SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 1 Systematic Phonics Instruction: The Benefits and Teacher Readiness by Chelsea Hroch A proposal submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah April 9th, 2025 Approved ______________________________ Dr. DeeDee Mower, Ph. D ______________________________ Dr. Deborah Vaughn, Ph. D ______________________________ Dr. Melina Alexander, Ph. D SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract...........................................................................................................................................3 Literature Review.......................................................................................................................... 5 What is Phonics..........................................................................................................................5 The War on Phonics................................................................................................................... 6 History of Phonics Instruction................................................................................................... 6 History of Phonics Research................................................................................................8 Phonics Instruction In the Present............................................................................................14 LETRS............................................................................................................................... 16 Preservice Teacher Preparation................................................................................................18 Making an Effective Phonics Teacher..................................................................................... 22 Teacher Knowledge on Phonics.........................................................................................23 Method.......................................................................................................................................... 25 One School’s Phonics Program................................................................................................25 Setting...................................................................................................................................... 25 Participants...............................................................................................................................26 Data Collection and Procedure................................................................................................ 26 Measure....................................................................................................................................26 Results........................................................................................................................................... 27 Are Teachers Prepared?........................................................................................................... 27 SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 3 Professional Developments and Training.......................................................................... 28 Teacher Prep Programs...................................................................................................... 29 Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 29 Limitations and Future Direction...............................................................................................30 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 31 References..................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix.......................................................................................................................................35 SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 4 Abstract This paper examines the efficacy of systematic phonics instruction in fostering early literacy development, while addressing the critical issue of teacher preparedness for its implementation. Research consistently demonstrates that systematic phonics, characterized by explicit, sequential instruction, yields significant improvements in students' reading and spelling abilities compared to less structured approaches. However, a significant gap exists between the proven benefits and the practical application in classrooms. The study explores the historical evolution of phonics instruction, highlighting evidence-based methods like Orton-Gillingham and programs such as LETRS. It further investigates the challenges associated with teacher training, revealing a lack of adequate preparation in preservice programs. This deficiency hinders teachers' ability to effectively implement new phonics programs, leading to inconsistencies in instruction and potentially impacting student outcomes. The paper stresses the necessity for comprehensive teacher training, emphasizing the importance of equipping educators with the knowledge and skills required to deliver rigorous and effective systematic phonics instruction, ensuring all students achieve reading proficiency. Key Words: LETRS, phonics, teacher readiness, teacher knowledge SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 5 Systematic Phonics Instruction: The Benefits and Teacher Readiness Teaching young students to read has historically been known as a tricky and perplexing task. Ehri et al., (2001), suggests that “children enter school with substantial competence speaking their language, but typically they have little knowledge about how to read and write"(p. 394). Systematic phonics instruction, through research, is said to provide students with the functionality of phonics in a way that will