Print-to-speech or Speech-to-Print? That is the question

  • 04 June, 2022
  • 35 Comments

Teacher question:

I know you typically don’t talk about specific programs, but I really would like to know your thoughts. I had always wanted more training in a structured literacy program/approach. I always thought Wilson, and specifically OG approaches, were the gold standards. More recently, I began reading about programs labeled as speech to print. Proponents of speech to print methods claim it is much faster to teach kids to read (and spell) than OG based approaches. Is there research to support this? Are these studies comparing programs based on OG (that mainly follow a more print to speech approach) and programs that are more specifically speech to print? Thank you!

Shanahan response:

You are correct that I usually don’t comment on specific programs. However, I am willing to talk about research on programs or the consistency of certain parts of a program with research.

Let’s start with the claim that Orton-Gillingham (OG) and programs closely derived from it being the “gold standard.”
To me the gold standard for an instructional program would be an approach that consistently results in positive learning outcomes and that outperforms competing methods. This outperformance would be demonstrated by direct research comparisons, or by meta-analyses summarizing a bunch of disparate but relevant comparisons. Basically, a gold standard approach would result, on average, in greater amounts of learning.  

If OG is the gold standard of decoding instruction, then it should reliably do better than other approaches to explicit decoding instruction.

Back in National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) days, we analyzed the effectiveness of phonics across 38 experimental and quasi-experimental studies (that looked at 18 different curricula). Our conclusion was that phonics added a valuable ingredient to literacy teaching, and that programs that included explicit systematic phonics generally outperformed those that did not.

What about different types of phonics teaching? We made some of those comparisons, too. For instance, synthetic phonics (reading words from individual letters and sounds) resulted in higher average effects over analytic phonics (focused on syllables, morphemes, and use of known words as analogies), but this difference wasn’t statistically significant. In other words, those different approaches did about equally well.

We didn’t compare individual phonics programs with each other.

There were usually only 1 or 2 studies of most programs. That Phonics Program A outperformed its poorly specified comparison group a bit more than Phonics Program B outperformed its, isn’t the kind of evidence on which I want to make decisions.

One exception to this was OG approaches. There were enough of those to compute a meaningful estimate of overall effectiveness. Although there were both with positive and negative results, I didn’t push for such an analysis because I suspected the results would be misleading. When OG failed, it was usually with severely disabled populations. OG did not do particularly well in those cases (despite contrary claims), but would alternative approaches have done better?

Over the past 20 years, more research has accumulated, and OG now has its very own meta-analysis (Stevens, Austin, Moore, Scammacca, Boucher, & Vaughn, 2021). That study found OG to be effective but with rather modest benefits – lower effectiveness than was reported for the average phonics study in the NRP report.

So much for being the gold standard!

Orton-Gillingham procedures are no more effective than any other explicit systematic phonics instruction – despite the religious fervor of some of its advocates.

Of course, those true believers, argue against the data:

“They didn’t look at the right version of OG.”

“I do it a little differently than others and it really works well for my kids.”

“The newer trainers aren’t as good as the past ones, so they probably studied teachers who weren’t well trained.”

There is no reason to believe that those things are any more (or less) true of OG than any other approach – and the more studies that accumulate the less likely it matters. If it’s so hard to find a potent version, then we shouldn’t expect widespread success.

We don’t have direct comparisons of OG with other phonics approaches, but generally it looks like it can work as well they do (or, sometimes, not as well).

Which moves us on to the second point – the one about speech to print approaches to phonics.

I’ve oft grumbled about the lack of evaluation of individual features of complex instructional programs. Research may affirm the benefits of a program without revealing its active ingredients.

You’d think with all the interest in phonics these days there would be many such studies exploring the implications of sound tracing, analytic/synthetic approaches, grapheme-phoneme sequences, inclusion of morphological analysis, decodable text, emphasis on consistency versus flexibility, print-to-speech/speech-to-print approaches, dosage variation, and so on.

Unfortunately, there are few research comparisons of print-to-speech and speech-to-print. There is relevant information about that difference, just nothing definitive yet.

Historically, phonics programs tended to emphasize print-to-speech. Kids are taught to identify letters, to link sounds to those letters, and then to sound out words by sounding each letter. That instructional sequence is in the same order as the process readers must use during reading: look at the letters and use that information to generate a phonological representation.  

