“To THRASS or not to THRASS”
submitted by Peter Burgess.
Abstract.
This study examines the suitability of the commercially packaged
phonics scheme, THRASS for use in adult literacy programmes. An
evaluation of the scheme is made against recent research into phonics
instruction strategies and criticisms. Elements of THRASS, noted in
research studies as effective in the development of reading, writing and
spelling skills are identified. The study concludes the use of THRASS
resources can be made compatible with whole language and functional
literacy approaches and the THRASS approach is suited to the learning
styles of adult students.
Introduction:
Fuelled by a worrying perception of declining literacy standards,
in recent years there has been a rapid resurgence of interest in intensive
phonics instruction. Growing community concerns and demands for
simplistic, immediate solutions have provided a fertile ground for the
acceptance of commercially packaged phonics schemes. In the UK and
USA, with the assistance of government legislation (‘Reading
Excellence Act’, 1999 and ‘National Literacy Strategy’, 1998),
programmes such as Spalding, Jolly Phonics, Direct Instruction, Success
for All and THRASS have become commonplace in schools.
In Australia, the phonics boom is rapidly gaining momentum.
Many commercial schemes are already well known in our primary
schools. THRASS, in particular, is quickly spreading into Queensland
schools. Since January, 2000, THRASS has conducted more than 50
regional workshops in Queensland.
Although at present the target market for most commercial
phonics schemes is not adult literacy students, it is probable that such
schemes will soon have a substantial impact on Australian adult literacy
education. The quick fix promises of certain commercial packages are
likely to hold strong appeal for struggling adult literacy students.
Packaged programmes may also be seen as beneficial to an area of
education which relies heavily upon volunteer tutors. The estimated
2.6 million adult Australians with very poor literacy skills, assessed at
Level 1 by Australian Bureau of Statistics (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 1996, p.3) are therefore likely to be recognized as a potential,
attainable market for commercial phonics.
2
Any intrusion of commercial phonics into adult education
therefore needs to be carefully monitored and evaluated. This paper
examines whether the British scheme, THRASS should be included in
adult literacy programmes. An evaluation of its effectiveness for
teaching reading, writing and spelling skills to adult students will be
made with reference to recent phonics research and the experiences of
adult students and teachers. Special focus will be on whether this
method of instruction is compatiable with the present goals of adult
literacy education practice such as whole language, functional and
critical literacy. THRASS’s ability to cater for the demands and
differing abilities of adult learners will also be assessed.
Current research literature will be reviewed to identify the key
elements of good phonics instruction and to examine the evidence for
and against their effectiveness. Under the heading, ‘THRASS Report’,
the objectives, resources and teaching strategies used by THRASS will
be reported. Results of a student survey of perceptions of the
effectiveness of THRASS will also be documented. The main features
of the approach and the survey results will then be analysed. In
particular, key elements identified in the research review, that are
common to THRASS, will be targeted for discussion and analysis.
Finally, conclusions will be drawn about the effectiveness and suitability
of THRASS for inclusion in adult literacy programmes.
Methodology:
The report is based on an in-depth study of research literature,
3
participation at a THRASS workshop and a small scale survey of adult
students who are using THRASS.
Using the ARIS Journal Database and ERIC Database, recent
studies pertaining to phonics instruction were consulted with a focus on
the various types of phonics instruction and word recognition strategies,
their criticisms and their use with adult learners. Where possible
Australian studies within an adult context were sought.
The aims and strategies of the THRASS approach were studied at
a two day workshop for teachers wishing to use THRASS. The
Teachers’ Manual (Davies and Ritchie, 1996), THRASS website
(www.THRASS.com), 1997 Conference tapes (Davies and Ritchie,
1997) and numerous newspaper articles promoting THRASS were also
consulted. A lack of independent research data was noted as an
obstacle to research in this area.
The attitudes and opinions of adult literacy students were also
surveyed to assess their perceptions of the effectiveness of THRASS.
Approaches to TAFE Colleges in Queensland for participants revealed
that THRASS was not being used in any literacy classes in these
institutes, although its use was being considered by a number of
Colleges. Survey participants were also unsuccessfully sought by
posting a request on the THRASS website.
The size of the survey was therefore limited to a small sample.
This consisted of a class of unemployed adults who are completing
literacy training under the Federal Government’s Mutual Obligation
initiative at the Caloundra Skill Centred agency. They were selected
4
on the basis that they had received at least 3 months instruction using
THRASS.
Surveys were administered within the classroom by the
teacher.
The key features of the THRASS approach were then reported.
Collected data and research was analysed with reference to these
features.
Literature Review:
Over the past couple of decades, whole language advocates and
phonics supporters have maintained a fierce battle over how reading and
writing should be taught. This long running debate has presented
5
literacy teachers with a real dilemma as each approach, although based
on competing philosophies, appears to be legitimately successful.
Enormous research bases convincingly document the effectiveness of
each of the opposing methods. (Pressley, 1998, p.26-27; Hempenstall,
1999, p.7). The futility of the debate between phonics and whole
language has therefore become obvious and, as a result, strategies for
resolving the conflict have turned to the development of a balanced
approach. Many teachers are now seeking the advantages of a
compromise methodology. Studies by Freppen and Dahl (1998), Fink
(1998), Pressley (1998), Rycik (1997), Stanovich and Stanovich (1995),
and Thistlethwaite (1994) support this proposition.
