NextGen Letters and Sounds: MyWordz®
NextGen Learners Want to Spend Less Time Learning to Read and More Time Reading About What Captures Their Interest.

​

A Brief History of The Evolution of the Written Word

The complex syllable patterns in our language, combined with the complexities of our spelling system, make written English one of the most complex systems in the world. Without understanding it, we cannot teach it. Being a skilled reader does not mean you understand it — and it can hinder your ability to support children. This matters: writing systems are codes for spoken language, and most people can’t figure them out without being taught, at the very least, the basic principles. For example, there are 26 letters in the alphabet, which are used in different combinations to represent the 44+ speech sounds we use. There are over 300 of these correspondences (please see Spelling Clouds). Although the whole code is not 'taught', enough of it needs to be understood for the learner to reach the stage where they can learn more by reading more. After supporting teachers responsible for tens of thousands of children in Australia over a ten-year period, we found that ‘tipping point’ at which all children start to self-teach, even the ones who were learners of concern. I explain this in my forthcoming book Word Mapping Mastery.

​

Writing is a defining feature of human civilization, and its origins can be traced back over 5,000 years. The ability to record spoken language through symbols has allowed for the preservation of knowledge, culture, and history. Early forms of writing, such as Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics, were logographic, meaning they primarily used symbols to represent entire words or concepts (Schmandt-Besserat, 1996). However, these systems were inefficient for representing the complexity of spoken language.

The breakthrough came with the development of phonetic writing systems, where symbols corresponded to individual sounds or phonemes. This shift allowed for the representation of any word in a language by using a small set of symbols, known as graphemes, to map onto phonemes (Gelb, 1952). This phoneme-grapheme correspondence is the foundation of alphabetic writing systems, including those used in English, and forms the basis for modern phonics instruction, which plays a critical role in literacy education.
 

The Origins of Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondence

Early writing systems evolved from pictographs—symbols that depicted objects or ideas—into more abstract forms that could represent sounds. The Sumerians, for example, began using cuneiform symbols to represent syllables, marking a transition towards phonetic writing (Daniels & Bright, 1996). Similarly, in ancient Egypt, hieroglyphics initially functioned as logograms but eventually included symbols representing individual sounds, such as consonants (Robinson, 1995).

The most significant leap in the development of phoneme-grapheme correspondence occurred with the Phoenician alphabet around 1200 BCE. The Phoenicians created a set of symbols that represented individual consonants, laying the foundation for alphabetic writing (Healey, 1990). The Greeks later adapted the Phoenician alphabet, adding vowels to represent the full range of phonemes in their language, creating the first true alphabet (Powell, 1991). This system was passed on to the Romans, whose alphabet became the basis for many modern writing systems, including English.

The concept of phoneme-grapheme correspondence is critical to understanding why alphabetic systems became so widely adopted. Alphabetic writing is efficient because it allows a finite set of symbols to represent an infinite number of words through combinations of letters. This efficiency is what makes alphabetic systems such powerful tools for literacy. However, it is crucial to note that phonics, the teaching of these sound-symbol relationships, has become synonymous with commercial synthetic phonics programmes, which often restrict the potential of this learning process.

The Importance of Phonics Instruction

Phonics, at its core, is the process of teaching the relationships between phonemes and graphemes, enabling children to decode written language (grapheme-to-phoneme) and encode it (phoneme-to-grapheme). Fundamentally, this is word mapping—the process of connecting the sounds of spoken language with their written representations. However, over time, the term "phonics" has become closely associated with commercial synthetic phonics programmes that focus on a limited set of phoneme-grapheme correspondences. These programmes are often delivered as a separate, time-limited subject in classrooms, narrowing the focus to a prescriptive approach rather than the more flexible and comprehensive process of word mapping.

The emphasis on synthetic phonics in England has led to a widespread belief that phonics instruction is a discrete subject, often limited to short daily sessions, primarily designed to teach children how to decode words using a set number of sound-letter correspondences. While this approach introduces essential decoding skills, it can be limiting. Children are often only exposed to the phoneme-grapheme correspondences explicitly taught within the programme, rather than the full range of correspondences found in the English language. This restricted focus leaves gaps in children's understanding of the broader, more complex relationship between sounds and written symbols.

Furthermore, this restriction masks a widespread inability of teachers to accurately map words into phonemes and graphemes other than the limited number of words that consist of the set of GPCs included in those programmes.    

To overcome these limitations, it is essential to shift the focus from the narrow confines of synthetic phonics to a more expansive approach—word mapping. Word mapping extends beyond the basic correspondences taught in commercial programmes and encourages children to explore the full range of phoneme-grapheme correspondences in English. This approach treats phonics as an integral part of the learning process, embedded throughout the school day, rather than a standalone subject.

