Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introducing grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs): exploring rate and complexity in phonics instruction for kindergarteners with limited literacy skills

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two experiments explored rates for introducing grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs) and the types of correspondences taught for optimal alphabet and early literacy skills learning. In both studies, children entered with minimal alphabet knowledge and were randomly assigned within classrooms to one of two treatments delivered individually over 5 weeks. In Study 1, children grades K-1 were assigned to instruction in a set of either 10 (Slow rate, n = 33) or 15 (Fast rate, n = 32) single- and two-letter GPCs. Study 1 findings indicated that children who learned five added GPCs did not reduce learning of the common set of 10 learned GPCs for any measure (including letter names, sounds, letter sound writing, word reading, and spelling), and learning favored Fast items over Slow for letter sounds, letter sound writing, and word reading (median d = 0.30). In Study 2, kindergarteners were assigned to instruction in either single letters only (Single, n = 30) or mixed-size GPCs (Mixed, n = 31). Instruction included application of GPCs to decoding and spelling. Results showed that kindergarteners in the Mixed condition made significantly greater gains learning the four two-letter GPCs across measures (median d = 0.86), and no significant differences between groups on measures of the 11 one-letter GPCs common to both conditions. Findings add precision to understanding how rate and order of introducing GPCs influence children’s initial alphabet learning. Further study of empirically validated methods of alphabet instruction may benefit in particular those children most at risk for acquiring this foundational 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

  • Assink, E., Bos, A. A., & Kattenberg, G. (1996). Reading ability and the use of context in orthographic information processing. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 157, 381–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., & Nagy, W. E. (2008). Flexibility in word reading: Multiple levels of representations, complex mappings, partial similarities, and cross-modality connections. In K. B. Cartwright (Ed.), Literacy processes: Cognitive flexibility in learning and teaching (pp. 114–141). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J., Francis, D., Clonan, S., Shaywitz, B. A., et al. (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a 1-year follow up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 444–461.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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, NY: Psychology Press.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.56.

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248370903453584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. A., & Bowey, J. A. (2005). The efficacy of orthographic rime, grapheme-phoneme correspondence, and implicit phonics approaches to teaching decoding skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 327–349.