Fink’s study of literacy development in 60 successful men and
women with dyslexia attributed their literacy development to ‘avid
reading in a content area of passionate, personal interest’ combined with
systematic phonics instruction (Fink, 1998, p.335). He concluded
“Both systematic phonics and literature-based approaches need to be
included simultaneously in a thoughtful, theoretically sound, integrated
program of instruction” (Fink, 1998, p.337). Pressley (1998) reviews
and analyzes evidence covering the last 20 years to produce a
convincing case for a balanced approach to reading instruction that
combines the strengths of whole language with a skills emphasis
approach. He supports his argument for balance by stressing the
similarities that exist between the two approaches. Thistlethwaite
(1994) acknowledges the importance of phonics but suggests phonics
and other word analysis activities should be placed in proper
perspective. Her suggestions provide practical advice for
implementing a balanced approach. For instance, “Teachers and tutors
might consider an approach in which the reader first reads the whole text
6
and then participates in word analysis activities” (Thistlethwaite, 1994,
p.19).
Unfortunately, a truly balanced approach is difficult to define and
various interpretations have arisen. Many whole language advocates
argue for an extremely minimal phonics approach. Routman, while
declaring ‘it would be irresponsible and inexcusable not to teach
phonics’ (Routman,1996, p.91), has also stated that phonics should
only be taught as an aid to the ‘ongoing process of getting meaning from
a text or producing a text, and only as needed’ (Routman, 1996, p.339).
Likewise, Frank Smith has argued,
No child or adult learner needs to be subjected to anything
more than the benign provision of specific information
about phonics when it helps them personally with a specific
problem and only to the extent that it helps them at the
time, giving assistance, not instruction.’
(Smith, 1999, p.155).
In spite of such views, there is also real danger that due to media
influences and government interventions, such as Britain’s National
Reading Strategy (1998) and USA’s Reading Excellence Act (1999),
reading instruction is moving towards an over reliance on phonics.
Chall (1997) describes how reading methods have swung from a phonics
base to whole language and now are moving back again to phonics.
Palmer, an advocate of phonics instruction in Britain, has expressed
alarm at recent trends in British education. She warns, ‘Let’s not get
carried away! Phonics can help but it’s not the Holy Grail, not any
more than real books was.’ (Palmer, 1997, p.20).
The fragility of a balanced approach is obvious and, therefore, the
task of devising an instructional programme that balances phonics with
whole language is a major challenge. Criticisms of both approaches
7
need to be carefully considered.
Detailed evaluation of the various
phonics methodologies should occur so that the very best elements of
instruction may be identified.
There are essentially two approaches that can be employed to
teach phonics - explicit, synthetic phonics or implicit, analytic phonics.
In an analytic or implicit approach, phonics instruction is embedded in
the context of reading. When an unfamiliar word is met in a text, the
student is encouraged to break the word down into ‘onset’ and ‘rime’.
Firstly the initial letter is looked at and then the student determines the
rhyming family that the rest of the word belongs to. Analytic phonics
focuses on looking at patterns in words and context clues. (Hinds, 1999,
p.12).
Explicit or synthetic phonics introduces students to the 44
phonemes or sounds associated with letters that exist in the English
language. They are taught to identify their corresponding letters
(phonographs) in the initial, middle and final position in words, and then
to blend these letters into words. Letters and their sounds are therefore
taught in isolation (Stahl, Duffy-Hester and Stahl, 1998, p.344).
Many major comparative analyses and reviews of analyses (Chall,
1983: Adams, 1990; Foorman et al., 1997) have favoured the
effectiveness of direct explicit synthetic phonics instruction.
Astonishing results have also been claimed by some explicit phonics
practitioners. A most notable recent example is Scotland’s St Andrews
University ‘Clackmannanshire study’, conducted by Dr Rhona Johnston
and Dr Joyce Watson. (Hinds, 1999; Mendick, 1998; Morrice, 1998.)
The one year study involved 300 students at 8 primary schools in
8
Clackmannanshire. Through daily 20 minute lessons, all 44 phonemes
were introduced to the children in the first 8 weeks of the study. This
rapid delivery speed is characteristic of many explicit phonics
programmes and is regarded as ‘beneficial for low achievers who
otherwise have a slow start in reading’ (Hinds, 1999, p.12) After one
year of instruction, students in the Clackmannanshire schools were
observed to be 7 months ahead with reading and 9 months ahead with
spelling when compared to other schools. (Mendick, 1998, p.7)
At
Deerpark Primary, before the study, only 48% of students were reading
at or above their chronological ages. A year later, after being taught
using synthetic phonics, 93% of students were reading at or above their
chronological age. Results for boys and girls were also almost identical
(Morrice, 1998, p.16).
Despite such results, whole language/ analytic phonics advocates
raise important questions about some of the key elements of explicit
phonics. For instance, many question the necessity to teach phonics in
isolation? Weaver claims,
Most children will consciously learn common phonics
patterns given ample opportunity to read environmental
print and predictable and enjoyable materials, and ample
opportunity to write with invented (constructive) spelling.
(Weaver, 1994, p.197.)
