In Ireland, early reading instruction historically followed a print-to-speech approach, and explicit phonemic awareness instruction largely did not exist. As a result, many children were expected to work with print without first being taught how to blend and segment sounds orally.
I very much support the explicit initial teaching of phonemic awareness, but this instruction should be brief and focused and should not delay systematic phonics. The intention is to develop transferable skills in oral blending and segmenting that children can then draw on as they learn to read and spell.
Thank you for contributing thoughtfully to this discussion.
I TOTALLY agree! Speech-to-Print as I practice it does not include any oral-only PA activities. It simply means that segmenting precedes blending: children encode words by moving magnet tiles or saying a phoneme while writing a grapheme before decoding them. This is explained in the two posts I shared as well as in the book by Ouellette and Senechal Brain Words: How the Science of Reading Informs Teaching, which emphasizes the “hear it, say it, write it, read it, use it” routine. Thanks again for an excellent explanation of the importance of integrating PA with phonics.
This is brilliant Jen, particularly the implications for classroom practice. We need this clarity for teachers and for policy development at school level. Thank you.
Jen, Thank you for taking the time to write this very important piece. I love it for two reasons.
First, you lead with purpose so clearly: “skill building that feeds directly into reading and spelling.” That single sentence does more instructional work than many 100-page curriculum documents. If that framing anchored more teacher conversations, I honestly think we’d be much further along. It makes the why of phonemic awareness immediately visible, not abstract or performative.
Second, I appreciate how you position research as a reasoned guide, not a blunt instrument. You acknowledge that phoneme manipulation does have a place (I've seen others that haven't) — likely more so for older readers who need to flex and manipulate sounds when a word doesn’t quite sound right or look right — without suggesting it should dominate instruction or be dropped entirely. That balance matters.
In my own teaching and coaching, I’ve absolutely seen moments where intentionally honing in on phoneme manipulation helps children become more flexible readers and spellers (and like you said typically older or more struggling students). Naming the skill explicitly and helping students understand why we’re practicing it supports transfer. It prepares them for those moments when a word doesn’t match what they expect, either in reading or spelling, and they need to adjust.
When we treat phonemic awareness as a binary topic (all one way or all another way)we end up with pendulum swings and confused teachers. And those swings don’t help build teacher judgment; they often replace it. What I appreciate here is that you leave room for professional decision-making while still keeping instruction anchored in research and what it has taught us about what feeds reading and spelling.
Thank Leah for such a thoughtful response. I’m particularly glad the focus on purpose resonated. You’ve hit on a vital point regarding those 'pendulum swings' as they really do risk undermining teacher agency and judgment. I also appreciate your reflection on helping children 'flex' their skills when words don’t immediately click. It’s that precise level of nuance that keeps instruction grounded in reality rather than abstraction. Thanks again for adding your perspective to the piece.
Thank you, Jen, for this well-thought out piece. The PA waters are quite murky and it’s important to acknowledge that. Nuance is needed when determining what exactly is needed in the classroom. Children can’t blend words in print if they cannot blend phonemes orally, and for many children, overlooking this may hold them back significantly. It’s also worth noting that segmenting is, in fact, an oral skill. Words need to be segmented into phonemes (whether out loud or not) before the phonemes can be mapped onto graphemes and the words encoded. Again, delays in this skill can have lasting effects for many children.
I appreciate the below conversation with Harriett Janetos. I, too, believe that phonemic awareness is an oral skill at its heart (with blending and segmenting truly the most important skills)---but, and it is a big but--it is supported by associating the phonemes with the corresponding graphemes.
Thank you for this important discussion. You may be interested in this piece, Timothy Shanahan Points to a Possible Speech-to-Print Advantage (https://open.substack.com/pub/harriettjanetos/p/timothy-shanahan-points-to-a-possible?r=5spuf&utm_medium=ios) as well as When the Experts Disagree (https://open.substack.com/pub/harriettjanetos/p/when-the-experts-disagree?r=5spuf&utm_medium=ios).
Hi Harriett.
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
In Ireland, early reading instruction historically followed a print-to-speech approach, and explicit phonemic awareness instruction largely did not exist. As a result, many children were expected to work with print without first being taught how to blend and segment sounds orally.
I very much support the explicit initial teaching of phonemic awareness, but this instruction should be brief and focused and should not delay systematic phonics. The intention is to develop transferable skills in oral blending and segmenting that children can then draw on as they learn to read and spell.
Thank you for contributing thoughtfully to this discussion.
I TOTALLY agree! Speech-to-Print as I practice it does not include any oral-only PA activities. It simply means that segmenting precedes blending: children encode words by moving magnet tiles or saying a phoneme while writing a grapheme before decoding them. This is explained in the two posts I shared as well as in the book by Ouellette and Senechal Brain Words: How the Science of Reading Informs Teaching, which emphasizes the “hear it, say it, write it, read it, use it” routine. Thanks again for an excellent explanation of the importance of integrating PA with phonics.
This is brilliant Jen, particularly the implications for classroom practice. We need this clarity for teachers and for policy development at school level. Thank you.
Jen, Thank you for taking the time to write this very important piece. I love it for two reasons.
First, you lead with purpose so clearly: “skill building that feeds directly into reading and spelling.” That single sentence does more instructional work than many 100-page curriculum documents. If that framing anchored more teacher conversations, I honestly think we’d be much further along. It makes the why of phonemic awareness immediately visible, not abstract or performative.
Second, I appreciate how you position research as a reasoned guide, not a blunt instrument. You acknowledge that phoneme manipulation does have a place (I've seen others that haven't) — likely more so for older readers who need to flex and manipulate sounds when a word doesn’t quite sound right or look right — without suggesting it should dominate instruction or be dropped entirely. That balance matters.
In my own teaching and coaching, I’ve absolutely seen moments where intentionally honing in on phoneme manipulation helps children become more flexible readers and spellers (and like you said typically older or more struggling students). Naming the skill explicitly and helping students understand why we’re practicing it supports transfer. It prepares them for those moments when a word doesn’t match what they expect, either in reading or spelling, and they need to adjust.
When we treat phonemic awareness as a binary topic (all one way or all another way)we end up with pendulum swings and confused teachers. And those swings don’t help build teacher judgment; they often replace it. What I appreciate here is that you leave room for professional decision-making while still keeping instruction anchored in research and what it has taught us about what feeds reading and spelling.
Thank Leah for such a thoughtful response. I’m particularly glad the focus on purpose resonated. You’ve hit on a vital point regarding those 'pendulum swings' as they really do risk undermining teacher agency and judgment. I also appreciate your reflection on helping children 'flex' their skills when words don’t immediately click. It’s that precise level of nuance that keeps instruction grounded in reality rather than abstraction. Thanks again for adding your perspective to the piece.
Thank you, Jen, for this well-thought out piece. The PA waters are quite murky and it’s important to acknowledge that. Nuance is needed when determining what exactly is needed in the classroom. Children can’t blend words in print if they cannot blend phonemes orally, and for many children, overlooking this may hold them back significantly. It’s also worth noting that segmenting is, in fact, an oral skill. Words need to be segmented into phonemes (whether out loud or not) before the phonemes can be mapped onto graphemes and the words encoded. Again, delays in this skill can have lasting effects for many children.
I appreciate the below conversation with Harriett Janetos. I, too, believe that phonemic awareness is an oral skill at its heart (with blending and segmenting truly the most important skills)---but, and it is a big but--it is supported by associating the phonemes with the corresponding graphemes.
👌👏👌👏