It seems reasonable to teach students explicitly what we eventually want them to do. However, advantageous curriculum designs do not necessarily mirror their end points so closely. Engaging in a process like reading and learning to read are not the same thing.

Perhaps the opposite – starting with phonemes and pronunciations and connecting those to letters and printed words – might be a good idea. It’s possible that trying to spell and write words does more to enhance phonemic awareness and it may somehow make the phonology more prominent or easy to perceive (Wasowicz, 2021).

The earliest evidence I know of on this was reported by Jeanne Chall (1967). In her qualitative review of research on phonics, she concluded that programs with spelling, writing, and/dictation did better than those without.

I followed up on that in my reading-writing relationship research in the 1980s. I found spelling and decoding to be closely related, even when a lot of other variables were available to suck up the variance (Shanahan, 1984). Later, Ginger Berninger and her colleagues followed up on that with an even more ambitious effort they found the same thing (Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, Graham, & Richards, 2002).

Marilyn Adams (1990) and Linnea Ehri (1997) both theorized on that possibility as well, and Steve Graham reported a meta-analysis on spelling instruction that found spelling to improve reading – probably because of its contribution to decoding (Graham & Santangelo, 2014).

That’s all fascinating, but it’s indirect. It suggests value, it doesn’t prove it.

Not everyone agrees with that conclusion. Louisa Moats (1998, 2005, 2010), for example, has several publications that treat this as a settled matter, claiming speech-to-print to be most effective. Her reasoning hasn’t convinced me, and yet preponderance of current data are certainly on her side.

Perhaps the closest thing we have to a direct test of the proposition is a meta-analysis of 11 studies (Weisler & Mathes, 2011). It concluded that instruction that integrated encoding into decoding instruction led to significantly higher reading achievement. Still not the strongest evidence – because it combined investigations that compared encoding with decoding (Christensen & Bowey, 2005) along with those that compared encoding instruction with things like extra math lessons (Graham, Harris, & Chorzempa, 2002).

At some point – any decoding program must focus on print-to-speech, since that is what we do in reading. However, I think there are real benefits to be derived from activities like invented spelling, spelling instruction, word construction from sounds, and so on – in any phonics program. Speech-to-print activities appear to increase learning. My advice: get a phonics program that includes such activities or layer them into a traditional print-to-speech program (including OG).

References

Adams, M. (1990) Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Graham, S., & Richards, T. (2002). Writing and reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940203500104

Chall, J.S. (1967). Reading: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ehri, L. C. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell (pp. 237-269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27, 1703-1743. DOI:10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0

Moats, L.C. (1998). Teaching decoding. American Educator, 22(1), 1-9.

Moats, L. C. (2005). How spelling supports reading and why it is more regular and predictable than you may think. American Educator, 29(4), 12-22, 42-43.

Moats, L. C. (2010). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

National Reading Panel (U.S.) & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read : an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading-writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 466–477.

Stevens, E.A., Austin, C., Moore, C., Scammacca, N., Boucher, A.N., & Vaughn, S. (2021). Current state of the evidence: Examining the effects of Orton-Gillingham reading interventions for students with or at risk for word-level reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 87(4), 397-417.

Wasowicz, J. (2021). A speech-to-print approach to teaching reading. LDA Bulletin, 53(2), 10-18.

Weisler, B., & Mathes, P. (2011). Using encoding instruction to improve the reading and spelling performances of elementary students at risk for literacy difficulties: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 17-200.

Comments

See what others have to say about this topic.

Sandhya
Jun 03, 2022 05:14 PM

Dr.Shanahan,
I love reading your blogs as part of my M.Ed. program. I would love to hear your views on the Montessori method of teaching phonemes and phonics. I look forward to reading your thoughts that could throw more light on the pros and cons of this approach.
Thank you.

Timothy Shanahan
Jun 03, 2022 07:24 PM

Sandhya--
I know of no research on those activities. I looked at some of them on line and they look fine to me.

tim

Debbie Meyer
Jun 04, 2022 05:03 PM

I wonder what happens when a teacher uses a good print to speech phonics programs, and those who struggle get help from an SLP using a good speech to print program, following the same sequence so the students get both!