set them up for success. However, researchers have noted that while systematic phonics instruction is successful, there is no way to ensure that teachers are continuing to implement that instruction year after year (Nelson-Walker et al., 2013). If teachers do not consistently and rigorously implement the systematic phonics instruction each year, it will be difficult to see the effects of it within their classrooms. Learning to read and write is crucial for aspects outside its main intentions; proficient reading can assist with math, science, and many other subjects. Cohen et al. (2016) states that “the ability to read well is key to success in school, and in life” (p.654). Proficient reading is best learned through phonics instruction (National Reading Panel, 2000). For phonics instruction to be most effective for students, it needs to be implemented systematically and continuously (Sanden et al., 2022, p. 69). With systematic phonics instruction comes the preparation of the teachers who are delivering the instruction. When teachers are confident in their abilities it can directly translate into the success of their students. Having appropriate and useful resources readily available for students and teachers can increase student success as well. Unfortunately, not all instruction being delivered to students is the most effective and beneficial to their phonics learning. Despite the proven effectiveness of systematic phonics instruction, it is not being implemented universally amongst all teachers, therefore creating gaps in the learning abilities and development of some elementary aged students (Arrow et al., 2019). SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 6 Literature Review Research dating back years has been trying to determine whether systematic phonics instruction can impact and improve elementary aged students' ability to read. There has often been great debate surrounding the most effective teaching methods regarding phonics instruction, “Over the years, educators have disagreed about how beginning reading should be taught [some argued for]...starting with a systematic phonics approach...others argued for whole-word or whole-language approaches” (Ehri et al., 2001). Cross-analyzing research will allow a better understanding of how phonics instruction has progressed throughout the years, and how it may have stayed the same, as well as how teachers have been prepared to implement rigorous phonics instruction. What is Phonics ​ Mesmer and Griffith (2005) stated that: The term phonics has two meanings. First, phonics describes the letters or symbols used to encode a language’s spoken components…The second meaning, more closely tied to educational practice, refers to teaching learners the relationships between letters and sounds and how to use this system to recognize words. (pp. 366-367) Phonics is a main component when learning how to read. If students cannot identify letters, recognize their sounds and be able to blend sounds together to form words, then reading will be a struggle for them. When students learn the relationship between sounds and letters, they can then apply those skills to their reading. “Phonics knowledge leads to word knowledge” (International Literacy Association, 2018, p. 2). In students' early school years, they are introduced to letters and their corresponding sounds, as they progress through their school years. Those essential skills are built upon and SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 7 students learn how to segment/blend words, decode unfamiliar words and different spelling patterns that they will encounter. Before students can even begin with their phonics instruction they must have “an ability to recognize and produce speech sounds, use language structures, engage with meaning systems and use language appropriately” (International Literacy Association, 2018, p. 3). Without these crucial foundational skills, the implementation of phonics instruction would not be as effective The War on Phonics ​ The debate surrounding the most effective way to implement phonics instruction in the classroom has long been a central issue in literacy education. This controversy is far from new; it has deep historical roots, with disagreements about the role of phonics in reading instruction dating back to the early 20th century and beyond. As Kim (2008) observes, “Controversy over the role of phonics in reading instruction has persisted for over 100 years, making the reading wars seem like an inevitable fact of American history” (p. 132). These so-called "reading wars" have typically revolved around two dominant approaches: systematic phonics instruction, which emphasizes explicit teaching of sound-symbol correspondences, and whole-language approaches, which advocate for meaning-based, child-centered literacy development (Goodman, 1986; Pearson, 2004). Over the past several decades, educational policies and classroom practices have fluctuated in response to these competing paradigms. The “back-to-basics” movement of the 1970s marked a return to phonics instruction, while the rise of progressive educational models in the 1980s and 1990s brought renewed emphasis on whole-language methods (Altwerger, 2005). In the 21st century, growing evidence from neuroscience and cognitive psychology has revitalized support for structured phonics, particularly in early literacy instruction (Dehaene, 2009; Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018). Recent curriculum reforms and government interventions SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 8 in countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia increasingly reflect a science-based consensus favoring systematic