Word mapping involves systematically connecting speech sounds with their written counterparts, using tools such as spelling clouds and the Code Mapping Tool. These tools provide children with opportunities to engage with the "whole code" of the English language, exposing them to the vast array of phoneme-grapheme correspondences, rather than restricting them to a limited set. As children engage in both decoding and encoding activities throughout the day, they develop a deeper and more flexible understanding of how words are constructed, improving their reading fluency and spelling skills.

By viewing phonics as an ongoing word mapping process rather than a rigid, isolated programme, children can engage in continuous discovery and application of phoneme-grapheme correspondences. This approach fosters a richer, more holistic understanding of the written language, allowing children to explore the complexities of English orthography in a way that is both engaging and effective. The focus shifts from simply decoding words to understanding how language works, empowering children to become confident, independent readers and spellers. Next generation learners are able to do this very differently, because of technology. The journey can now be far more personalised.

Phonics Instruction and Literacy Development

The way a writing system is designed determines how it should be taught. Phonics instruction teaches children the relationships between phonemes and graphemes, enabling them to decode written language by mapping graphemes to phonemes and to encode it by mapping phonemes to graphemes. Research has consistently shown that phonics is a highly effective method for teaching reading, particularly in alphabetic languages like English (National Reading Panel, 2000). Phonics instruction is based on the understanding that written language is a code for spoken language, and learning this code is essential for reading fluency. The sequence of instruction is compatible with the logic of this universal mapping code and the child’s language development.

The "Simple View of Reading" model, developed by Gough and Tunmer (1986), posits that reading comprehension is the product of two processes: decoding and linguistic comprehension. Decoding involves translating written symbols into sounds, while comprehension is the ability to understand the meaning of the decoded words. Phonics instruction directly supports the decoding process, providing children with the skills they need to access written language.

In order to encourage a focus on encoding (phoneme-to-grapheme mapping), I simplified the processes needed to store words in the orthographic lexicon by creating what I call the Speech Sound Mapping Theory. When children are taught both decoding and encoding simultaneously, the two processes reinforce each other. Decoding helps children read words, while encoding helps them understand how words are constructed and spelled. Teaching both provides a fuller, more complete understanding of the written language system (Ehri, 1997). Research suggests that children who receive explicit instruction in encoding develop better spelling skills (Treiman, 1993). When children learn to break down words into their constituent phonemes and map those speech sounds onto letters (graphemes), they gain a deeper understanding of word structure. This makes them more capable of spelling unfamiliar words and improves their overall writing skills.

Phonemic awareness—the ability to hear and manipulate sounds in spoken language—is a key predictor of reading success (Adams, 1990). Encoding activities, such as spelling words by focusing on their sounds, help strengthen this awareness. When children encode, they must consciously segment words into individual phonemes before mapping those sounds onto letters. This process helps solidify their understanding of phonemes and their role in spoken language, making decoding more intuitive.

A large body of evidence supports the effectiveness of systematic phonics instruction, particularly in the early stages of reading development. In a meta-analysis of phonics instruction, Ehri et al. (2001) found that systematic phonics instruction produced significant benefits in word reading, spelling, and reading comprehension for children of all abilities, including those at risk of reading difficulties. Phonics instruction is known to be critical for children with specific learning difficulties, such as dyslexia. Dyslexia is characterised by difficulties with phonological processing, including the ability to recognise and manipulate the sounds in spoken language (Snowling, 2019). Phonics instruction can help address these difficulties by providing a structured approach to learning the connections between phonemes and graphemes. Studies have shown that children with dyslexia benefit from intensive, explicit phonics instruction. Explicit, multisensory encoding instruction, paired with decoding, has been shown to improve reading and spelling outcomes for dyslexic learners (Shaywitz, 2003). This finding is particularly interesting in the context of the UK, where approximately 1 in 4 children fail to meet the expected reading standard by the end of primary school (Department for Education, 2019). If systematic phonics instruction is known to be effective, why are so many children in England struggling to read fluently? What exactly is ‘systematic phonics instruction’? What may be missing in England?

In many UK-based synthetic phonics programs, the initial focus is on the most common and simple correspondences, typically around 100, to give children a foundation for reading and spelling. However, this leaves many of the more complex or less frequent correspondences untaught within the structured synthetic phonics approach.