Jennifer Newman
Jun 04, 2022 05:31 PM

I believe there is still some confusion regarding how we are defining “speech to print” (S2P) and “print to speech” (P2S) approaches to phonics. Most S2P approaches (Phono-Graphix, EBLI, Sounds-Write, Reading Simplified, Abecedarian, etc) organize their instruction around the 40+ phonemes of English and teach students the logic of our alphabetic code - sounds can be represented by 1-4 letters, some letters represent more than one sound), along with explicit practice segmenting, blending, and manipulating phonemes during encoding and decoding. As Diane McGuinness explained so well, all P2S phonics programs teach the code “backwards” which obscures it’s logic and necessitates teaching over 200 letter-sound correspondences, rules and exceptions to rules, and syllable types based on print characteristics rather than spoken language. This takes much more time and effort and many of our most struggling readers never achieve proficiency.

I am aware of a handful of studies demonstrating the efficacy and efficiency of S2P approaches (Truch, 1994; McGuinness & McGuinness, 1996) compared to business as usual instruction. I believe David Kilpatrick references some in his book as well.

In my experience these highly effective S2P instructional approaches have existed quietly on the margins and are not even taught in programs that train reading specialists, let alone studied by researchers, which is truly unfortunate.

Peggy
Jun 04, 2022 05:38 PM

I too love reading your insightful posts! You continually cause me to think and analyze my approach to reading intervention! Though I’ve been teaching for 26 years, the past few years have been the most productive of my career! I’ve moved from a Balanced Literacy approach of instruction to a Structured Literacy approach (though I’m still learning and haven’t yet hit the top half of Scarborough’s rope in K and 1 as well as I should). With that, I’ve found that using a phonemic awareness program along side an OG influenced phonics program together during my intervention time has helped my students to understand “both sides of the coin”. I love how I can use the two programs together to help my K and 1 students to unlock both decoding and encoding. Over the summer, I plan to focus my learning on fluency and better progress monitoring to meet the needs of my learners. Thank you again for all that you do!

Harriett Janetos
Jun 04, 2022 05:41 PM

As someone originally trained in Phono-Graphix before getting my reading specialist credential, I agree with Jennifer, though I really appreciate your final recommendation:

"I think there are real benefits to be derived from activities like invented spelling, spelling instruction, word construction from sounds, and so on – in any phonics program. Speech-to-print activities appear to increase learning. My advice: get a phonics program that includes such activities or layer them into a traditional print-to-speech program (including OG)."

'Layering' is exactly what I do, and I have found the recommended sequence (hear it, say it, write it, read it, use it) in Gentry and Ouellette's Brain Words: How the Science of Reading Informs Teaching particularly helpful.

This is an important topic!

Jill
Jun 04, 2022 06:33 PM

Thank you so much for the timely blog! This debate, as well as the synthetic vs. analytic phonics debate, has been on my mind a lot lately and I appreciate your advice for a layering approach to the speech to print/print to speech debate!

There are so many new books out there now such as Harriet's recommended book above, Christopher Such's book The Art and Science of Teaching Primary Reading, Artfully Teaching the Science of Reading by Chase Young, Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory in Action by Lovell, Reading Above the Fray by Lindsay, etc. that I was wondering if you could either recommend some here or update your recommended list on this website?

Holly Ehle
Jun 04, 2022 07:06 PM

So grateful that you shared your insight on this issue. I’m a doctoral student working on my Ph.D in Reading, Language & Literacy and want to do my research and dissertation on this very topic. I have collected several studies which yielded positive results of speech to print practices, but nothing in regard to a comparison study of print to speech vs. speech to print programs teaching the alphabetic principle. I’m working hard to develop a study on this. It’s very hard to find classrooms who use a speech to print approach to connecting phonemes and graphemes. I also teach kindergarten and shifted to a speech to print approach two year ago. The accelerated learning I have seen in my own students (as compared to letter/sound mastery w traditional print to speech methods) has been mind blowing, however, I know that can not be generalized. I am hopeful to be able to build a study of multiple classrooms in order to gather more valuable and accurate data. It is my hope that larger studies and meta-analyses will be done on this very topic!

Taylor
Jun 04, 2022 08:29 PM

What do you think about methods that are leaving out teaching letter names? I’m starting to see SOR proponents say letter names aren’t as important and shouldn’t be taught until letter sounds are under control.