phonics as a foundational component of reading instruction (Department for Education, 2012; Snow, 2020). History of Phonics Instruction In 2015, Leeming provided some insight into the The National Reading Panel report (2000) stating that “phonemic awareness helps students with disabilities, students with reading difficulties, very young students (preschoolers), kindergarteners, 1st graders, students from a range of socioeconomic groups, and ESL students" (p. 5). Orton-Gillingham Method for students K-5 was created by Samuel T. Orton and Anna Gillingham, and their goal was to provide “direct, explicit, multisensory, structured, sequential, diagnostic, and prescriptive ways to teach literacy when reading, writing, and spelling does not come easily to individuals” (Ahearn, 2019). In a review of literature, Leeing (2015) gathered research regarding the effectiveness of the Orton-Gillingham (OG) method. This review of 12 studies had some mixed reviews: some stating that the program was effective and others stating that there was no real significant difference between OG and other programs. However, the overall results came back in favor of the success of the program and the systematic approach that it uses. Leeing (2015) states that: Twelve studies that employed quasi-experimental or experimental designs are reviewed. These studies included elementary students, adolescents, and college students. Of the 12 studies, 5 reported that the OG instruction was more effective than were comparison or control interventions for all measured outcomes, 4 reported that the OG instruction was more effective for at least 1 (but not all) outcomes in comparison to other intervention(s), 2 reported that the alternate SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 9 instruction was more effective than the OG instruction, and 1 reported no significant differences once covariates were included. (p. 10), Five studies found it worked better than other methods for all outcomes. Four found it better for some outcomes, but not all. Two studies found other methods worked better, and one found no big differences after considering other factors (2015). In 1997, the United States Congress gathered a group of fourteen people to assess the effectiveness of teaching children to read. Fourteen people were selected for this panel including, parents, teachers, reading scientists, college representatives and educational administrators (Child Development and Behavior Branch, 2019). This panel worked together over two years to deliberate and pinpoint the most important aspects of reading and what skills they believe students need to make themselves successful readers. According to Shanahan (2005) the topics that this panel chose to further explore were “phonemic awareness, phonics, oral reading fluency, encouraging children to read, vocabulary, comprehension strategies, professional development, and technology”. Furthermore, panelists decided that two of the topics were inconclusive and that further research was needed to consider them important, and those two were technology and encouraging children to read. Out of the six remaining categories, five were related to how teachers should be teaching the reading instruction, and one was about the preparedness of these teachers in the specific phonics instruction areas. History of Phonics Research Santa et al. (2000) states that “Excellent reading teachers include a variety of reading materials in their classrooms” (p.196). When students have access to a variety of reading materials and a variety of ways to read, their ability to love reading will increase which in turn will increase their reading skills and fluency. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations can play a role in SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 10 the success of students' reading abilities. In a study done by Guthrie et al. (2000), research was collected in two parts, the first being “students receiving an instructional intervention designed to increase intrinsic motivation” (p. 331) and the second being “students receiving traditional instruction” (p. 331). Part of this research concluded that teachers play a significant role in the success of their students. When teachers are involved and care for their students, the abilities and engagement of their students will start to increase, and with increased engagement comes increased student learning. In a research article by deGraaff et al., (2009) “A variety of systematic phonics programs have been designed to teach children reading and spelling skills...” (p. 318). DeGraaff et al. (2009), collected data which stated that phonics elements which are taught in a sequential order in a way that builds off previous skills and reteaches past skills until automaticity is achieved. For example, when students have gone through all their letter sounds, they may start to learn how to blend and segment those sounds into CVC words. However, they will still review those letter sounds until every student has mastered them. Systematic approaches, rather than unsystematic approaches in regard to phonics instruction are more successful (Ehri, 2001). In their pre-post designed experimental research, deGraaff et al (2009), determined that systematic phonics instruction benefits students. Researchers administered pre and post tests to a group of 93 students of approximately 7 years of age. They separated students into three groups, those receiving systematic phonics instruction, those receiving non-systematic phonics instruction, and those not receiving phonics instruction. Results of the post test indicated students in the systematic phonic instruction group had greater reading gains (deGraaff et al., 2009). DeGraaff et al. (2009) writes that students were taught following their pretest under three different conditions (p. 324). The first being through the use of implementing a systematic SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 11 phonics instruction approach, the next being through the use of implementing an unsystematic phonics instruction approach and the final being through either systematic or unsystematic phonics instruction (deGraaff et al., 2009, p. 324). Through the systematic phonics instruction approach students participating were trained on letter-sounds and phonics. Within the letter-sound portion of the training, these students were presented with a single letter and a picture association that encompassed the shape of the letter. As the child progressed through the practice, the picture slowly faded away until simply the letter was remaining. Mastery was assessed using two different methods, first being the child seeing the letter and having to choose the corresponding sound out of four choices, and the second being the child hearing the sound and having to choose the letter out of four choices. Letters were taught to children in three stages; stage A, stage B and stage C. Within stage A the student was taught letters i, o, m, r and s, stage B maintained letters taught in stage A, yet added aa (long a sound) and k and stage C, the final stage encompassed all previously taught letters and added e, p, and i. Similarly, students were taught to recognize CVC words where only the last two letters were given, students have to hear the word and then click on the corresponding beginning sound to complete the given CVC word. Each phase for the CVC word portion built upon the previous phase allowing the students to continue their learning and increase their abilities (de Graaff et al., 2009). The unsystematic phonics approach encompassed the usage of an online phonics program. There was no real process as to how the program was implemented nor was there a specific order as to how the letters were presented to the students. Table 2 depicts the exercises that students performed through the unsystematic phonics approach. There were ten different exercises ranging from typing graphemes that match the presented phoneme to typing a word that rhymes with the one presented to them. The gap in this program is that there were no real SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 12 guidelines as to how the material was being presented to the students and there was no correlation to the exercises and their importance (de Graaff et al., 2009). Similarly, Ehri et al. (2001) authors an article with its purpose being to “examine the research evidence to determine whether systematic phonics instruction helps children learn to read more effectively” (p. 394). This research was conducted using two databases, ERIC and PsychInfo, and three different sets of terms were used as guides to locate articles and data necessary to successfully complete this research. However, it should be noted that this research and data collection did not include any studies that were already included in the National Reading Panel’s (NRP) analysis of phonemic awareness, as the researchers wanted the data collected to be unbiased and based on the effectiveness of systematic instruction or unsystematic instruction (Ehri et al., 2001). The final test being analyzed was completed within different first grade classrooms, and focused on the effectiveness of phonics instruction within whole language classrooms. For reference, a whole language classroom is one where students are using writing, reading, listening and talking (Peterson, 2021). In a research article written by Ehri et., al (2001) the author states that “systematic phonics instruction was found to boost spelling skills in younger but not older students” (p. 429). Within this study there were two different phonics approaches being tested, the first being a synthetic approach which focused on teaching students how to decode grapheme-phoneme and the second being a larger approach where students had to learn to blend multisyllabic words including onsets, rimes, and phonograms. When a phonics program is taught to students in a synthetic approach, it is taught in a systematic way starting with teaching phoneme-grapheme correspondence and then building on that skill to later be able to decode words and blending them. A difficulty with this approach is that students have to remember all the sounds letters SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 13 make and be able to successfully blend them together, this can create a struggle for those students who do not know all of their letters and sounds (Ehri et., al 2001). Another difficulty with this approach is that students will need to be aware of deleting the schwa sound that often comes when sounding out words. For example, “blending “tuh-a-puh” requires deleting the “uh” sounds to produce and blend “tap” (Ehri et., al, 2001, p. 396). When phonics is taught in larger part programs, children are taught to chunk their words resulting in them needing to learn less sounds, and less pieces of the word need to be decoded and blended. This can provide students a challenge as well because they will still need to know the sounds that each letter makes, and some young children may not be able to visually chunk the word into pieces. Whole language classrooms and whole word methods are the most likely form of unsystematic phonics instruction. Within these forms of teaching, teachers are not told “to wait until a certain point before teaching children about letter-sound relationships” (Ehri et., al 2001, p. 397), but rather to teach