Beyond Phonics: The Case for Teaching Children the Logic of the English Spelling System

Abstract

A large body of research supports the conclusion that early reading instruction in English should emphasize phonics, that is, the teaching of grapheme–phoneme correspondences. By contrast, we argue that instruction should be designed to make sense of spellings by teaching children that spellings are organized around the interrelation of morphology, etymology, and phonology. In this way, literacy can be taught as a scientific subject, where children form and test hypotheses about how their spelling system works. First, we review arguments put forward in support of phonics and then highlight significant problems with both theory and data. Second, we review the linguistics of English spellings and show that spellings are highly logical once all the relevant sublexical constraints are considered. Third, we provide theoretical and empirical arguments in support of the hypothesis that instruction should target all the cognitive skills necessary to understand the logic of the English spelling system.

DISCLOSURE

Peter N. Bowers runs the company WordWorks, where he uses Structured Word Inquiry to teach children literacy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Jacqueline Aldridge, Patricia Bowers, Gina Cook, Nina Kazanina, John Kirby, Rebecca Marsh, and Gail Venable for comments on previous drafts.

Notes

¹ The term “restitutive” is used in the context of acquired disorders in which a person has lost a previously acquired skill. In the case of developmental disorders, perhaps a better term is “ameliorative” as the instruction is attempting to improve the impaired skill.

² These percentages are based on the DRC 2.0.0-beta.3511's vocabulary and GPC rules. I thank Max Coltheart and Steven Saunders for providing us this information.