Megan
Jun 04, 2022 09:06 PM

I'm a little confused on your distinction between speech-to-print and print-to-speech. Both prioritize the relationship between sounds of spoken language and print. While OG may start with direct teaching of graphemes, kids are encoding within a few lessons. Is this just the OG program I know well, Slingerland? From the beginning it is a balance of decoding and encoding work, so how does that qualify it as print-to-speech? The real outlier and problem is the ever popular balanced literacy cueing methods that minimize phonics and attend very little to word level reading unless through whole word memorization.

Timothy Shanahan
Jun 04, 2022 09:18 PM

Taylor--

I've written about that before and you can find those blogs on this site. Research shows definite benefits to including letter names in the instructional equation.

tim

Jody
Jun 04, 2022 09:44 PM

The way I was trained in OG half of every lesson is speech to print and the other half is print to speech, and they are interwoven in both the review section and the new section. It is a nice balance. I do add a short phonemic awareness component to each lesson as well…????

Pamela Snow
Jun 05, 2022 03:35 AM

Thanks for the post Tim, I agree it’s an important question, both theoretically and practically.
I’d be interested to know more about studies that you see as being supportive of invented spelling and how this should be incorporated. Thanks in advance.

Susan
Jun 05, 2022 02:26 PM

Thank you so much for this post. So many of my students (many with dyslexia) have strong phonemic skills but falter when it comes to rapidly applying the sounds they hear to the words they see. Without realizing it, I've been struggling with print-to-speech and speech-to-print all year. I would like to clarify, though. I'm trained in both OG and Reading Recovery. I'm wondering if the writing portion of the Reading Recovery lesson plan--where the child creates the sentence orally and then writes it with the help of the teacher--is an example of speech to print. It seems to me a very fruitful approach for young readers and writers. There's also Simultaneous Oral Spelling from the OG world--would that also be an example of speech to print? I'd welcome your thoughts on the efficacy of either approach in developing fluent reading.

Timothy Shanahan
Jun 05, 2022 06:54 PM

Susan--

Indeed, having students composing sentences and then trying to spell the words based upon their phonemic awareness skills and knowledge of words is an example of speech-to-print. However, so are dictation approaches in which the teacher dictates words or sentences for the students to try to write as has long been common in some explicit phonics approaches. Anytime a student is expected to work from sounds or pronunciations to spellings fit the category.

tim

Timothy Shanahan
Jun 05, 2022 07:03 PM

Pamela--

Great question. Hope you can wait a week for an answer... that will be the subject of my June 11 blog entry -- it is loaded with references.

thanks.

tim

Timothy Shanahan
Jun 05, 2022 07:06 PM

Jill--

What an interesting question. I've tended to avoid recommending most books because of the burden of reviewing the alternatives. However, your question is making me reconsider that. If I decide to do it and publishers cooperate (they'd have to send me the books), you'll be the first to know.

thanks.

tim

Dr. Gwen Lavert
Jun 05, 2022 09:03 PM

I believe that the Speech-to-Print Approach increases students ability to reading proficiently; especially for marginalized children. I have the data to prove that it works. Our teachers were trained in the following order to break the code:
Hear It!
See It!
Print It!
Associate It!
Expand It!
This systematic approach was easy for our students to grasp. My October, they knew all the sounds. By the end of December, our students were reading decodable text.

Jon Saphier
Jun 05, 2022 09:49 PM

I much appreciate you reasoned and long-term synthesis of this research. Since I first simultaneously used Roach Van Allen's materials and a lively phonic program named Alpha One in 1970 with my first graders I've wondered how to fuse and balance all these programs. You validate teacher decision-making based on studying the findings objectively.
Jon Saphier

Jan Wasowicz
Jun 06, 2022 02:37 PM

The topic of speech-to-print instruction is getting a lot of well-deserved attention these days, and I applaud Dr. Shanahan for making the point that it’s not a question of encoding OR decoding instruction – BOTH are critical for the development of literacy skills. I do want to clarify a few things:

Dr. Shanahan writes: “It’s possible that trying to spell and write words does more to enhance phonemic awareness and it may somehow make the phonology more prominent or easy to perceive (Wasowicz, 2021).”

