Issue 14: Teaching the Alphabetic Principle with a Speech-To-Print Approach | Holly Ehle

According to the 2022 National Assessment for Academic Progress (NAEP), over 65% of our nation's 4th graders are failing to become proficient in reading. Data collected revealed that these students do not show a solid competency of grade level reading skills, and they fail to understand how to apply foundational reading knowledge to analyze and problem-solve on real world reading and writing tasks. Generally speaking, current instructional practices are failing our students. This situation is especially frustrating because additional research suggests that over 93% of all students CAN learn to read proficiently regardless of their background if their reading instruction is grounded in systematic, evidence-based practices which align with how the brain actually processes and stores information into memory when learning to read and write (DeHaene, 2009; Lyon, 2002; Moats, 1999; Shaywitz, 2003; Torgesen, 2002). But many teachers feel like their pre-service and continuing professional development training has not adequately taught them how children's brains actually process and store information when learning to read and write (Moats, 1999). This leaves many educators asking, "If we don't understand how children's brains actually learn, how can we teach them well?" That question is very applicable when teachers search for the most effective and efficient way to teach letter-sound connections and the alphabetic principle. This article will share what current research reveals about how the brain processes and stores phonemes and graphemes in the brain and will also discuss what implications that science has for classroom instruction that seeks to teach letter-sound correspondences and the alphabetic principle.

First of all, it's important to understand that it is simply not true that there are dozens of different ways to learn to read. Despite the language spoken or the background of the student, according to cognitive neuroscientist Dr Stanislas DeHaene (2009), "when it comes to reading, we (humans) all have roughly the same brain that imposes the same constraints and the same learning sequence." DeHaene (2009) adds that more recent technological advances, like the ability to monitor brain activity inside an fMRI as a student reads, have allowed researchers to confirm that humans are nothard-wired to learn to read. There is no area of the brain that is pre-wired to identify letters, connect letters and sounds, read printed text, or spell spoken words with letters.

It is simply not true that there are dozens of different ways to learn to read.

We are, however, pre-wired for spoken language and meaning connection. (This is why babies do not need formal lessons to learn to speak and understand language.) We also do have a portion of our brain that is designed to take in visual information. That visual processing portion of our brain, however, is only pre-wired to process information as faces and/or pictures in a generalized manner which disregards minute details and object orientation (for example, it doesn't matter to your brain if a cat is facing left or right, it's still a cat). Printed alphabets are a relatively recent invention, and human brains are simply not pre-wired to process letterforms (or numbers) with precise attention to the fine details, such as line length and/or what side a circle or stick is on. (This is why young children often write letters, numbers, and even their names mirror-image backwards!) Research suggests that in order to learn to read, a small portion of our visual system actually has to be "recycled" to process letterforms with much greater discrimination (DeHaene, 2009). It is also important to note that this area is NOT pre-connected to the other parts of the brain that process and store sound and meaning information. We must build new neural pathways in the brain to connect and map letterforms to a child's known phonemes and meanings, which are already stored in memory.

Considering the fact that children are pre-wired for spoken language and meaning, they are essentially "sound experts" when they enter preschool and/or kindergarten. They can produce most sounds of their native language correctly and have learned to combine those sounds into words to tell meaningful stories, request help, and even use language to express their displeasure with others! Sound and language production is their specialty! Knowledge of printed letterforms and words, however, still largely evades most students at this age, which makes perfect sense knowing that the brain is not pre-wired to process, connect, or commit them to meaningful memory. Decades of research suggests that to make learning as efficient and effective as possible, we must start by priming what is "known" by the student and work to connect the new learning to the known. In the case of letter/sound connections and the alphabetic principle, this means teaching with an approach that works from speech to print.

Children are essentially 'sound experts' when they enter preschool and/or kindergarten.

Preschool parents and teachers should begin pointing out how the stories and sentences children tell in oral language can be broken down into smaller units, often referred to as phonological awareness. For example, children can be guided to realize that stories can be broken down into sentences, sentences can be broken down into words, words can be broken down into syllables, and finally, syllables can be broken down into individual sounds called phonemes. The focus on manipulating the individual sounds within words by segmenting, blending, deleting, and substituting them, is called phonemic awareness. Only when children solidly demonstrate the awareness that spoken words can be broken down to the phoneme level are they able to grasp the alphabetic principle, the fact that 44 individual sounds of English speech can be represented by a printed symbol or grapheme (Moats,1995). By again referring to things that are already within a child's experience, perhaps like how the "golden arches" are a symbol that represents McDonald's, children can be taught to understand that a grapheme (a letter or a group of letters) can represent (or "spell") a specific sound in our language.