However, Templeton and Morris, when looking at how students
spell, concluded that ‘for most students.... the explicit examination and
exploration of words outside of actual reading and writing are
necessary.’ Instruction should ‘begin at the level of individual letters
and sounds, and progressively advance through pattern and meaning.”
(Templeton and Morris, 1999, p.105). Hempenstall believes at-risk
students in particular need to practice ‘sounds in isolation from stories if
9
they are to build a memory of each sound-symbol relationship.’
(Hempenstall, 1999, p.10). Stahl agrees ‘it is important for children to
look at words in isolation at times without the distractions of context’
but warns that this should not dominate practice. ‘Good phonics
instruction might contain a moderate amount of word practice in
isolation, enough to get children to recognize words automatically but
not enough to drive them to boredom.’ (Stahl, Duffy-Hester and Stahl,
1999, p.342).
That explicit phonics instruction is sometimes regarded as boring
may largley be due to the removal of instruction from meaningful text.
‘Phonics, in isolation, is difficult for most teachers to make interesting
and relevant to real reading’ (Elley, 1996. p.1). Stahl, Duffy-Hester
and Stahl suggest this problem can be avoided ‘if the instruction is kept
brisk, to the point, and does not take up an excessive amount of time
each day.’ (Stahl, Duffy-Hester and Stahl, 1999, p.342).
Explicit phonics instruction occurring outside the context of real
text is often dominated by the use of worksheets. Thistlethwaite
warns,
Many adults in literacy programs are ‘hung up’ on
completing exercises in phonics texts. This isolated drill
is often frustrating for them, especially as a before
reading exercise.’
(Thistlethwaite, 1994, p.26).
Leinhardt, Zigmond and Cooley (1981) study of reading instruction
indicated that the amount of time students spend on worksheets does not
relate to gains in reading achievement. Instead time spent reading
connected text was most effective.
Phonics taught in isolation is also severely criticised by linguists.
10
‘Linguists repeatedly have warned phonics teachers that attempts to
make speech sounds in isolation ... do not result in the authentic sound
of the phoneme, the sound heard when the phoneme is spoken in a
syllable or word.’ (Groff, 1986, p.920).
Teachers must also determine the degree of balance that should
occur between phonics instruction and other reading strategy
instructions. According to Goodman (1967), readers use semantic cues,
syntactic cues and grapho-phonic cues to identify words in a written
text. He refers to this process as a ‘psycho-linguistic guessing game’.
Whole language advocates generally regard phonics as a strategy to be
used when all others have failed.
‘The first alternative and preference is - to skip over the puzzling
word. The second alternative is to guess what the unknown word
might be. And the final and least preferred alternatvie is to sound
the word out. Phonics, in other words, comes last.’
(Smith, 1979, p.66).
Thistlethwaite suggests the use of the grapho-phonic cuing system as a
support system but warns that ‘although attending to word recognition is
certainly important to adult readers, focusing on word recognition
during initial reading of the selection may decrease attention to
meaning.’ (Thistlethwaite, 1994, p.21). There is belief that a reliance
on grapho-phonic cues can inhibit reading due to an over-emphasis on
sounding out. (Elley, 1996, p.1).
However much recent research has questioned the view that
semantic and syntactic cues are more important than grapho-phonic
cues. (Stanovich 1986; Waterman & Lewandowski, 1993; Nicholson,
1991). Gough and Hillinger (1980) argue that prediction based on
context cues is not an efficient strategy. Words within text are not
easily predictable. ‘Even proficient adults can predict ‘the next word’
11
successfully only 25% of the time.’ (Elley, 1996). Eye movement
research as detailed by Just and Carpenter (1987) indicates good readers
do not skip over unknown words in an attempt to predict meaning.
Instead skilled readers process the individual letters in words. Pressley
also argues that skilled readers do not depend on meaning cues to
decode words. He suggests that good readers are able to automatically
recognize common letter combinations ‘such as -kle, pre- and -ing’. As
an example he suggests we note our differing ability to read the
following words, ‘retuckable’ and ‘ekuteracbl’. (Pressley, 1998, p.45).
Pressley sites a number of studies that confirm that skilled readers sound
out words that they do not know.. (Pressley, 1998, p.129). Nicholson’s
study of how children read (1991) also showed that it is weaker readers,
rather than good readers, who are more dependent on context cues. The
inference from such studies is that instruction dominated by semantic
and syntactic cues should be avoided.
That literacy achievements for reading disabled adults is
dependent on the development of phonological awareness has been
demonstrated by a number of studies. Stanovich states,
‘If there is a specific cause of reading disability it resides in the
area of phonological awareness. Slow development in this area
delays early code breaking progress and initiates a cascade of
interacting achievement failures and motivational problems.’
(Stanovich, 1986, p.393).
Greenberg, Ehri and Perin’s comparison of adult literacy students to
3rd-5th grade students, matched at the same reading level, showed that
although sight word reading was comparable, the phonological
performance of the adults was below the level of the 3rd grade students.
(Greenberg, Ehri & Perin, 1997). Read and Ruyter’s (1985) study of
adult prisoners at 3rd and 4th grade level revealed their phonetic
judgements were characteristic of pre-school and year 1 students.
12
Research by Elbro, Nielsen and Petersen on adults with dyslexia
showed ‘adults who reported a history of difficulties in learning to read
were distinctly disabled in phonological coding in reading, compared to
adults without similar histories (Elbro, Nielsen & Petersen, 1994,
p.205).
