Despite strong phonics instruction, many students struggled to decode words, even though they could complete phonological tasks. Research showed that effective phonemic awareness instruction focuses on a few key skills, integrates them with letters, and provides targeted, consistent practice. Instruction should be sequenced, with clear connections between sounds and letters, and brief, daily sessions. This approach leads to better decoding skills and ensures that phonemic awareness supports reading development from the start.
Hey Kirsten, this was a really good read and definitely stood out to me. I appreciate how you highlighted the connection between instructional alignment, research, and student growth in such a clear way. It is encouraging to see literacy work approached with both intention and evidence, especially at a time when so many educators are looking for what actually works. This is the kind of reflection that moves the conversation forward. Thank you for sharing it.
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.
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.
Yes, Sharon! This is exactly what we’re seeing in classrooms.
When instruction is clear, aligned, and reaching all students, it not only strengthens outcomes across the board—it also makes it much easier to notice which students aren’t responding as expected. Those patterns become visible much earlier.
That’s led to a lot of important conversations with educators. Early, targeted support really can change trajectories. And when we’re identifying students sooner—based on how they respond to strong instruction—we’re in a much better position to provide the kind of support that actually makes a difference.
Thank you for your interest—I really appreciate it! You can find more information and follow updates here: soundsofsuccess.info. I’ll be sharing more as we get closer to the March 31 release, including a preview for subscribers.
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.
Thank you so much, John—I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I completely agree that those instructional design decisions become especially important as students move from phonemic awareness work into decoding and connected text.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how to structure that transition in a way that supports both accuracy and transfer, especially in early readers.
I appreciate the recommendation as well—I’ll take a look.
Thanks, Kristen, for taking the time to reply. Creating a coordinated and integrated sequence of instruction is a daunting task. I was privileged to watch as some people (people whom Rosenshine called "master designers") drafted instructional programs, field-tested them, revised them, and tested them again (over and over). Kudos to you for wading into that river!
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.
The conclusion you have reached on the importance of blending and segmenting very much chimes with approaches in England (hence my curiosity about whether you had looked there). FWIW, it’s also my experience that it’s a vital skill.
Yes, I did spend time looking at a range of existing programs and approaches, including some of the work coming out of England. It was helpful to see how different models approached early reading instruction at a systems level.
At the same time, a lot of this work ultimately came from trying to reconcile what I was seeing in classrooms with what the research suggests is most critical for early reading development—especially around phoneme-level skills and their connection to print.
I agree that those programs can be a helpful reference point for anyone designing instruction!
How does this phonemic awareness system related to speech to print programs? Does this favor speech to print (e.g. EBLI) to print to speech (WILSON Reading, OG)?
Go-Gi English has developed and authored cognitive and logic-based English teaching books and materials for over 15 years. During this time, we have successfully taught phonics and foundational reading skills to hundreds of learners ranging from age 4 to international CEOs.
Remarkably, we have achieved strong results with students living in completely non-English-speaking environments, where they have virtually no daily exposure to English—no listening, speaking, or reading opportunities outside of our lessons. Over the past 12+ years, these learners have progressed effectively using our method.
We typically dedicate 20–30 hours to phonics instruction while simultaneously introducing other essential English components. Most students reach beginning reading proficiency—defined as accurate pronunciation and fluent oral reading of words and simple sentences—within approximately 60 hours of total lesson time.
Note- we don’t teach every phonemic possibility all at once, there’s no need to do this. That would be overwhelming and confusing to do so. We teach probably about 68 over our course.
Our learners are ESL students acquiring English alongside their native language in non-English-speaking countries. The method relies on explicit, step-by-step cognitive logic, systematically building understanding of how English works.
We have taught learners of all ages and from diverse linguistic backgrounds—including Japanese, French, various Chinese dialects, Indonesian, and even American children living overseas—with consistently strong outcomes.
Phonics enables learners to decode and pronounce individual words accurately. However, reading and producing full sentences requires a distinct set of cognitive and logical skills: the ability to assemble coherent thoughts into grammatically correct and natural English structures. These are two fundamentally different competencies, and both must be taught deliberately and logically.
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!
Thank you so much, Sherry—I really appreciate that. I’m excited to start sharing more of what this looks like in practice as we get closer to launch.
"Phonemic awareness was no longer something students practiced apart from reading. It became part of reading."