it in an unsystematic way and address the concerns as they arise and noting that the teaching of letter-sound correspondence is happening infrequently. The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the use of systematic phonics instruction is beneficial to student learning and growth. Student learning was progressing in the areas of reading, spelling and text processing. Similarly the findings presented within the study showed that a systematic phonics instruction approach will increase and improve the reading ability amongst not only beginning readers but those that are normally progressing above the first grade. Consequently, students also showed much success when being taught phonics through a synthetic approach. Ehri et al., (2001), in reviewing programs stated “the three categories of systematic phonics programs produced effect sizes that were statistically greater than zero, showing that they were more effective than non-systematic SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 14 phonics programs” (p. 419, see Table 1). Some of the programs being used within this study were created by the researchers, while others were published programs. In addition, some of the programs were using a synthetic phonics approach, teaching the students how to change letters into sounds, decode and blend. Other programs were teaching students to blend larger pieces of words (onset, rime, phonograms or spelling patterns). For reference, some of the programs being used in the synthetic approach were; Jolly Phonics (1992), Lindamood ADD program (1998), and Lippincott Basic Reading (1969), to name a few. Through the use of the Jolly Phonics reading program which is presented in a systematic way, students were able to strengthen their use of recognition and recall when it came to letter-sound relationships. Comparatively, some students were using a whole language approach which is said to be unsystematic through the use of big books. These programs were used by three different teachers over the span of 12 weeks and were taught for one hour each day. At the conclusion of the 12 weeks, research proved that the students who were using the Jolly Phonics program were able to read significantly more than their counterparts using big books (Ehri et., al 2001, p. 422). Another comparative piece that this meta-analysis study by Ehri et al., (2001) depicted was a two year research study that was done by Blachman et al., (1999). Through this study, phonics instruction was taught to students in low income schools, where instruction started in kindergarten and continued through second grade. In kindergarten they started by learning basic phonemic awareness which lasted 11 weeks. In first grade, the instruction became more systematic as they were taught the alphabetic code; learning letters and their corresponding sounds. During their time in second grade, instruction became more focused on those children who did not meet the goal of the program receiving additional support through the use of tier two SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 15 instruction. This program involved 30 minutes daily phonics lessons that were comprised of five different pieces (Ehri et al., 2001 p. 423): ●​ Teaching new sound-symbol correspondences with vowels highlighted red ●​ Teaching phoneme analysis and blending ●​ Reading regularly spelled, irregularly spelled, and high-frequency words on flash cards to develop automaticity ●​ Reading text containing phonetically controlled words ●​ Writing four to six words and a sentence dictation At the program's end, the introduction to all six syllable types had been presented to the students, the syllable types are as follows, “closed (fat), final E (cake), open (me), vowel team (pain), vowel + r (burn), and consonant le (table)” (p. 424). The results of this program proved that through the use of an explicit and systematic phonics approach, students in Title 1 schools can be successful in regard to reading when implemented in kindergarten and continued through second grade. Phonics Instruction In the Present ​ Ehri (2020) authors the following in regards to systematic phonics instruction “This instruction provides the foundational knowledge that launches students’ development as alphabetic readers and enables them to move through the phases” (p. 12) The goal of a systematic phonics approach will allow students to successfully move through all the “levels” of learning how to read in a way that will build upon previous skills while including a retrieval process so that previously taught skills are not forgotten. Schools and teachers are creating scope and sequence outlining the important phoneme-grapheme connection in a systemic order of high real-life usage. Phonics instruction is taught through the use of students learning how to segment SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 16 and blend words, decoding words to lock certain word spellings into their memory, and decodable books to provide students with the practice of applying the words that they have been learning to a real life setting. This process allows students to create bonds between the pronunciations of words as well as the spellings to amalgamate them into their lasting memory. Ehri (2020) also states that: Systematic phonics programs come in various forms. The hallmark of traditional synthetic phonics programs is to teach students to decode words synthetically by saying the phonemes corresponding to graphemes and blending them to pronounce the words. (p.13) The importance of a systematic phonics approach allows students to chunk their learning into more manageable pieces that are the stepping stones to their later success in