‘Adults with a history of reading difficulties were poor readers
of words they had not seen before..... In many cases, the adults
reported that they had completely overcome their reading
disabilities, but when asked to read novel words they hesitated
and admitted that this was difficult for them.’
(Elbro, Nielsen, Petersen, 1994, p.220)
A study of the differences between good and poor spellers by
Kamhi and Hinton clearly indicates a need for programmes aimed at the
development of phonological awareness. The study showed that
although ‘poor spellers may rely more on visual strategies than good
spellers... this is only because of their limited phonological knowledge.’
(Kamhi and Hinton, 2000, p.37).
Pressley concludes that the importance of phonological awareness
to reading acquisition and proficiency is therefore undeniable.
‘The scientific evidence is simply overwhelming that letter-sound
cues are more important in recognizing words than either
semantic or syntactic cues.’
(Pressley, 1998, p.16).
Yet phonics instruction is regarded by many educators as
impractical due to the lack of phonetic regularity in the English
language.
As Smith points out ‘Unpredictability is not the exception in
English spelling-sound correspondences, it is the rule.’ (Smith, 1999,
p.152). It is argued that the number of rules is too vast and most rules
are too unreliable to be taught effectively. Thistlethwaite cites the work
13
of Clymer (1963) to give examples of unreliable rules that are commonly
taught in an explicit phonics approach.. For instance the rule “when two
vowels go walking the first does the talking is about 97% reliable for the
oa digraph but ‘it is much less reliable for other vowel combinations: ea
and ai are only 65% reliable; for ei, ie, and oo, the rule is not reliable at
all. In fact, Clymer (1963) found that, generally speaking, this rule
worked only 45% of the time.’ (Thistlethwaite, 1994, p.25).
Many whole language teachers argue therefore that phonic rules
should not be taught. However, Stahl, Duffy-Hester and Stahl point out
that,
the lack of applicability does not mean that teachers should
never state a rule. Often a rule is useful for clarifying the
aspect of the word that is under study. But it does mean
students should not be required to memorize rules, nor should
a teacher give students words and have them tell which phonics
rule applies.
(Stahl, Duffy-Hester and Stahl, 1998, p.342).
Templeton and Morris agree spelling rules should not be taught but
believe explicit teacher-directed instruction is still an effective approach.
This is defined as ‘organizing the examination of words in such a way as
to guide students to an understanding of how spelling features and
patterns operate.’ (Templeton and Morris, 1999, p.109).
The importance of detecting and abstracting patterns within words
is advocated by a number of writers (Barnes, 1989; Bear, 1996;
Groff, 1981, Templeton, 1989).
Ehri states,
‘In teaching students about the regularities underlying words,
it is likely that lexical instantiation (that is, learning specific
words that exhibit the regularities under study) is a more
effective approach than teaching students to recite rules.’
(Ehri, 2000, p.33)
14
Ehri suggests that ‘using spelling patterns as well as grapho-phonemic
units to remember how to read and spell words allows students to
operate more efficiently and reduces their memory load.’ (Ehri, 2000,
p.22). She proposes a connection theory to explain how students
develop the ability to recognize sight words automatically. Teaching
recurring letter patterns assists a connection forming process which is
responsible for the rapid growth of sight vocabularies. (Ehri, 1995).
Teaching students to read new words by analogy to known words
or word parts is known as an analogy approach. Students are taught
how to decode words they do not know by using words or word parts
they do know. Word sorts are effective analogy based activities that
facilitate ‘the detection and abstraction of patterns and at the same time
re-enforce memory for the spelling of specific words.’ (Templeton and
Morris, 1999, p.109.) Templeton and Morris describe analogy as one
of the most powerful strategies for word recognition but stress that ‘it
should be modelled for students because many will not discover it on
their own.’ (Templeton and Morris, 1999, p.109). Stahl, Duffy-Hester
and Stahl’s analysis of research supporting analogy-based approaches
led them to also describe analogies as a very powerful teaching
approach, but warn that the student first needs to be able to use phonetic
cues.
Explicit phonics instruction is often delivered as part of a
pre-designed commercial programme. Smith (1999) argues loudly
against this aspect of phonics instruction. He believes pre-designed
packages weaken the teacher’s ability to make decisions on the spot in
response to any changing needs of individual students. Effective
teaching ‘requires teachers to interact with and be responsive to learners
15
personally, as individuals, not as items on an instructional chart or data
on an achievement record.’ (Smith, 1999, p.151).
It can be concluded that, although strong evidence supports the
need for programmes that develop phonological awareness, when
implementing a programme, no one aspect or strategy should be allowed
to dominate. For instance, while the degree to which explicit instruction
should occur needs to be examined, the benefits of analytic, implicit
phonics prove that it should not be disregarded. Research has also
shown that instruction should not be dominated by worksheets.
Memorizing spelling rules should be minimised. Instruction in the use of
semantic, syntactic and phonic cues should be balanced. Phonics in
isolation should not dominate the programme. A whole language,
literature-based approach needs to be integrated with phonics in a
carefully balanced way.
‘THRASS’ Report:
THRASS, an acronym for ‘Teaching Handwriting, Reading and
Spelling Skills’, is a pre-designed, commercial phonics scheme
consisting of more than 30 printed, audio, video and software resources.
