Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Introducing phonics to learners who struggle: content and embedded cognitive elements

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A brief experiment was designed to examine cognitive flexibility practice embedded in beginning phonics instruction for kindergarteners with limited early literacy learning. Previously tested phonics content included single- and high-frequency two-letter grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs), introduced at a rate of 2–4 correspondences per week. Children entered with minimal alphabet knowledge and were randomly assigned within classrooms, stratified by English Learner status, to one of two conditions delivered individually over 6 weeks: plain explicit phonics (n = 35) or Flex instruction (n = 33) which covered the same Plain phonics content but with teaching tasks for practice switching letter or word dimensions. Results showed that kindergarteners in the Plain condition made significantly greater gains on tasks of writing taught letter-sound correspondences and spelling. Findings inform a rate for introducing letter-sound correspondences and learning of mixed-size GPCs. The Plain explicit phonics focus on initial accuracy had benefits for encoding taught letter correspondences. Findings support future research on effective tasks to develop reading-related cognitive flexibility in beginners, the optimal timing of this practice, and whether it benefits in particular those children most at risk for acquiring this foundational alphabetic knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective?: An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 441–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apel, K. (2009). The acquisition of mental orthographic representations for reading and spelling development. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 31, 42–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008). Executive functions and school readiness intervention: impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head Start REDI program. Developmental Psychopathology, 20, 821–843. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, P. G., Sunseth, K., & Golden, J. (1999). The route between rapid naming and reading progress. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0301-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowyer-Crane, C., Snowling, M. J., Duff, F. J., Fieldsend, E., Carroll, J. M., Miles, J., et al. (2008). Improving early language and literacy skills: differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 49, 422–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01849x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, S. A. (2011). Efficacy of phonics teaching for reading outcomes: Indications from post-NRP research. In S. A. Brady, D. Braze, & C. A. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 69–96). New York: Psychology Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carnine, D., Silbert, J., & Kame’enui, E. J. . (1997). Direct instruction reading (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, K. B. (2006). Fostering flexibility and comprehension in elementary students. The Reading Teacher, 59, 628–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, K. B. (2002). Cognitive development and reading: the relation of reading-specific multiple classification skill to reading comprehension in elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, K. B., Coppage, E. A., Lane, A. B., Singleton, T., Marshall, T. R., & Bentivegna, C. (2017). Cognitive flexibility deficits in children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 50, 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, K. B., Isaac, M. C., & Dandy, K. L. (2006). The development of reading-specific representational flexibility: A cross-sectional comparison of second graders and college students. In A. V. Mittel (Ed.), Focus on educational psychology (pp. 173–194). New York: Nova Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, K. B., Marshall, T. R., Dandy, K. L., & Isaac, M. C. (2010). The development of graphophonological-semantic cognitive flexibility and its contribution to reading comprehension in beginning readers. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11, 61–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, K. B., Bock, A. M., Clause, J. H., Coppage August, E. A., Saunders, H. G., & Schmidt, K. J. (2020). Near- and far-transfer effects of an executive function intervention for 2nd to 5th-grade struggling readers. Cognitive Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100932