When we base our instruction on what science has revealed about how the brains of proficient readers actually process and store information into memory, we leverage the students' innate, biological wiring and organization for oral language and meaning. By using a Speech to Print approach, our instruction activates or primes the "known" phonological representation (speech sound and corresponding articulatory motor movements) already in permanent memory so that we can quickly and efficiently permanently connect/map the "new learning" of a specific letterform onto that known sound (Ehri, 2014; DeHaene, 2009). Think of it like hanging a newly learned letterform onto a specific sound/articulation peg that is already anchored in permanent memory! Science has guided us to understand that proficient readers anchor letters in permanent memory by phonological representations, not as visual images. In turn, words are anchored in memory by familiar strings of sounds onto which the corresponding graphemes are mapped, not stored as visual whole-word images. You are operating as a virtual brain surgeon by planning and teaching using a Speech to Print approach! As an early childhood educator, you can create and carry out activities in the classroom on a daily basis that literally help to rewire the neural circuits in your students' brains that will create an interface between the visual system and the pre-wired language systems of the brain!

Traditional instructional methods, which include some programs based on older "science of reading" research, begin instruction by focusing on the print or letterform. Teachers using this type of approach often begin letter-sound instruction by saying things like, "This is the letter B," drawing children's attention first to the more "unknown" element, a random image made of sticks and circles, which is largely meaningless to them. Children are expected to somehow magically connect this largely meaningless image of sticks and circles to the letter name label the teacher declares and then somehow force it to stay in memory. Consider for a moment the words that educators often use to "teach" letter-sound connection. Teachers often tell students that a "B says /b/." We are literally telling children that an inanimate letterform "says" a sound, which is not true at all! Letters represent or "spell" speech sounds. In addition to this, when educators teach children that a letter "says" a specific sound, children often think that the sounds the letters "say" are NEW sounds. They do not inherently understand that these sounds are the same sounds that they have been producing inside of words since they were little. This traditional Print to Speech approach, which is widely used in classrooms across America to teach letter-sound correspondences, essentially teaches children that they need to try and memorize random, meaningless printed squiggles and remember the novel sound that squiggle somehow "says." By introducing letter/sound connections in this manner, we are forcing children to use a foreign and very adult-oriented print system of organization, which does not align with how their brains are wired to learn best.

Over time, it is possible for children to eventually learn to identify each printed letterform by name and even pair a sound to each grapheme using this approach; however, the learning process will occur slowly for most (only occurring with ease for about 20% of students), and as stated above, many of these students fail to understand that these sounds are the same speech sounds that they use when speaking and articulating words. The awareness that spoken language can be broken down into sentences, words, syllables, and individual phonemes escapes them.

Step 1) Begin with the child's "Known" → Language and Sounds

• At the preschool level, begin working on phonological awareness (breaking down language into smaller parts) and move toward phonemic awareness (manipulating individual phonemes within words).
• Work generally from simple to more complex phonological tasks; however, don't limit yourself by requiring mastery of every skill before working on the next. (The priority goal should be phonemic proficiency!)

Step 2) Teach the Alphabetic Principle

• When students understand that oral language can be broken down into individual phonemes, it's then, and only then, that they are able to understand the alphabetic principle, which means that individual sounds can be communicated or represented in print with a symbol, which we call a grapheme (a letter or group of letters).
• Help students better understand the function of symbols as representations of other things by using environmental print symbols that are within their experience. (Example: The golden arches symbolize or represent McDonald's restaurant.)
• Explain that letters and sounds work the same way! (Example: "You know the sound /b/! It's the same sound that you hear in words like baby, banana, and blue. There is a symbol that represents that /b/ sound (just like the golden arches represent McDonald's). We can represent/spell that sound in writing with the symbol/letter "b.”)
• As a teacher, try not to tell your students that letters "say" sounds. Letters do not "say" sounds. Letters represent or spell sounds.