Alan Davies, senior lecturer and educational psychologist at Manchester
Metropolitan University, originally devised the scheme to help adults
who were unable to read and write. In collaboration with Denyse
Ritchie, former lecturer at Western Australia’s Cowan University,
THRASS was adapted for use with children. Today, THRASS has
evolved into a successful commercial enterprise focusing on the
development and marketing of THRASS resources chiefly for children.
16
THRASS is based on a phonographic approach which recognizes
the development of phonemic awareness is a prerequisite to the
successful acquisition of literacy skills as pointed out in numerous
studies (Stanovich, 1986; Greenberg, Ehri & Perin, 1997; Read &
Ruyter, 1985; Apthorp, 1995; Elbro, Nielsen & Petersen, 1994;
Kambi & Hinton, 2000; Pressley, 1998).
Its main aim is to develop
in students a conscious understanding of the Phoneme-Grapheme
Principle so that they easily recognize the common spelling of each
phoneme.
Some children are not able to unconsciously determine
for themselves, from normal writing and reading
experiences and their reading of books, all the 44 phonemes
and many of the graphs, digraphs and trigraphs (graphemes)
that represent them. These children need to be taught these
phonemes and graphemes explicitly.
(Davies and Ritchie, 1996, p.17)
The centrepiece of the scheme is the THRASSCHART (Davies
and Ritchie, 1998). All learning activities are based on this reference
chart which provides students with a visual understanding of the various
letters and letter groups that can be used to represent the 44 phonemes of
spoken English. The chart consisits of a grid of 44 rectangles. Each
rectangle, known as a ‘phoneme box’ presents the most common
spelling choices for that phoneme. (See Figure 1.)
Students are able to
“see from the display that the phonemes of English are represented by
various one-letter spelling choices (graphs), two-letter spelling choices
(digraphs) and three-letter spelling choices (trigraphs).” (Davies, 1999,
p.46). The 24 consonant phonemes are grouped together, followed by
the 20 vowel phonemes. The chart acts as a decoding and encoding
tool which
re-inforces familiarity with common grapho-phonemic patterns.
17
On the THRASS WORD CHART each phoneme is also
illustrated by a basic sight word and graphic (Davies and Ritchie, 1998).
These referent words aim to enhance memory skills and to act as
‘hooks’ for students to add further phonographic knowledge.
The THRASS approach also requires students to be familar with
terminology such as phonemes, phonemic choices, graphs, digraphs,
trigraphs and quadgraphs. Students are thus encouraged to use
accurate language to describe and discuss the ways phonemes are
represented graphically.
Not all spelling choices associated with each phoneme are shown
on the THRASS chart. A chart showing all choices would be very
crowded with information and likely to be too difficult to use. Instead,
only the most common choices are shown and when other spelling
choices are known to exist, they are represented in the grapheme box by
an asterisk, known as the ‘Grapheme Catch-all’. For instance, the
asterisk shown in the [g gg *] box would represent other possible
spelling choices, or ‘Grapheme Catch-alls’, such as ghost, guitar and
18
league. When a student discovers a new way of spelling a sound
during reading or writing, he/she is encouraged to add it to the chart.
Through the use of the chart, THRASS aims to deliver phonics
instruction within the context of reading and writing.
THRASS
advocates, as do many linguists (Groff, 1986), that speech sounds
isolated from words and text are not authentic. For instance, when a
word is removed from the context of a sentence, its pronunciation is
often changed. The word education when pronounced in isolation
contains a distinct ‘d’ sound, but when used in a sentence, this sound is
voiced as a ‘g’.
Besides the Chart, the other main resources are an audio-tape
recording of the 44 phonemes, books of worksheets and assessment
items, a video for parents and an inter-active CD. The audio-tape is
especially important for providing practice in articulating the phonemes
and locating their appropriate boxes on the chart. Students are required
to simultaneously tap or touch the phoneme box as they hear and say the
phonemes. The rap style chants of phonemes attempt to make the
instruction brisk and fun.
Adult literacy students in a class using THRASS were surveyed
for their perception of the effectiveness of THRASS. (See Appendix 1.)
Results showed these students had a very positive view of the approach.
All believed ‘THRASS is a useful system for teaching spelling and
reading to adult literacy students.’ Every student also answered “yes”
to the question, ‘Would you like more class time spent on THRASS
activities.’ When asked to indicate, from a list, which skills THRASS
had helped them to improve, most students (73%) ticked more than one
19
skill.
In what way has THRASS been helpful to you?
Place a tick beside the skill that THRASS has
helped you to improve the most.
a) spelling
9
b) reading
7
c) writing
6
d) speaking
3
e) handwriting
3
However, when students were asked ‘When do you use the THRASS
Chart?’, the responses were less positive.
a)
b)
c)
only when the teacher directs me to..... 18%
whenever a word is too difficult to
read or spell .........
64%
never ....
18%
Analysis and Discussion:
THRASS resources present learning in a multi-sensory way.
While the large charts appeal to visual learners, the tape, video and CD,
plus the interactive nature of activities provide for auditory and
kinaesthetic learning styles. This is especially evident in touch/tap
activities promoted when listening to the audio tape. Students are also
encouraged to use the concrete act of handwriting to trace over the
graphemes as they are taught. “Name, Say and Write” is a repeated
strategy on worksheets. The varying abilities and learning styles of
adult students are therefore well catered for by the multi-sensory,
interactive nature of THRASS.