This sentence does not accurately capture my position on the importance of spelling words, nor does it fully reflect the speech-to-print approach to reading described in the referenced article. The full article (Wasowicz, 2021) is available for all to read Wasowicz-A-Speech-to-Print-approach-to-teaching-reading.pdf (learningbydesign.com)

Dr. Shanahan writes: “You’d think with all the interest in phonics these days there would be many such studies exploring the implications of sound tracing, analytic/synthetic approaches, grapheme-phoneme sequences, inclusion of morphological analysis, decodable text, emphasis on consistency versus flexibility, print-to-speech/speech-to-print approaches, dosage variation, and so on. Unfortunately, there are few research comparisons of print-to-speech and speech-to-print. There is relevant information about that difference, just nothing definitive yet.”

Studies exist that address many, if not all, of these aspects, some of which I discuss in my article. Our understanding of reading and writing and best practices for reading and writing is constantly evolving. We can wait for a definitive answer (spoiler alert: it won’t come), or we can follow the current research and evolve our practices as new research becomes available.

Like traditional print-to-speech approaches, speech-to-print approaches can vary widely. The devil is in the details. There are some notable differences among speech-to-print approaches/commercial programs. For example, Phonographix focuses heavily on phonemes and graphemes with little attention to morphemes. SPELL-Links addresses all three in an integrated fashion. The speech-to-print approach described by Louisa Moats has some notable differences from that of SPELL-Links, perhaps most notably in Moats’ advocating for teaching the six syllable types, a method that has been called into question with recent research (e.g., see Kearns & Whaley, 2018). (Full disclosure: I am one of the authors of SPELL-Links.)

It’s incumbent for practitioners to look at the research basis for components of any approach or commercial program, and to be willing to tweak our instructional practices as new research becomes available.

Dr. Shanahan writes: “At some point – any decoding program must focus on print-to-speech, since that is what we do in reading. However, I think there are real benefits to be derived from activities like invented spelling, spelling instruction, word construction from sounds, and so on – in any phonics program. Speech-to-print activities appear to increase learning. My advice: get a phonics program that includes such activities or layer them into a traditional print-to-speech program (including OG).”

Another notable difference among speech-to-print approaches/commercial programs is that some exclusively teach spelling while others teach spelling as a gateway and decoding is inherently part of the speech-to-print program; encoding and decoding are integrated within the same lesson. This latter type of speech-to-print approach is further explained with specific teaching ideas in my 2021 publication with open access here: https://learningbydesign.com/why-spell-links/

Jan Wasowicz, PhD, CCC-SLP, BCS-CL
2019 Recipient of International Literacy Association's “Leaders Inspiring Readers Award”
Certificate of Clinical Competence, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Board Certified Specialist in Child Language, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Licensed Speech-Language Pathologist, State of Illinois Department of Professional Regulation
Licensed Speech-Language Pathologist, State of Florida Department of Health
Grades K-9 Elementary Classroom Teaching Certification (Type 73) with Speech-Language Endorsement, State Teacher Certification Board of Illinois
Grades 6-12 Secondary Classroom Teaching Certification (Type 73) with Speech-Language Endorsement, State Teacher Certification Board of Illinois

Harriett Janetos
Jun 06, 2022 02:53 PM

"The devil is in the details. There are some notable differences among speech-to-print approaches/commercial programs. For example, Phonographix focuses heavily on phonemes and graphemes with little attention to morphemes. SPELL-Links addresses all three in an integrated fashion. The speech-to-print approach described by Louisa Moats has some notable differences from that of SPELL-Links, perhaps most notably in Moats’ advocating for teaching the six syllable types, a method that has been called into question with recent research (e.g., see Kearns & Whaley, 2018)."

Thank you, Jan, for these important details. It's only been in the last four years that I have fully appreciated the importance of morphology in early reading instruction, but I still don't teach syllable types. Making these distinctions and decisions can be difficult for educators not steeped in both research and practice.

Timothy Shanahan
Jun 06, 2022 03:08 PM

Jan is, of course, correct that teachers can't wait for the research -- but that does not do away with the need for research on many alternative claims of various phonics advocates. For example, we've been told for my entire career about the benefits of either synthetic or analytic phonics, but science hasn't been able to distinguish them on the basis of data. Perhaps some of those other devil's-in-the- details points aren't distinguishing at all. We simply won't know until we have data.