  • Castles, A., Holmes, V. M., Neath, J., & Kinoshita, S. (2003). How does orthographic knowledge influence performance on phonological awareness tasks? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 445–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chard, D. J., & Osborn, J. (1999). Phonics and word recognition instruction in early reading programs: Guidelines for accessibility. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compton, D. L., Miller, A. C., Elleman, A. M., & Steacy, L. M. (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, P., Duncan, L. G., & Blaye, A. (2014). Cognitive flexibility predicts early reading skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, N. J., Harris, N., & Williams, J. (2013). Individual differences in children’s literacy development: the contribution of orthographic knowledge. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 1223–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, N. J., & Levy, B. A. (2011). Training letter and orthographic pattern recognition in children with slow naming speed. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 91–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deacon, S. H., Conrad, N., & Pacton, S. (2008). A statistical learning perspective on children’s learning about graphotactic and morphological regularities in spelling. Canadian Psychology, 49, 118–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Sigman, M., & Vinckier, F. (2005). The neural code for written words: a proposal. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.tics.2005.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). The early years: Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387–1388. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias, N. M., & Seabra, A. G. (2017). Intervention for executive functions development in early elementary school children: effects on learning and behaviour, and follow-up maintenance. Educational Psychology, 37, 468–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1214686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowsett, S. M., & Livesey, D. J. (2000). The development of inhibitory control in preschool children: Effects of “executive skills” training. Developmental Psychology, 36, 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2302(200003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2006). Peabody picture vocabulary test, fourth edition (PPVT-4). Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading: Spelling, memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135–154). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C., Satlow, E., & Gaskins, I. (2009). Grapho-phonemic enrichment strengthens keyword analogy instruction for struggling young readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25, 162–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The roleof instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., Hendricks, E., Walsh, M. E., Fuchs, L. S., Gilbert, J. K., Zhang Tracy, W., & Peng, P. (2018). Evaluating a multidimensional reading comprehension program and reconsidering the lowly reputation of tests of near-transfer. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuhs, M. W., Nesbitt, K. T., Farran, D. C., & Dong, N. (2014). Longitudinal associations between executive functioning and academic skills across content areas. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1698–1709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grainger, J., & Ziegler, J. C. (2011). A dual-route to orthographic processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 54. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00054

  • Guajardo, N. R., & Cartwright, K. B. (2016). The contribution of theory of mind, counterfactual reasoning, and executive function to pre-readers’ language comprehension and later reading awareness and comprehension in elementary school. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 144, 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. D., & Reutzel, D. R. (2012). Enhanced alphabet knowledge instruction: Exploring a change of frequency, focus, and distributed cycles of review. Reading Psychology, 33, 448–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2010.545260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juel, C., & Roper-Schneider, D. (1985). The influence of basal readers on first grade reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 134–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karbach, J., & Kray, J. (2009). How useful is executive control training? Age differences in near and far transfer of task-switching training. Developmental Science, 12, 978–990. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00846.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, B., Pollo, T. C., & Treiman, R. (2012). Frequency analyses of phonological spellings as predictors of success in conventional spelling. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412449440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieffer, M. J., & Christodoulou, J. A. (2020). Automaticity and control: How do executive functions and reading fluency interact in predicting reading comprehension? Reading Research Quarterly, 55, 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kievit, R. A., Hofman, A. D., & Nation, K. (2019). Mutualistic coupling between vocabulary and reasoning in young children: A replication and extension of the study by Kievit et al. (2017). Psychological Science, 30, 1245–1252. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619841265

  • Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, M. W., Fritters, J. C., Wolf, M., Steinbach, K. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Morris, R. D. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 889–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucenet, J., & Blaye, A. (2014). Age-related changes in the temporal dynamics of executive control: a study in 5- and 6-year-old children. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsg.2014.00831

  • Martin-Chang, S., Ouellette, G., & Bond, L. (2017). Differential effects of context and feedback on orthographic learning: How good is good enough? Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1263993

  • Mesmer, H. A. E. (1999). Scaffolding a crucial transition using text with some decodability. The Reading Teacher, 53, 130–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, S. B. (2006). N is for nonsensical: Low-income preschool children need content-rich instruction, not drill in procedural skills. Educational Leadership, 64, 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ober, T. M., Brooks, P. J., Homer, B. D., & Rindskopf, D. (2020). Executive function and decoding in children and adolescents: a meta-analytic investigation. Educational Psychology Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09526-0

  • Peng, P., & Fuchs, D. (2017). A randomized control trial of working memory training with and without strategy instruction: Effects on young children’s working memory and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415594609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, P., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Elleman, A. M., Kearns, D. M., Gilbert, J., & Patton, S. (2019). A longitudinal analysis of the trajectories and predictors of word reading and reading comprehension development among at-risk readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52, 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418809080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, P., & Goodrich, M. (2020). The cognitive element model of reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.336.

  • Peng, P., & Kievit, R. (2020). The development of academic achievement and cognitive abilities: A bidirectional perspective. Child Development Perspectives, 14, 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perruchet, P., & Pacton, S. (2006). Implicit learning and statistical learning: one phenomenon, two approaches. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.03.006

  • Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, Spring, 12–39.