regard to successfully reading. In a study written by Ehri & Flugman (2017) sixty-nine teachers ranging from kindergarten through third grade and their students participated in this research where they received reading services through the use of a program called Reading Reform Foundation (RRF) (p. 431). The teacher participants in this study had received a year long training and mentoring in order to become fluent in this program. These participating teachers were assigned the use of one of the following two reading programs, Spalding program (originally published in 1957) or Orton-Gillingham (originally published in 1935, OG). Instruction through the RRF programs started with students learning how one letter or combined letters form corresponding sounds. The pace of this program is rigorous, teaching students anything from syllables within words, decoding words, while learning as many as 30 new words each week. Both of the programs; Spalding and OG were extremely similar in their systematic makeup, however there SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 17 were a few slight differences. Spalding started students out by learning their letter sounds whereas OG started students with learning letter names. Spalding taught students all of the graphemes or combinations of letters that can represent a single sound, whereas OG taught them one at a time, to name a few (Ehri & Flugman 2017). Periodically throughout the RRF program students completed assessments to gather information about their learning. The following two assessments were both completed in the fall, between the end of September and mid October and then again in the spring, more specifically, mid May. The first test was the Morrison-McCall (MM) spelling test. “The list consisted of 40 words ordered by increasing level of difficulty from grade 1 to grade 7” (Ehri & Flugman, 2017, p. 436). Each of the words administered were pronounced out loud as well as given in a sentence to the students, and the student had to write the word. The second test administered was the Gates MacGintie reading test (GMRT). This test contained multiple choice questions where the tester read the question aloud to the students and they marked their answers in their test book. Ehri & Flugman (2017) state that: The PR subtest included 30 items assessing students’ ability to recognize letters and to relate them to sounds in words. In 1st and 2nd grades, word decoding was assessed. Students were shown a picture and circled which of four similarly spelling words was correct. (p. 436) An examination of the results of this research demonstrates that across all grade levels tested, scores from fall to spring showed a significant increase. Students within this study made significant gains in areas within reading achievement including those students within the groups of MLL (Multi Language Learners) and special needs. Ehri & Flugman (2017) note that “these students scored well below the general education SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 18 students on most tests in fall…they made gains as great, if not greater than the gen ed students during the year” (p.447). Research in this study indicates that there are benefits to a systematic phonics instruction approach. Students kindergarten through second grade benefit from it the most, however, students in any grade level can benefit from this instruction to enable them to be able to decode and spell multisyllabic words and those that are more complex. LETRS Similarly, Dr. Luisa Moats, founder of Lexia LETRS states that “explicit and systematic instruction leads to improvement in spelling, spelling during writing, reading and phonological awareness” (Fava, 2024). Dr. Luisa Moats authors an article titled “Teaching Decoding” where she discusses the importance of including student development in their reading process. Phonics skills should be taught in a cohesive manner from least to most complex, while also teaching it in terms of most predictable to less common and more unfamiliar. Decodable books are taught in correspondence with the letter-sound technique that was taught that day and are on level so that most all students in a class can successfully read them, while also applying the spelling pattern that was taught to them. Teacher training in the LETRS program is said to increase teacher knowledge as well as practice, students have improved reading outcomes and the program can be adapted to fit all school needs and demographic areas (“ Lexia® LETRS® Efficacy Research,” 2023). LETRS has become a popular tool within schools across the country. Its devotion to teaching teachers the literacy skills that their students need to know and the best ways to teach them are unmatched (Schwartz, 2022, p. 1). The LETRS program is a long and extensive program that can take teachers over 100 hours to successfully complete the training, however it helps those teachers working with early readers develop the skills to successfully teach their students how to read. LETRS was created by SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 19 literacy experts Moats and Tolman who have both been classroom teachers. The LETRS program is divided into two different volumes within each volume is a series of chapters that builds on the previous. The LETRS program walks students through their phonics learning in chunks rather than throwing them right in all at once. According to Schwartz (2022): To understand how this [typical reading instruction] is different than the approach that LETRS presents, imagine learning how to read is like learning how to play basketball. The LETRS system is to teach kids the rules, practice their skills through drills, and