    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., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das-Smaal, E., Klapwijk, M., & Van der Leij, A. (1996). Training of perceptual unit processing in children with a reading disability. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 221–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The science and evolution of a human invention. New York, NY: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (2011). The unique role of the visual word form area in reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 254–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denton, C., Tolar, T., Fletcher, J., Barth, A., Vaughn, S., & Francis, D. (2013). Effects of Tier 3 intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties and characteristics of inadequate responders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 633–648.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Oney, B. (1999). A cross-linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word recognition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 281–299.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, N. C., Natsume, M., Stavropoulou, K., Hoxhallari, L., Van Daal, V. H. P., et al. (2004). The effects of orthographic depth on learning to read alphabetic, syllabic, and logographic scripts. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 438–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frith, U., Wimmer, H., & Landerl, K. (1998). Differences in phonological recoding in German- and English-speaking children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 31–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, R. (1994). Prelexical and postlexical strategies in reading: Evidence from a deep and a shallow orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 116–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, E. (2004). Phonics: A large phoneme-grapheme frequency count revised. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 85–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskins, I. W. (2008). Developing cognitive flexibility in word reading among beginning and struggling readers. In K. B. Cartwright (Ed.), Literacy processes: Cognitive flexibility in learning and teaching (pp. 90–113). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goswami, U., Ziegler, J. C., Dalton, L., & Schneider, W. (2003). Nonword reading across orthographies: How flexible is the choice of reading units? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 235–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, C., Goetz, K., Gooch, D., Adams, J., & Snowling, M. J. (2007). Paired-associate learning, phoneme awareness, and learning to read. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 150–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., Clark, S., & Reutzel, R. (2013). Enhancing alphabet knowledge instruction: Research implications and practical strategies for early childhood educators. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-012-0534-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., & Reutzel, R. (2012). Enhanced alphabet knowledge instruction: Exploring a change of frequency, focus, and distributed cycles of review. Reading Psychology, 35, 448–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • McGeown, S. P., Johnston, R. S., & Medford, E. (2012). Reading instruction affects the cognitive skills supporting early reading development. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 360–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molfese, V. J., Modglin, A. A., Beswick, J. L., Berg, S. A., Berg, C. J., & Molnar, A. (2006). Letter learning, phonological processing, and print knowledge: Skill development innonreading preschool children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 296–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Reading Panel. (2001). Report of the National Reading Panel: Reports of Subgroups. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. J., Benner, G. J., & Gonzalez, J. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, B. A., Wolf, M., Miller, J. T., Lovett, M. W., & Morris, R. (2011). Orthographic processing efficiency in developmental dyslexia: An investigation of age and treatment factors at the sublexical level. Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 111–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oney, B., & Durgunoglu, A. Y. (1997). Beginning to read in Turkish: A phonologically transparent orthography. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271640000984X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K., Foorman, B., Perfetti, C., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitsma, P. (1983). Printed word learning in beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36, 321–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, R., & Stuart, M. (1998). Sublexical inferences in beginning reading: Medial vowel digraphs as functional units of transfer. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 69, 85–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaars, M. H., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2017). Word decoding development in incremental phonics instruction in a transparent orthography. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30, 1529–1550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalz, X., Marinus, E., Coltheart, M., & Castles, A. (2015). Getting to the bottom of orthographic depth. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1614–1629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalz, X., Robidoux, S., Castles, A., Coltheart, M., & Marinus, E. (2017). German and English bodies: No evidence for cross-linguistic differences in preferred orthographic grain size. Collabra: Psychology, 3, 5. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidenberg, M. S. (2013). The science of reading and its educational implications. Language Learning and Development, 9, 331–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahar-Yames, D., & Share, D. L. (2008). Spelling as a self-teaching mechanism in orthographic learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 22–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 584–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solity, J. E., Deavers, R., Kerfoot, S., Crane, G., & Cannon, K. (2000). The early reading research: The impact of instructional psychology. Educational Psychology in Practice, 16, 109–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sowden, P. T., & Stevenson, J. (1994). Beginning reading strategies in children experiencing contrasting teaching methods. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 109–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steubing, K. K., Barth, A. E., Cirino, P. T., Francis, D. J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). A response to recent reanalyses of the National Reading Panel Report: Effects of systematic phonics instruction are practically significant. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 123–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, M. (1999). Getting ready for reading: early phoneme awareness and phonics teaching improves reading and spelling in inner-city second-language learners. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 587–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, M. (2006). Learning to read: developing processes for recognizing, understanding and pronouncing written words. London Review of Education, 4, 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunde, K., Furnes, B., & Lundetrae, K. (2020). Does introducing the letters faster boost the development of children’s letter knowledge, word reading, and spelling in the first year of school? Scientific Studies of Reading, 24, 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1615491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). Does set for variability mediate the influence of vocabulary knowledge on the development of word recognition skills? Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.542547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Daal, V. H. P., Reitsma, P., & Van der Leij, A. (1994). Processing units in word reading by disabled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 57, 180–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vousden, J. I. (2008). Units of English spelling-to-sound mapping: A rational approach to reading instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 247–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, P. D., & Walton, L. M. (2002). Beginning reading by teaching in rime analogy: Effects on phonological skills, letter-sound knowledge, working memory, and word-reading strategies. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 79–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., et al. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Education Research, 83, 163–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, J., Denton, K., & Germino-Hausken, E. (2000). America’s kindergarteners (NCES 2000–070). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000070.pdf.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, J. C., Bertrand, D., Toth, D., Csepe, V., Reis, A., et al. (2010). Orthographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross-language investigation. Psychological Science, 21, 551–559.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2006). Becoming literate in different languages: similar problems, different solutions. Developmental Science, 9, 429–436.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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, Washington, 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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 98 kb)

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 grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs): exploring rate and complexity in phonics instruction for kindergarteners with limited literacy skills. Read Writ 34, 109–138 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10064-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10064-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation