LIMITATIONS OF THE PHONOLOGICAL MODEL

There is a great deal of bad research and many ineffective reading interventions based on the premise that reading is simply sounding out words (Fawcett & Nicolson, 2007; Kershner, 2016; Roberts, Torgesen, Boardman, & Scammacca, 2008; Shaywitz, Morris, & Shaywitz, 2008; Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2008; Snowling, 2008; Torgesen, et al., 2001). This is known as the phonological model (Johnson, 2016). Here, the reading process is thought to involve four sub-processes:

(a) perceiving the words and letters on the page,

(b) putting sounds to all the letters in each word,

(c) putting the individual sounds together to identify words, and

(d) putting the words together to create ideas. 

This is thought to create a form of speech-in-the-head with which the reader listens during reading. According to this model, a proficient reader is one who can sound out words automatically and fluently so that the speech-in-the-head is uninterrupted during reading. A struggling reader would be one who has sounding-out-words deficit. 

Since struggling readers have difficulty sounding out words, what is needed (according to this model) is more sounding-out-words instruction along with lots of sounding-out-words practice. Preferably, this instruction and practice would occur with words presented in isolation so that students would not be distracted by creating meaning with text or enjoying good books. The goal of this type of instruction is designed to create good sounder-outers. The thinking is that if students were good sounder-outers, their reading problems would vanish. Except that is not the case. 

What usually happens is that students get marginally better at sounding out words in isolation in the short term as measured by sounding-out-word measures. However, these skills do not transfer to the reading of authentic texts. And in the long term, students’ ability to create meaning with connected, meaningful text does not improve significantly. Also, since they are not good sounder-outers, students perceive of themselves as being poor readers. This diminishes any sense of self-efficacy and love of reading.

The big question: Do you want readers who can create meaning with print? Or sounder-outers?

Fawcett, A.J., & Nicolson, R.I. (2007). Dyslexia, learning, and pedagogical neuroscience. Developmental medicine and Child Neurology, 49(4), 306-311.

Johnson, A. (2016). 10 essential instructional elements for students with reading difficulties: A brain-friendly approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Publishing.

Kershner, J.R. (2016). Network dynamics in dyslexia: Review and implications for remediation. Research in Developmental Disabilities (59), 24-34

Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from research (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Roberts, G., Torgesen, J.K., Boardman, A., & Scammacca, N. (2008). Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 63-69.

Shaywitz, S.E., Morris, R., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2008). The education of dyslexic children from childhood to young adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 451-475.

Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2008). Paying attention to reading: The neurobiology of reading and dyslexia. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 1329-1349/

Snowling, M.J. (2008). Specific disorders and broader phenotypes: The case of dyslexia. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(1), 142-156

Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R., Rachotte, C.A., Voeker, K., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches: Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33-58.