Here's what typically happens after the initial phonics instruction:

1. Beyond Synthetic Phonics: After the core 100 or so correspondences are taught, and a range of high frequency words with one of more GPC not explicitly taught (eg s ai d - with the /ai/ highlighted) children are expected to develop their reading skills through exposure to a wide variety of texts. As they encounter more complex words in reading, they pick up the remaining correspondences. This is often referred to as the self-teaching hypothesis, where children learn new correspondences incidentally through reading experience rather than explicit instruction.

2. Spelling and Word Study: Programs often shift focus to spelling rules, word families, and morphology (e.g., prefixes, suffixes, root words) after the core phonics instruction. These approaches help children understand patterns in English spelling, but they do not typically return to explicitly teaching all the remaining phoneme-to-grapheme correspondences.

3. More Irregular Words often called 'tricky words' or 'exception words' are taught that don't follow the basic phonics rules. However it seems (from an overview of school websites) that these are often memorised as whole words rather than being decoded phonemically, which leaves certain correspondences unexplored.

4. Ongoing Reading Development: Children are expected to continue refining their phonics knowledge over time, often relying on their teachers to fill in the gaps when they encounter unfamiliar spellings. In reality, many children may never learn all the phoneme-to-grapheme correspondences explicitly, especially if their reading experience isn't wide or varied or if teachers are not aware of them.

This model works for many children, but it can leave others, particularly those with learning difficulties like dyslexia, without the full toolkit needed to decode words independently. Gaps in explicit instruction, especially for less frequent correspondences, may contribute to reading challenges later on.

Research indicates that a significant proportion of children struggle to effectively "self-teach" the remaining phoneme-to-grapheme correspondences after systematic synthetic phonics instruction. Data shows that at least 25% of children are unable to read proficiently by the time they leave primary school, despite completing a synthetic phonics program. These children may not fully grasp or apply the more complex, less frequent phoneme-to-grapheme correspondences that are not explicitly taught in synthetic phonics programs.

Here’s a breakdown of the key groups impacted:

1. Children with Learning Difficulties:

   • Children with dyslexia or other learning difficulties that impact their phonemic awareness or working memory often struggle to self-teach phoneme-to-grapheme correspondences. They need ongoing explicit instruction well beyond the basic 100 correspondences.

   • For these children, relying on incidental learning through reading is insufficient. Without targeted intervention, they may fall further behind their peers.

2. Children with Limited Exposure to Reading:

   • Children who do not have rich exposure to a wide variety of texts, either at home or in school, are at a disadvantage. Since synthetic phonics often stops short of teaching the full range of correspondences, these children miss out on opportunities to encounter less common patterns in print.

   • For example, children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds might have fewer opportunities for incidental learning through books and reading activities, which widens the gap.

3. Children with Poor Phonemic Awareness:

   • Children who have not fully developed strong phonemic awareness (the ability to hear, isolate, and manipulate sounds in spoken language) struggle to apply the phonics knowledge they've learned. These children often find it difficult to move from phoneme-to-grapheme mapping to fluent reading.

   • This can happen even if they have been through a systematic synthetic phonics program, because phonemic awareness is foundational to self-teaching.

4. Children with Working Memory or Processing Speed Issues:

   • Reading fluency relies on the brain’s ability to rapidly retrieve and apply phoneme-grapheme correspondences. Children with slower processing speeds or working memory challenges often have difficulty recalling these correspondences when reading new or unfamiliar words.

Self-Teaching Gaps and Outcomes

Studies have shown that children who fail to develop automaticity in decoding through self-teaching may continue to struggle with reading comprehension, spelling, and overall literacy. They might be able to "read" but not understand or accurately decode more complex words.
For these children, failure to learn the full range of phoneme-grapheme correspondences can mean continued reliance on whole-word memorisation, rather than true decoding, which affects their ability to read and spell unfamiliar words independently.

Thus, 1 in 4 children (about 25%) are often cited as struggling to read proficiently by the end of primary school, with a key contributor being the inability to self-teach the correspondences that weren't explicitly taught during initial phonics instruction. This group may require more intensive, ongoing, and individualised support to bridge the gaps left by standard synthetic phonics programs.

Why Does the DfE Claim Validated Systematic Synthetic Phonics (SSP) Is Sufficient?

According to the DfE:

“A complete programme is one that provides all that is essential to teach SSP to children in the reception and key stage 1 years of mainstream primary schools, up to or beyond the standards expected by the national curriculum, and provides sufficient support for them to become fluent readers.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/phonics-teaching-materials-core-criteria-and-self-assessment/validation-of-systematic-synthetic-phonics-programmes-supporting-documentation

The DfE supports synthetic phonics primarily because:

1. Research Evidence: Studies shows systematically taught phonics effectively supports the development of orthographic knowledge for a majority of children, helping them learn to decode words effectively. The DfE uses this evidence to justify synthetic phonics as the primary method for early reading instruction. However, the view of what they constitutes is now very different to the vision Jim Rose shared.