  • Rothe, J., Schulte-Korne, G., & Ise, E. (2014). Does sensitivity to orthographic regularities influence reading and spelling acquisition: A 1-year prospective study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 1141–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidenberg, M. S. (2013). The science of reading and its educational implications. Language Learning and Development, 9, 331–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2013.812017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidenberg, M. S., Borkenhagen, M. C., & Kearns, D. M. (2020). Lost in translation? Challenges in connecting reading science and educational practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S119–S130. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegelman, N., Rueckl, J. G., Steacy, L. M., Frost, S. J., van den Bunt, M., Zevin, J. D., et al. (2020). Individual differences in learning the regularities between orthographic phonology and semantics predict early reading skills. Journal of Memory and Language, 114. Advance online publication. 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104145

  • Share, D. L. (2004). Orthographic learning at a glance: On the time course and developmental onset of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 267–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solity, J., & Vousden, J. (2009). Real books vs reading schemes: a new perspective from instructional psychology. Educational Psychology, 29, 469–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903103657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A. E., Cirino, P. T., Francis, D. J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). A responseto recent reanalyses of the National Reading Panel report: Effects of systematic phonicsinstruction are practically significant. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H. L., & O’Connor, R. E. (2009). The role of working memory and fluency practice on the reading comprehension of students who are dysfluent readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 548–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taboada Barber, A., Cartwright, K. B., Stapleton, L., Lutz Klauda, S., Archer, C., & Smith, P. (2020). Direct and indirect effects of executive functions, reading engagement, and higher order strategic processes in the reading comprehension of dual language learners and English monolinguals. Contemporary Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101848

  • Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treiman, R., & Cassar, M. (1997). Spelling acquisition in English. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 61–80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2010). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled kindergarteners in the context of language minority status and classroom phonics instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 786–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2011). Efficacy of supplemental phonics-based instruction for low-skilled first graders: How language minority status and pretest characteristics moderate treatment response. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 471–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2012). Two-year follow-up of a kindergarten phonicsintervention for English learners and native English speakers: Contextualizing treatment impacts by classroom literacy instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 987–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2013). Two-year follow-up of a code-oriented intervention for lower-skilled first-graders: The influence of language status and word reading skills on thirdgrade literacy outcomes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 821–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2020). Introducing grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs): Exploring rate and complexity in phonics instruction for kindergarteners with limited literacy skills. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10064-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2005). Relative effectiveness of reading practice or word-level instruction in supplemental tutoring: How text matters. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 364–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2006). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 508–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Tudor, S. (2007). Effectiveness of paraeducator-supplemented individual instruction: Beyond basic decoding skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(6), 508–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Abbott, R. D. (2008). Effects of supplemental early reading intervention at 2-year follow up: Reading skill growth patterns and predictors. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(1), 51–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Sande, E., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2013). How phonological awareness mediates the relation between children’s self-control and word decoding. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Broeck, W., & Geudens, A. (2012). Old and new ways to study characteristics of reading disability: The case of the nonword-reading deficit. Cognitive Psychology, 65, 414–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitiello, V. E., Greenfield, D. B., Munis, P., & George, J. (2011). Cognitive flexibility, approaches to learning, and academic school readiness in Head Start preschool children. Early Education and Development, 22, 388–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, J. A., Nix, R. L., Blair, C., Bierman, K. L., & Nelson, K. E. (2010). The development of cognitive skills and gains in academic school readiness for children from low-income families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolter, J. A., & Apel, K. (2010). Initial acquisition of mental graphemic representations in children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0130).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, D. M., & Ehri, L. C. (2007). Beginners remember orthography when they learn to read words: The case of doubled letters. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 115–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Sueanne Sluis, project manager, and the research assistant instructors for their expertise and dedication during this intervention. This research was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education, Grant No. R305A180005. Any opinions, findings, and recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute of Education Sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oregon Research Institute, 1776 Millrace Drive, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA

    Patricia F. Vadasy

  2. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Elizabeth A. Sanders

Authors
  1. Patricia F. Vadasy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth A. Sanders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia F. Vadasy.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vadasy, P.F., Sanders, E.A. Introducing phonics to learners who struggle: content and embedded cognitive elements. Read Writ 34, 2059–2080 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10134-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10134-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation