Savannah, thank you so much for reading and for your kind words—I really appreciate it! I’m excited you joined the update list. The work has been a long journey, and it’s been incredibly encouraging to see so many educators interested in aligning practice with what the research is showing.
Kristen, I'm glad to read about your diligent work on discovering how to improve reading instruction. It's enheartening that you found appropriate guidance in the evidence about reading instruction. It's also encouraging that you took the step of testing your methods...such an important and so-often overlooked step.
You may have also studied research about aspects of instructional design that go beyond phonemic awareness, connecting letters and sounds, and the similar factors that you mentioned in this post. In designing early decoding instruction there are also decisions about which letter-sound combinations to use earlier and instruction and which to introduce later, transitioning from single-word decoding to connected text, how to structure practice and review, etc.
You might find "Direct Instruction Reading" (6th ed., by Doug Carnine, Jerry Silbert, Ed Kame'enui, Tim Slocum, & Trisha Travers) really valuable in honing your methods and integrating them with full-on reading instruction. It's a very practical guide to evidence-based reading instruction. (I don't get a kick back or anything for mentioning this.
Fascinating blog which I enjoyed reading a lot. It sounds like you have worked out an excellent design. I just have a question about the stage when you were looking for resources. Did you look at any of the programmes validated by the DFE in England? I think they could be useful for people designing programmes in the US.
It’s great to see a program addressing the connection in the classroom with all students. This lays the foundation that all readers need, but not all are getting. When you teach this way and you still see those who struggle with sounds and letters, blending and segmentation, those children are more easily identified for further assessments for the characteristics of dyslexia or other reading disabilities. The earlier this is identified, the sooner intervention can begin.
How is what you are doing different from Orton-Gillingham? In 1976, Florence Schmerler modified the Orton-Gillingham scope and sequence to focus on one vowel sound at a time. The number of words to be learned was kept low enough to be learned and memorized rapidly. See https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED089484.pdf
Daniel, thank you for sharing that resource—it’s always interesting to look at the history of different instructional approaches.
From what I can tell, the document you linked describes a phonics sequence that focuses on teaching one vowel pattern at a time using a small set of printed words. The focus of the article I wrote is a little different. It centers on the research around phonemic awareness—particularly phoneme-level blending and segmenting—and how those skills support early decoding and spelling development.
One area that can create confusion is the use of letters. In the research literature, phonemic awareness is often described as working with sounds alone, but a growing body of work suggests that linking phonemic awareness to letters can strengthen the connection between phonemes and graphemes and better support early word reading. That integration is an important part of the instructional design I describe.
Another difference is the instructional purpose and intensity. Traditional Orton–Gillingham approaches are often used as structured literacy interventions for students with significant reading difficulties and can involve much more intensive instructional time. The routines I describe are designed to be brief daily instruction (about 10 minutes) used in Tier 1 or early intervention settings to help students establish the foundational blending and segmenting skills that support decoding.
I’ve learned a great deal from many structured literacy traditions over the years, including OG. My goal with this work was to build a system that aligns closely with what the phonemic awareness and early reading research suggests about the skills that matter most for beginning readers.
Thanks again for sharing the link—I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.
Kirstan, Thank you for replying. Indeed, the method described was intense, time-consuming, and very powerful. It was intended for LD students. I rarely got so intense and primarily used the Reading Mastery program until the student was ready to read less contrived text. Dr. Seuss was a good transition. I did not like the scripted lessons, although I understand Carnine and Engelmann's effort to have teachers avoid long explanations and to encourage high rates of student responding. In the regular classroom, your program is wonderful. I think teaching phonemic sounds without associating them with letters is just auditory discrimination. I am LD with auditory discrimination issues.
One concern I've heard raised about OG is that the pacing is too slow to efficiently close gaps for the students who are far behind. I am new to the concept of "interleaving" but I wonder if focusing on one vowel at a time might appear to be effective over the course of a single lesson, but isn't as effective over time. Thanks for sharing the link. Fascinating scope and sequence! I couldn't figure out how much time is spent on each lesson. Let me know if you have that information.
Savannah, that’s a really thoughtful question. From what I could tell, the program Daniel shared was part of a remedial project and involved fairly long instructional blocks (around 90 minutes), so it was designed for a much more intensive intervention context. Interesting read.
I agree you may be onto something with your thought about focusing on one vowel at a time. Blocked practice can make performance look strong within a lesson, but research on learning and memory suggests that interleaving and spaced practice often produce stronger long-term learning than massed practice because students have to retrieve information repeatedly, which helps combat the forgetting curve and solidify differences between concepts.
Savannah, indeed, it is slow. It may take a year or two to work through the skills sequence to mastery. When introducing other vowels, the consonants and syllable patterns are established, so it is not too difficult to go from nat to net, etc. I used the Reading Mastery program, but transitioned the student as soon as they were ready for less-controlled text. Again, these were used with LD children. I believe a less intense program is appropriate for regular classroom instruction. It would be helpful if teachers were aware of these methods so they could briefly employ them when a student is not mastering a skill.
This is such great research. I can't wait for it to launch as well!
Those graphs are astonishing! Following the research, for the win! I've added my name to the list to be updated when Sounds of Success launches.
Savannah, thank you so much for reading and for your kind words—I really appreciate it! I’m excited you joined the update list. The work has been a long journey, and it’s been incredibly encouraging to see so many educators interested in aligning practice with what the research is showing.
Kristen, I'm glad to read about your diligent work on discovering how to improve reading instruction. It's enheartening that you found appropriate guidance in the evidence about reading instruction. It's also encouraging that you took the step of testing your methods...such an important and so-often overlooked step.
You may have also studied research about aspects of instructional design that go beyond phonemic awareness, connecting letters and sounds, and the similar factors that you mentioned in this post. In designing early decoding instruction there are also decisions about which letter-sound combinations to use earlier and instruction and which to introduce later, transitioning from single-word decoding to connected text, how to structure practice and review, etc.
You might find "Direct Instruction Reading" (6th ed., by Doug Carnine, Jerry Silbert, Ed Kame'enui, Tim Slocum, & Trisha Travers) really valuable in honing your methods and integrating them with full-on reading instruction. It's a very practical guide to evidence-based reading instruction. (I don't get a kick back or anything for mentioning this.
Happy and successful designing!
Fascinating blog which I enjoyed reading a lot. It sounds like you have worked out an excellent design. I just have a question about the stage when you were looking for resources. Did you look at any of the programmes validated by the DFE in England? I think they could be useful for people designing programmes in the US.
It’s great to see a program addressing the connection in the classroom with all students. This lays the foundation that all readers need, but not all are getting. When you teach this way and you still see those who struggle with sounds and letters, blending and segmentation, those children are more easily identified for further assessments for the characteristics of dyslexia or other reading disabilities. The earlier this is identified, the sooner intervention can begin.
How is what you are doing different from Orton-Gillingham? In 1976, Florence Schmerler modified the Orton-Gillingham scope and sequence to focus on one vowel sound at a time. The number of words to be learned was kept low enough to be learned and memorized rapidly. See https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED089484.pdf
Daniel, thank you for sharing that resource—it’s always interesting to look at the history of different instructional approaches.
From what I can tell, the document you linked describes a phonics sequence that focuses on teaching one vowel pattern at a time using a small set of printed words. The focus of the article I wrote is a little different. It centers on the research around phonemic awareness—particularly phoneme-level blending and segmenting—and how those skills support early decoding and spelling development.
One area that can create confusion is the use of letters. In the research literature, phonemic awareness is often described as working with sounds alone, but a growing body of work suggests that linking phonemic awareness to letters can strengthen the connection between phonemes and graphemes and better support early word reading. That integration is an important part of the instructional design I describe.
Another difference is the instructional purpose and intensity. Traditional Orton–Gillingham approaches are often used as structured literacy interventions for students with significant reading difficulties and can involve much more intensive instructional time. The routines I describe are designed to be brief daily instruction (about 10 minutes) used in Tier 1 or early intervention settings to help students establish the foundational blending and segmenting skills that support decoding.
I’ve learned a great deal from many structured literacy traditions over the years, including OG. My goal with this work was to build a system that aligns closely with what the phonemic awareness and early reading research suggests about the skills that matter most for beginning readers.
Thanks again for sharing the link—I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.
Kirstan, Thank you for replying. Indeed, the method described was intense, time-consuming, and very powerful. It was intended for LD students. I rarely got so intense and primarily used the Reading Mastery program until the student was ready to read less contrived text. Dr. Seuss was a good transition. I did not like the scripted lessons, although I understand Carnine and Engelmann's effort to have teachers avoid long explanations and to encourage high rates of student responding. In the regular classroom, your program is wonderful. I think teaching phonemic sounds without associating them with letters is just auditory discrimination. I am LD with auditory discrimination issues.
One concern I've heard raised about OG is that the pacing is too slow to efficiently close gaps for the students who are far behind. I am new to the concept of "interleaving" but I wonder if focusing on one vowel at a time might appear to be effective over the course of a single lesson, but isn't as effective over time. Thanks for sharing the link. Fascinating scope and sequence! I couldn't figure out how much time is spent on each lesson. Let me know if you have that information.
Savannah, that’s a really thoughtful question. From what I could tell, the program Daniel shared was part of a remedial project and involved fairly long instructional blocks (around 90 minutes), so it was designed for a much more intensive intervention context. Interesting read.
I agree you may be onto something with your thought about focusing on one vowel at a time. Blocked practice can make performance look strong within a lesson, but research on learning and memory suggests that interleaving and spaced practice often produce stronger long-term learning than massed practice because students have to retrieve information repeatedly, which helps combat the forgetting curve and solidify differences between concepts.
Savannah, indeed, it is slow. It may take a year or two to work through the skills sequence to mastery. When introducing other vowels, the consonants and syllable patterns are established, so it is not too difficult to go from nat to net, etc. I used the Reading Mastery program, but transitioned the student as soon as they were ready for less-controlled text. Again, these were used with LD children. I believe a less intense program is appropriate for regular classroom instruction. It would be helpful if teachers were aware of these methods so they could briefly employ them when a student is not mastering a skill.