Elements that identify THRASS as an explicit synthetic approach
are easily identifiable. For instance, teacher-directed activities are
20
prevalent especially in the initial stages. The 44 phonemes are initially
taught in isolation from text. Delivery is rapid with students exposed,
via the chart, to the 44 sounds and their letter correspondences almost
immediately. Students are explicitly taught to identify phonographs
within words. Learning goals also are always made explicitly clear to
students. As Wisner (1988) concluded in his study of student
awareness of reading strategies, “it is the teacher being explicit about
language itself that is the basis of good teaching of literacy” (Wisner,
1988, p.267). Explicit awareness allows for conscious control of
language and competence in processing (Wisner, 1988, p.266).
However, strategies such as breaking words down into onset and
rime and identifying rhyming families, typical of analytic phonics
instruction, can also be found in THRASS.
For instance, when an
unfamiliar word is met in a text, the student is encouraged to ‘thrass it’.
This is akin to the strategy used in analytic phonics where unfamiliar
words are analysed by looking at familiar patterns within the word.
The student is taught to break up the word and then, by referring to the
phoneme boxes on the chart, locate familiar patterns that are present in
the word.
Lexical instantiation and decoding by analogy to known
grapho-phonemic units are therefore key features of the THRASS
approach. Through repeated and frequent use of the chart, the 120 sight
words that exhibit specific grapho-phonemic patterns are taught. It is
proposed that the recurring patterns in these words become so familiar
to students that when new words are met the connection forming
process, referred to by Ehri (1995), is activated and, as a result,
automatic sight word recognition rapidly improves.
21
Although THRASS, therefore, promotes explicit phonics
instruction, it also seeks to balance phonics instruction within a whole
language approach. THRASS emphasizes that it is a support
programme only and that it is not designed to be used in isolation from
reading and writing. (Davies and Ritchie, 1996, p.29 and p.31).
THRASS does not prescribe to the view that grapho-phonic cues are
more important than semantic or syntactic cues as reading strategies.
The manual warns that too much attention to grapho-phonic cues will
discourage student use of contextual cues. (Davies and Ritchie, 1996,
p.31). It suggests grapho-phonic cues be used after picture or context
cues.
When children cannot read a word using picture or
context cues, if it is appropriate for them to decode
the word, encourage them to break up the word into.......
(Davies and Ritchie, 1996, p31.)
THRASS, therefore, works on the premis that phonics instruction should
not compromise written expression or reading comprehension. The
THRASS Chart acts as a tool for students which they can use when
needed to get meaning from text or to produce text.
Worksheets, an often criticized aspect of phonics instruction
(Thistlethwaite, 1994; Leinhardt, Zigmond and Cooley, 1981) are an
integral feature of the THRASS approach. Books of ‘Phoneme Sheets’,
‘Grapheme Sheets’, ‘Blend Sheets’ and ‘Say, Name and Write Sheets’
are available for use with the Chart. However, their use is not
prescriptive nor designed to dominate instruction. THRASS is a
collection of resources that can be used flexibly depending on the needs
of individual students. A defined programme of instruction or an order
of delivery is not specified.
22
THRASS aims to provide a phonetically accurate method of
instruction based on authentic sounds. The importance of correct
articulation is stressed. Spelling rules are not taught due to their proven
unreliability. Also no recognition is given to the concept of silent
letters. ‘k’ in ‘knight’ , for example, is taught as part of the digraph
‘kn’. The ‘magic e’ does not exist but instead is part of a split digraph.
Further evidence of THRASS’ attention to accuracy is the prominent
recognition it gives to the ‘schwa’, the common but difficult phoneme
that often causes spelling mistakes. Nine spelling choices occupy its
phoneme box which is the largest on the chart (Davies and Ritchie,
1998).
Graphics and presentation aimed at children, may exclude some
THRASS resources from adult use or require them to be modified.
However, the Chart and THRASS methodology encompass many
principles of adult learning. The adult student’s preference for
self-directed learning is met by THRASS’ flexible but explicit learning
goals. Lorraine Smelter, a teacher using THRASS with secondary boys
with behaviour disorders, explains,
Learning the chart allows them to self-regulate their own
learning as THRASS makes it clear to students what has
to be learnt. They can have specific learning objectives,
set individual goals, self monitor and celebrate success
within the framework of ‘distance travelled’ ‘I can now do
the whole first row......’
(Smelter, 1997, [audiotape].)
Students are able to set themselves achievable learning goals suited to
their individual rate of learning and their learning style.
The repeated decoding activities that occur through use of the
23
Chart also act as an important self-teaching mechanism. The
effectiveness of this type of learning strategy with adults is
demonstrated by Share’s study of phonological recoding and
self-teaching (Share, 1995). He concluded ‘phonological recoding, by
virtue of its self-teaching function, is regarded as critical to successful
reading acquisition” (Share, 1995, p.193).
THRASS also provides opportunities for self-reflective learning,
another key element of adult learning (Boud, 1987). The Chart aims to
develop metacognitive abilities in word recognition. Students are
required to process new words by identifying and making association
with phonemic patterns already learnt. Grapheme Catch Alls are
determined by critically reflecting on known phonemes and their
spelling choices. Students therefore are able to monitor their own
spelling and word recognition performance.