Proponents of unstudied propositions need to lower their voices, admit the dearth of evidence, and provide clear explanations of why they have made the choice they have made (without denigrating alternative approaches which, truth be told could be every bit as good as the promoted approach) -- and they should implement or at least encourage empirical evaluations of their favored approaches. These days we're seeing state/district/school instructional mandates based on strongly held beliefs, but under the moniker of "science of reading." Advocates would serve children best by being scrupulous in distinguishing what they know from what they believe.

tim

Suzie NAVE
Jun 07, 2022 01:13 PM

I am a teacher who was trained in OG under a Fellow. I learned so very much and witnessed its merit. However, I then moved to a school run by SLPs. The speech to print approach was practiced using the program Phono-graphix--much like Reading Simplified.

I was skeptical at first, but now I am blown away. It is much faster, does NOT require a sequence. For older readers I listen for miscues and pull my materials for a particular sound focus or "chunking".

To be honest I blend my approaches to meet the need of the child. From personal experience working in 2 different schools focussed on SLD. I find both approaches work, but the flexibility and efficiency of the linguistic approach to reading has won me over.

Suzie NAVE
Jun 07, 2022 01:13 PM

I am a teacher who was trained in OG under a Fellow. I learned so very much and witnessed its merit. However, I then moved to a school run by SLPs. The speech to print approach was practiced using the program Phono-graphix--much like Reading Simplified.

I was skeptical at first, but now I am blown away. It is much faster, does NOT require a sequence. For older readers I listen for miscues and pull my materials for a particular sound focus or "chunking".

To be honest I blend my approaches to meet the need of the child. From personal experience working in 2 different schools focussed on SLD. I find both approaches work, but the flexibility and efficiency of the linguistic approach to reading has won me over.

Suzie NAVE
Jun 07, 2022 01:13 PM

I am a teacher who was trained in OG under a Fellow. I learned so very much and witnessed its merit. However, I then moved to a school run by SLPs. The speech to print approach was practiced using the program Phono-graphix--much like Reading Simplified.

I was skeptical at first, but now I am blown away. It is much faster, does NOT require a sequence. For older readers I listen for miscues and pull my materials for a particular sound focus or "chunking".

To be honest I blend my approaches to meet the need of the child. From personal experience working in 2 different schools focussed on SLD. I find both approaches work, but the flexibility and efficiency of the linguistic approach to reading has won me over.

Suzie NAVE
Jun 07, 2022 01:13 PM

I am a teacher who was trained in OG under a Fellow. I learned so very much and witnessed its merit. However, I then moved to a school run by SLPs. The speech to print approach was practiced using the program Phono-graphix--much like Reading Simplified.

I was skeptical at first, but now I am blown away. It is much faster, does NOT require a sequence. For older readers I listen for miscues and pull my materials for a particular sound focus or "chunking".

To be honest I blend my approaches to meet the need of the child. From personal experience working in 2 different schools focussed on SLD. I find both approaches work, but the flexibility and efficiency of the linguistic approach to reading has won me over.

Suzie NAVE
Jun 07, 2022 01:13 PM

I am a teacher who was trained in OG under a Fellow. I learned so very much and witnessed its merit. However, I then moved to a school run by SLPs. The speech to print approach was practiced using the program Phono-graphix--much like Reading Simplified.

I was skeptical at first, but now I am blown away. It is much faster, does NOT require a sequence. For older readers I listen for miscues and pull my materials for a particular sound focus or "chunking".

To be honest I blend my approaches to meet the need of the child. From personal experience working in 2 different schools focussed on SLD. I find both approaches work, but the flexibility and efficiency of the linguistic approach to reading has won me over.

Suzie NAVE
Jun 07, 2022 01:13 PM

I am a teacher who was trained in OG under a Fellow. I learned so very much and witnessed its merit. However, I then moved to a school run by SLPs. The speech to print approach was practiced using the program Phono-graphix--much like Reading Simplified.

I was skeptical at first, but now I am blown away. It is much faster, does NOT require a sequence. For older readers I listen for miscues and pull my materials for a particular sound focus or "chunking".

To be honest I blend my approaches to meet the need of the child. From personal experience working in 2 different schools focussed on SLD. I find both approaches work, but the flexibility and efficiency of the linguistic approach to reading has won me over.

Suzie NAVE
Jun 07, 2022 01:14 PM

I am a teacher who was trained in OG under a Fellow. I learned so very much and witnessed its merit. However, I then moved to a school run by SLPs. The speech to print approach was practiced using the program Phono-graphix--much like Reading Simplified.

I was skeptical at first, but now I am blown away. It is much faster, does NOT require a sequence. For older readers I listen for miscues and pull my materials for a particular sound focus or "chunking".

