Reading Teacher, 49 (8), 600-609.
Jennings, J.H., Caldwell, J.S., & Lerner, J.W. (2010). Reading problems: Assessment and teaching
strategies (6th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnston, R., & Watson, J. (2005). The effects of synthetic phonics teaching of reading and spelling
attainment: A seven year longitudinal study. Retrieved 8 May 2010, from
http://www.scotland.gove.uk/Resource/Doc/36496/0023582.pdf
Lapp, D., Flood, J., Moore, K., & Nichols, M. (2005). Teaching literacy in first grade. New York, NY:
The Guildford Press.
Mather, N., Sammons, J., & Scwartz, J. (2006). Adaptations of the Names Test: Easy-to-use phonics
assessment. The Reading Teacher, 61 (3), 204-212.
McEwan, E.K. (2009). Teach them all to read: Catching kids before they fall through the cracks.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Morris, D. (2010). Interventions to develop phonological and orthographical systems. In R. Allington &
A. McGill-Franzen (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Disabilities. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.
THREE APPROACHES TO PHONICS INSTRUCTION
32
Moustafa, M., & Maldonado-Colon, E. (1999). Whole-to-part phonics instruction: Building on what
children know to help them know more. The Reading Teacher, 52 (5), 448-458.
National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Summary Report. Teaching
children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading
and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Pinnell, G.S., Fried, M.D., & Estice, R.M. (1990). Reading Recovery: Learning how to make a
difference. The Reading Teacher, 282-295.
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Savage, J.F. (2001). Sound it out! Phonics in a balanced reading program. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill
Spache, G.D. (1972). Diagnostic reading scale (2nd ed.). In Schell, L.M. (Ed.), Diagnostic and criterionreferenced reading tests: Review and evaluation. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Stahl, S.A. (1992). Saying the “p” word: Nine guidelines for exemplary phonics instruction. The
Reading Teacher, 45 (9), 618-625.
Stahl, S.A., Duffy-Hester, A.M., & Stahl, K.A.D. (1998). Theory and research into practice: Everything
you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid to ask). Research Quarterly, 33 (3), 338-355.
Stanovich, K.E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the
development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 1, 32-64.
Starrett, E.V. (2007). Teaching phonics for balanced reading (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.