Responses from students surveyed in an adult literacy class using
THRASS strongly indicate students in this classroom would support
the use of THRASS in adult literacy programmes. Although a small
sample of only 11 adult students is statistically insignificant, this survey
did produce some interesting results and practical insights into the use of
THRASS with adults.
For instance, although 100% of the students surveyed believed
more class time should be spent on THRASS, this should not
necessarily indicate a need to revise their programme to include greater
emphasis on THRASS. As Thistlethwaite warned, ‘Many adults in
literacy programs are ‘hung up’ on completing exercises in phonics
texts’ (Thistlethwaithe, 1994, p.26). In this classroom, the teacher has
24
made a conscious effort, despite some student desire for increased
THRASS activities, to ensure THRASS does not dominate instruction.
The use of THRASS is successfully integrated as part of the overall
programme with the chart being effectively used as a support tool
incidental to other learning activities.
The survey showed the students perceived THRASS as being
beneficial to the development of a number of literacy skills of which
spelling and reading were the most affected. Some students also
indicated that their handwriting and speaking skills also improved.
Student perception of improved speaking skills may be explained by the
emphasis THRASS places on self-awareness of speech patterns and
THRASS’ phonographic approach. Handwriting skills are developed in
worksheet and audio-tape activities.
In contradiction to the overall positive perception the survey
revealed about the effectiveness of THRASS, 36% of the students
stated they never used the chart or did so only when directed by the
teacher. An explanation could be that these students require more
explicit instruction to enable them to independently use the chart.
Alternatively, it is also possible that the literacy needs of these students
require less systematic phonics instruction. They may choose not to
use the chart because they do not need to. It should be realized that all
students do not need the same amount of phonics instruction.
25
Conclusion:
For conclusive proof of the effectiveness of THRASS, it would be
necessary to conduct a large scale comparative study of the literacy
achievements of adult students using THRASS. Such research is
outside the scope of this project. However, this paper concludes that
sufficient elements of good phonics instruction as described in the
research review are evident in THRASS to merit its inclusion in adult
literacy programmes.
The importance of strategies to assist the development of
phonological awareness is well noted. THRASS does this explicitly
while maintaining an emphasis on real writing and reading. It provides
a set of resources that are therefore compatible with whole language and
functional literacy approaches. The THRASS Chart acts as a
motivational and confidence building tool kit that adult students may
use, when needed, as a reference that re-inforces familiarity with
grapho-phonemic units. Its use can be applied to any whole language
or functional literacy task.
26
The flexible, multi-sensory and interactive nature of THRASS
resources and methodology caters well for the varying abilities and
demands of adult learners. Strategies such as word analysis by analogy
and emphasis on independent and self-reflective learning are well suited
to the learning styles of adult students.
However, the potential effectiveness of THRASS depends upon
how the resources are used. For instance, the teacher must determine
the degree of explicit instruction according to the individual needs of
students. Not all students will require the same amount or same
methods of instruction. It is also important that phonics does not
dominate instruction. The THRASS approach should be carefully
balanced with literature based, functional and whole language
approaches.
27
REFERENCES:
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press.
Apthorp, Helen S. (1995). Phonetic coding and reading in college students with and
without
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol.28, No.6, p.342-352.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996). Aspects of literacy: Assessed skill levels, Australia,
1996. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Barnes, William (1989). Word sorting. The cultivation of rules for spelling in English.
Reading Psychology, Vol.10, No.3, p.293-307.
Bear, Donald et al. (1996). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary and
spelling instruction. New York: Merrill.
Boud, G.G. (1987). A facilitator’s view of adult learning. In David Boud and Virginia
Griffin, Appreciating adult learning: From the learner’s perspectives. London: Kogan
Page, p.222-237.
Byrne, B. & Ledez, J. (1983). Phonological awareness in reading-disabled adults.
Australian Journal of Psychology, Vol.35, No.2, p.185-197.
Chall, J. (1983). Learning to read: the great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chall, Jeanne (1997). Are reading methods changing again? Annals of Dyslexia, Vol.47,
p.257-264.
Davies, Allan (1999). Just THRASS it! InteracTive, February/March 1999, p.46-47.
Davies, A. & Ritchie, D. (1996). Teachers’ Manual. London: Collins Educational.
Davies, A. & Ritchie, D. (1997). THRASS Conference Australia 1997 [sound recording].
Osborne Park, W.A.: THRASS Australia.
Davies, A. & Ritchie, D. (1998). THRASS resource file. Osborne Park, W.A.: THRASS
Australia.
Davies, A. & Ritchie, D. (1997). Through the sound barrier. The Times Educational
28
Supplement. March 4, 1997.
Ehri, Linnea (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of
Research in Reading, Vol. 18, Issue 2, p.116-125.
Ehri, Linnea (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: two sides of a coin. Topics in
Language Disorders, Vol. 20, Issue 3, p.19-34.
Elbro, C., Nielsen, I. & Petersen, D. (1994). Dyslexia in adults: evidence for deficits in
non-word reading and in the phonological representation of lexical items. Annals of
Dyslexia, Vol. 44, p.205-225.
Elley, Warwick (1996). The phonic debate revisited. Set Research Information for
Teachers, 1, No. 7, p.1-4.