2. Policy and Standardisation: Synthetic phonics provides a structured, standardised approach, which can be implemented across all schools, ensuring consistency in early reading instruction. The DfE prioritises this scalability, believing it can reduce regional or school-level discrepancies. Differentiation and individual needs is not prioritised, with programmes designed for teacher-led whole class instruction.

3. Cost-Effectiveness: Synthetic phonics is seen as a cost-effective method for improving literacy rates at scale. It allows for large-scale, uniform implementation with clear guidelines for schools however the result show that this is not 'working' for 1 in 4.

4. Phonics Screening Check Results: Most children pass the Year 1 Phonics Screening Check, and the DfE uses this as a metric to validate the effectiveness of synthetic phonics, even though passing the check doesn't equate to becoming a proficient reader later on.

The Contradiction: Why Doesn’t It Work for All?

Despite the DfE's claims, the reality is that synthetic phonics is not sufficient for everyone, particularly for the 25% of children who struggle with reading. Here's why:
 

1. Not All Children Self-Teach: Synthetic phonics assumes that children will "fill in the gaps" by self-teaching the rest of the phoneme-to-grapheme correspondences as they encounter more complex words. However, many children—especially those with learning difficulties like dyslexia—cannot self-teach effectively without further explicit instruction.

2. Phonemic Awareness Challenges: Synthetic phonics heavily relies on a child's ability to segment and blend sounds (phonemic awareness). For those with poor phonemic awareness, this approach doesn’t provide the deeper support needed to fully grasp reading mechanics.

3. Socioeconomic Disparities: Children from disadvantaged backgrounds may not have sufficient exposure to reading materials at home or role models who read, and inspire them to find materials they want to read, to fill in the gaps left by phonics instruction. This further widens the achievement gap.

4. Lack of Focus on Comprehension: While synthetic phonics focuses on decoding, it can neglect other crucial aspects of reading, such as comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency, which are vital for becoming a skilled reader. Children may be able to sound out words but still struggle to understand them.

5. Instructional Casualties: A "one-size-fits-all" approach creates instructional casualties—children who do not thrive under the synthetic phonics model and therefore fall behind.

The Disconnect

The DfE’s insistence that synthetic phonics is enough likely stems from a combination of evidence that shows its effectiveness for most children, along with a political drive for cost-efficient, scalable solutions. However, the 1 in 4 children who fail to become proficient readers by the end of primary school show that this approach is not sufficient for all—particularly those with learning difficulties, less exposure to language-rich environments, or those who require more tailored teaching approaches.

While the DfE may claim synthetic phonics is sufficient, the data on reading failures (25%) and the challenges faced by struggling learners show a clear gap in support. For many children, especially those with learning differences or from disadvantaged backgrounds, synthetic phonics does not provide enough explicit instruction or support to become fully skilled readers.

The historical evolution of writing systems highlights the importance of phoneme-grapheme correspondence in literacy development. However, the shift towards commercial synthetic phonics programmes has narrowed the focus of phonics instruction. To better support children's literacy, it is essential to adopt a broader word mapping approach, which integrates both decoding and encoding throughout the day. By embracing the complexities of the English language and exposing children to a wider array of phoneme-grapheme correspondences, word mapping offers a more comprehensive and engaging method of literacy instruction, empowering all children to read and spell with confidence.

Ask us about Word Mapping training to fill the gaps! You can implement NextGen Letters and Sounds instead!   

​

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. MIT Press.
Daniels, P. T., & Bright, W. (1996). The World's Writing Systems. Oxford University Press.
Department for Education. (2019). Key Stage 2 National Curriculum Assessments: Provisional Results.
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(3), 393-447.
Gelb, I. J. (1952). A Study of Writing. University of Chicago Press.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.
Healey, J. F. (1990). The Early Alphabet. University of California Press.
Powell, B. (1991). Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet. Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, A. (1995). The Story of Writing. Thames and Hudson.
Schmandt-Besserat, D. (1996). How Writing Came About. University of Texas Press.
Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming Dyslexia: A New and Complete Science-Based Program for Reading Problems at Any Level. Knopf.
Snowling, M. J. (2019). Dyslexia: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading Acquisition, Developmental Dyslexia, and Skilled Reading Across Languages: A Psycholinguistic Grain Size Theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 3-29.