Step 3) Explore the Focus Phoneme

• Introduce the phoneme you would like to focus upon by highlighting its precise sound and articulatory gestures. (Crisp phonological representations of phonemes and their articulatory features will serve as the anchor into memory on which letters/graphemes can be mapped.) Ask the following questions to draw attention to phoneme articulation:

Step 4) Explore the Focus Phoneme

• Talk about the concept of a "symbol," referring to signs or objects in environmental print that are within students' meaningful experiences. Explain/remind students that letters are the symbols that represent individual speech sounds.
• Show the class the grapheme or letters which represent the focus phoneme. You may choose to show only one version (upper or lowercase) today and add the other letterform later in the day or the next day, depending on your students.
• Discuss the physical features of the letterform in detail and explicitly explain to students that human brains are NOT wired to pay attention to the fine details of letters (and numbers). Explain that human brains were created to process everything as a generalized face or picture that is mirror invariant, so the brain usually doesn't naturally pay attention to what side sticks or circles are on or how tall, or short the lines are. Explain to students that we have to train our brains to pay attention to the fine details of printed letters. In order to "rewire" the brain to correctly process and differentiate letterforms, you must draw attention to letter features such as:

• Do a visual discrimination sort using the "I Do-We Do-You Do Model" (Fig 1).

• Model for the class how the specific letter/s of this grapheme is/are correctly formed in handwriting.
• Use the “I Do-We Do-You Do” Gradual Release of Control Model to practice letter formation:

• To review what has been learned about the focus phoneme/grapheme connection, if you have a sound wall, draw your students’ attention to it and see if you all can locate the focus phoneme like a Sound Detective!

According to research, teaching letter-sound connections and the alphabetic principle using a Speech to Print approach leverages a child's natural, pre-wired system of mental organization (Ehri, 2014; Moats, 1999; DeHaene, 2009). We can reduce the cognitive load required to master the alphabetic principle when we use this approach since it typically only requires the child to place one new piece of learning, the grapheme, into the memory (Sweller, 2011). This approach is also powerful because it incorporates multiple brain and body processes, creating and strengthening multiple neural pathways which improve all literacy processing skills, and connects new learning to something that is personally meaningful to the child, his/her own speech (DeHaene, 2009; Ehri, 2014). Using a Speech to Print approach to teaching letter-sound connections provides a naturally aligned method for teaching students to understand the complexities of our alphabetic code. Such an approach also allows decoding and encoding to be taught simultaneously. The neural pathways that are being built and strengthened are reversible, thus increasing the processing fluency of Print to Speech decoding simultaneously. Current research has shown that basing our instructional practices on converging scientific evidence will result in significantly more students learning to read proficiently, which in the end, is our primary goal. Research from the field of cognitive neuroscience predicts promising results for Speech to Print instructional programs that are currently being tested in classrooms, and it is suggested that primary educators keep an eye open for more definitive research on this topic and instructional programs that use this approach.

• Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. [doi.org]
• Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read. New York: Penguin.
• Ehri, L.C. (2014) Orthographic Mapping in the Acquisition of Sight Word Reading, Spelling Memory, and Vocabulary Learning, Scientific Studies of Reading, 18:1, 5-21, DOI: 10.1080/10888438.2013.819356 [doi.org]
• Lyon, G. R. (2002). Reading development, reading difficulties, and reading instruction: Educational and public health issues. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 3–6.
• Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., Shulte, A., & Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, R. A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation & Progressive Policy Institute
• McGuinness, D. (1997). Why our children can't read and what we can do about it: A scientific revolution in reading. Free Press.
• Moats, L. C. (1995). The missing foundation in teacher preparation. American Educator, 19(9), 43–51.
• Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). National assessment of educational progress: The nation's report card. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
• National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
• Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31–74.
• Torgesen, J. K. (2002b). Lessons learned from intervention research in reading: A way to go before we rest. In R. Stainthorpe (Ed.), Literacy: Learning and teaching. London: British Psychological Association.
• Sweller, J., Ayers, P., and Kalyuga, S. (2011) Cognitive Load Theory. Springer.

Holly Ehle is a full-time kindergarten teacher and literacy specialist who is passionate about student engagement, differentiated instruction, and early literacy. She is currently working on her PhD in Reading, Language, and Literacy with certifications in Educational Neuroscience and Early Education Leadership. Holly loves helping teachers better understand exactly how the brain learns when beginning to read and write. In the classroom, her mission is to teach EVERY child to be a proficient reader and writer, including those with dyslexia and/or other learning challenges. Outside of the classroom, her mission is to help teachers bridge the gap between research and practice in fun and engaging ways. She is the Academic & Research Advisor for ELEVATE! Educational Conferences where she also serves as a national presenter leading professional development sessions on the science of reading and writing.