Emmitt, Marie (1999). A response to Kerry Hempenstall. Fine Print, Vol.22, No.3, p.30-32.
Fink, R.P. (1998). Literacy development in successful men and women with dyslexia.
Annals of Dyslexia, Vol.48, p.311-346.
Foorman, B., Francis, D.J. & Beeler, T. (1991). How letter-sound instruction mediates
progress in first-grade reading and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.
83,
No.4, p.456-469.
Freppen, P. & Dahl, K. (1998). Balanced instruction: insights and considerations. Reading
Research Quarterly, Vol.33, No.2, p.240-251.
Goodman, K.S. (1967). Reading: a psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading
Specialist, 6, p.126-135.
Gough, P. & Hillinger, M. (1980). Learning to read: an unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton
Society, 30, p.179-196.
Greenberg, D., Ehri, L. & Perin, D. (1997). Are word-reading processes the same or
different in adult literacy students and third-fifth graders matched for reading level?
Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.89, No.2, p.262-275.
Groff, P. (1981). Teaching reading by syllables. The Reading Teacher, Vol.34, No.6,
p.659-663.
Groff, P. (1986). The maturing of phonics instruction. The Reading Teacher, Vol.39, No.9,
p.919-923.
Hempenstall, Kerry (1999). The role of phonics in learning to read: what does recent
research say? Fine Print, Vol.22, No.1, p.7-12.
Hinds, Diane (1999). Phonics boom: debate rages over the best methods. Educational
Review, Sept/Oct., 1999, p.12-13.
Just, M. & Carpenter, P.A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension
Mass.: Allyn & Bacon.
Kamhi, Alan & Hinton, Linette (2000). Explaining individual differences in spelling ability.
Topics in Language Disorders, Vol.20, No.3, p.37
29
Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, & Cooley, (1981). Reading instruction and its effects.
American
Educational Research Journal, Vol.18, No.3, p.343-361.
Leong, Che Kan (1999). Phonological and morphological processing in adult students with
learning/reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol.32, No.3, p.224-238.
McGuinness, D. & others (1995). Phonological training and the alphabet principle: evidence
for reciprocal causality. Reading Research Quarterly, Vol.30, No.4, p.830-852.
Mendick, Robert (1998). Scots throw down the literacy gaunlet. The Times Educational
Supplement, November 6, 1998, p.7.
Morrice, Julie (1998). Sounds like success. The Times Educational Supplement,
November 20, 1998, p.16.
Mudge, K. (1998). The THRASS success story. Monthly Express,May, 1998.
Munro, Neil (1999). So good they said it twice. The Times Educational Supplement,
February 12, 1999, p. 4.
Nicholson, Tom (1991). Do children read words better in context or in lists? A classic
study revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.83, No.4, p.444-450.
Palmer, Sue (1997). Watch the swing of primary pendulum. The Times Educational
Supplement, January 24, 1997, p.20.
Pressley, Michael (1998). Reading Instruction that Works. The Case for Balanced
Teaching. New York: Guilford Press.
Read, C. & Ruyter, L. (1985). Reading and spelling skills in adults of low literacy.
Remedial and special education, Vol.6, No.6., p.43-51.
Routman, R. (1996). Literacy at the crossroads: Crucial talk about reading, writing and
other teaching dilemmas. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Rycik, Jim (1977). Common sense and common ground: the appeal for balanced literacy
programs. Ohio Reading Teacher, Vol.31, No.1, p.19-21.
Share, David L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: sine qua non of reading
acquisition. Cognition, 55, p.151-218.
Smelter, Lorraine (1997). untitled. In Davies, A. & Ritchie, D.(1997). THRASS
Conference
Australia 1997 [sound recording]. Osborne Park, W.A.: THRASS Australia.
Smith, Frank (1999). Why systematic phonics and phonemic awareness instruction
constitute an educational hazard. Language Arts, Vol.77, No.2, p.150-155.
Stahl, Steven, Duffy-Hester, Ann & Stahl, Katherine (1998). Everything you wanted to
know about phonics (but were afraid to ask). Reading Research Quarterly, Vol.33,
No.3,
p.338-352.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading research quarterly, 21, p.360-407.
30
Stanovich, K. & Stanovich, P. (1995). How research might inform the debate about early
reading acquisition. Journal of Research in Reading, Vol.18, No.2, p.87-105.
Templeton, S. (1989). Tacit and explicit knowledge of derivational morphology.
Foundations for a unified approach to spelling and vocabulary development in the
intermediate grades and beyond. Reading Psychology, Vol.10, No.3, P.233-53.
Templeton, S. & Morris, D. (1999). Questions teachers ask about spelling. Reading
Research Quarterly, Vol.34, No.1, p.102-112.
Thistlethwaite, Linda (1994). Phonics - one important piece of the pie: a holistic
perspective. Adult Basic Education, Vol.4, No.1, p.19-34.
Waterman, B. & Lewandowski, L. (1993). Phonologic and semantic processing in
reading-disabled and non-disabled males at two age levels. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, Vol.55, No.1, p.87-103.
Weaver, Constance (1994). Understanding whole language: From principle to practice.
(2nd edition). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wisner, B. (1988). Readers getting control of reading. Journal of Reading. Vol.11, No.4,
p.257-268.
31