This definitely tracks with my experience with my own kids.
Thank you. Great read!
Despite strong phonics instruction, many students struggled to decode words, even though they could complete phonological tasks. Research showed that effective phonemic awareness instruction focuses on a few key skills, integrates them with letters, and provides targeted, consistent practice. Instruction should be sequenced, with clear connections between sounds and letters, and brief, daily sessions. This approach leads to better decoding skills and ensures that phonemic awareness supports reading development from the start.
Hey Kirsten, this was a really good read and definitely stood out to me. I appreciate how you highlighted the connection between instructional alignment, research, and student growth in such a clear way. It is encouraging to see literacy work approached with both intention and evidence, especially at a time when so many educators are looking for what actually works. This is the kind of reflection that moves the conversation forward. Thank you for sharing it.
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.
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.
Yes, Sharon! This is exactly what we’re seeing in classrooms.
When instruction is clear, aligned, and reaching all students, it not only strengthens outcomes across the board—it also makes it much easier to notice which students aren’t responding as expected. Those patterns become visible much earlier.
That’s led to a lot of important conversations with educators. Early, targeted support really can change trajectories. And when we’re identifying students sooner—based on how they respond to strong instruction—we’re in a much better position to provide the kind of support that actually makes a difference.
Are you able to share links to the curriculum you built? Thank you
Thank you for your interest—I really appreciate it! You can find more information and follow updates here: soundsofsuccess.info. I’ll be sharing more as we get closer to the March 31 release, including a preview for subscribers.
Thank you!
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!
Thank you so much, John—I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I completely agree that those instructional design decisions become especially important as students move from phonemic awareness work into decoding and connected text.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how to structure that transition in a way that supports both accuracy and transfer, especially in early readers.
I appreciate the recommendation as well—I’ll take a look.
Thanks, Kristen, for taking the time to reply. Creating a coordinated and integrated sequence of instruction is a daunting task. I was privileged to watch as some people (people whom Rosenshine called "master designers") drafted instructional programs, field-tested them, revised them, and tested them again (over and over). Kudos to you for wading into that river!
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.
The conclusion you have reached on the importance of blending and segmenting very much chimes with approaches in England (hence my curiosity about whether you had looked there). FWIW, it’s also my experience that it’s a vital skill.
Thank you so much—I really appreciate that.
Yes, I did spend time looking at a range of existing programs and approaches, including some of the work coming out of England. It was helpful to see how different models approached early reading instruction at a systems level.
At the same time, a lot of this work ultimately came from trying to reconcile what I was seeing in classrooms with what the research suggests is most critical for early reading development—especially around phoneme-level skills and their connection to print.
I agree that those programs can be a helpful reference point for anyone designing instruction!
How does this phonemic awareness system related to speech to print programs? Does this favor speech to print (e.g. EBLI) to print to speech (WILSON Reading, OG)?
Can you give an example of your phonemic awareness instruction?
Go-Gi English has developed and authored cognitive and logic-based English teaching books and materials for over 15 years. During this time, we have successfully taught phonics and foundational reading skills to hundreds of learners ranging from age 4 to international CEOs.
Remarkably, we have achieved strong results with students living in completely non-English-speaking environments, where they have virtually no daily exposure to English—no listening, speaking, or reading opportunities outside of our lessons. Over the past 12+ years, these learners have progressed effectively using our method.
We typically dedicate 20–30 hours to phonics instruction while simultaneously introducing other essential English components. Most students reach beginning reading proficiency—defined as accurate pronunciation and fluent oral reading of words and simple sentences—within approximately 60 hours of total lesson time.
Note- we don’t teach every phonemic possibility all at once, there’s no need to do this. That would be overwhelming and confusing to do so. We teach probably about 68 over our course.
Our learners are ESL students acquiring English alongside their native language in non-English-speaking countries. The method relies on explicit, step-by-step cognitive logic, systematically building understanding of how English works.
We have taught learners of all ages and from diverse linguistic backgrounds—including Japanese, French, various Chinese dialects, Indonesian, and even American children living overseas—with consistently strong outcomes.
Phonics enables learners to decode and pronounce individual words accurately. However, reading and producing full sentences requires a distinct set of cognitive and logical skills: the ability to assemble coherent thoughts into grammatically correct and natural English structures. These are two fundamentally different competencies, and both must be taught deliberately and logically.
@GoGiEngl
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.