To be honest I blend my approaches to meet the need of the child. From personal experience working in 2 different schools focussed on SLD. I find both approaches work, but the flexibility and efficiency of the linguistic approach to reading has won me over.

Suzie NAVE
Jun 07, 2022 01:14 PM

I am a teacher who was trained in OG under a Fellow. I learned so very much and witnessed its merit. However, I then moved to a school run by SLPs. The speech to print approach was practiced using the program Phono-graphix--much like Reading Simplified.

I was skeptical at first, but now I am blown away. It is much faster, does NOT require a sequence. For older readers I listen for miscues and pull my materials for a particular sound focus or "chunking".

To be honest I blend my approaches to meet the need of the child. From personal experience working in 2 different schools focussed on SLD. I find both approaches work, but the flexibility and efficiency of the linguistic approach to reading has won me over.

Suzie NAVE
Jun 07, 2022 01:14 PM

I am a teacher who was trained in OG under a Fellow. I learned so very much and witnessed its merit. However, I then moved to a school run by SLPs. The speech to print approach was practiced using the program Phono-graphix--much like Reading Simplified.

I was skeptical at first, but now I am blown away. It is much faster, does NOT require a sequence. For older readers I listen for miscues and pull my materials for a particular sound focus or "chunking".

To be honest I blend my approaches to meet the need of the child. From personal experience working in 2 different schools focussed on SLD. I find both approaches work, but the flexibility and efficiency of the linguistic approach to reading has won me over.

Suzie NAVE
Jun 07, 2022 01:15 PM

I am a teacher who was trained in OG under a Fellow. I learned so very much and witnessed its merit. However, I then moved to a school run by SLPs. The speech to print approach was practiced using the program Phono-graphix--much like Reading Simplified.

I was skeptical at first, but now I am blown away. It is much faster, does NOT require a sequence. For older readers I listen for miscues and pull my materials for a particular sound focus or "chunking".

To be honest I blend my approaches to meet the need of the child. From personal experience working in 2 different schools focussed on SLD. I find both approaches work, but the flexibility and efficiency of the linguistic approach to reading has won me over.

Suzie NAVE
Jun 07, 2022 01:15 PM

I am a teacher who was trained in OG under a Fellow. I learned so very much and witnessed its merit. However, I then moved to a school run by SLPs. The speech to print approach was practiced using the program Phono-graphix--much like Reading Simplified.

I was skeptical at first, but now I am blown away. It is much faster, does NOT require a sequence. For older readers I listen for miscues and pull my materials for a particular sound focus or "chunking".

To be honest I blend my approaches to meet the need of the child. From personal experience working in 2 different schools focussed on SLD. I find both approaches work, but the flexibility and efficiency of the linguistic approach to reading has won me over.

Suzie NAVE
Jun 07, 2022 01:15 PM

I am a teacher who was trained in OG under a Fellow. I learned so very much and witnessed its merit. However, I then moved to a school run by SLPs. The speech to print approach was practiced using the program Phono-graphix--much like Reading Simplified.

I was skeptical at first, but now I am blown away. It is much faster, does NOT require a sequence. For older readers I listen for miscues and pull my materials for a particular sound focus or "chunking".

To be honest I blend my approaches to meet the need of the child. From personal experience working in 2 different schools focussed on SLD. I find both approaches work, but the flexibility and efficiency of the linguistic approach to reading has won me over.

Suzie NAVE
Jun 07, 2022 01:15 PM

I am a teacher who was trained in OG under a Fellow. I learned so very much and witnessed its merit. However, I then moved to a school run by SLPs. The speech to print approach was practiced using the program Phono-graphix--much like Reading Simplified.

I was skeptical at first, but now I am blown away. It is much faster, does NOT require a sequence. For older readers I listen for miscues and pull my materials for a particular sound focus or "chunking".

To be honest I blend my approaches to meet the need of the child. From personal experience working in 2 different schools focussed on SLD. I find both approaches work, but the flexibility and efficiency of the linguistic approach to reading has won me over.

What Are your thoughts?

Leave me a comment and I would like to have a discussion with you!

Comment *
Name*
Email*
Website
Comments

Print-to-speech or Speech-to-Print? That is the question

35 comments

One of the world’s premier literacy educators.

He studies reading and writing across all ages and abilities. Feel free to contact him.