scrimmage a few times before playing their first game. (p. 9) This contrasts with a balanced literacy approach that many classrooms and teachers believe in due to the fact that a balanced literacy approach “puts kids on the court right away” (Schwartz, 2022, p. 9). Meaning that students do not learn the why or how behind what they are learning within their phonics instruction. The skills do not build upon the previous ones that they have acquired, they are just expected to be able to do it without any background skills built. According to Schwartz (2022), explicitly and systematically teaching young children how sounds represent letters is the most effective way to teach them how to read words (p. 4). Moreover, in order for young learners to be able to successfully read words, they must know what sounds are represented by different letters or letter combinations. Having students gain the ability to read does not just rely on their ability to learn letter sounds but also in activating their prior knowledge within the text that they are reading. “LETRS teaches how and when to apply these evidence based strategies” (p. 8). The problem lies within teacher preparation programs and the lack of preparation teachers receive to be able to implement these theories and skills that LETRS believes in. SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 20 Preservice Teacher Preparation ​ Teachers of young elementary students are expected to teach their students how to successfully read words, and as those students get older, the words become more challenging, yet teachers are still responsible for the success of their students. How can teachers successfully teach their students literacy components, if they are not prepared to do so? Within this section, the research will show the success within teacher training in their ability to implement phonics instruction within their classroom as well as the lack of preparation they receive and how that can affect their ability to implement phonics skills. I would like to take the time to share a multitude of different points authored by Shedrow and Stoetzel (2023) due to the importance and relevance of their insights in regard to teacher preparation. Shedrow and Stoetzel (2023) authored that: Ridicule of teachers’ perceived lack of competence dates as far back as the colonial era with the most attention and scrutiny beginning in the 1980s after the National Commission on Excellence in Education published their report A Nation at Risk (p. 82)...the National Council on Teachers Quality reported that 39 states require a licensure exam for all elementary teachers measuring knowledge of the science of reading and 32 states require teacher preparation programs to provide evidence that the science of reading is being addressed. (p. 83) While teachers are expected to pass licensure exams to prove that they are capable of becoming a teacher, these exams are not delving deep into the true abilities of these teachers and do not assess what they truly do know and what knowledge they may be lacking. A study by Shedrow and Stoetzel (2023) examined the readiness of preservice teachers (PSTs). Teachers participating in this study were asked to design a series of assessments that SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 21 targeted specific phonics skills students would be learning. The first piece of this study consisted of assessments which made up 10% of the PSTs course grade, the assessments were; multiple choice, short answer and true-false. The second piece which was 5% of the PSTs course grade consisted of designing a phonics lesson as well as a decodable text to use with the lesson. The third piece which made up 10% of the PSTs grade consisted of a recording of the delivery of their phonics instruction. The makeup of the video included; “three learning artifacts: recorded delivery of explicit phonics instruction, design and use of decodable text, and development of interactive slides as guided practice” (p. 87). The first round of analysis of the PSTs assessments was based on the teacher's knowledge of phonics instruction, more specifically if it was technical, pedagogical or situated. Following this first round of analysis, a second was completed to gain understanding and insight into the consistency of the PSTs assessments based on the following categories; strong, superficial, weak, missing, or inconsistent. The results of this study were in regard to the PSTs technical or pedagogical knowledge in the area of phonics instruction. PST students had to complete three pedagogical related assessments that gauged their knowledge of phonics instruction and the results depicted that; four of the participants scored exemplary, eight scored proficient, eight scored developing, however zero scored at needs improvement. The assessments that these teachers took also revealed the areas in which they were lacking and those in which they demonstrated particular strengths. The following are examples of where PST students showed the most knowledge, “strengths included distinguishing between decoding knowledge and comprehension knowledge; distinguishing between decoding and encoding skills; and identifying features of explicit and systematic phonics instruction” (Shedrow & Stoetzel, 2023, p. 89). SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 22 An emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that identifying aspects that are considered systematic and explicit was an area of particular strength amongst these PST students. This may imply that universities are preparing their students in a way that makes them ready and able to successfully implement phonics routines into their classrooms in a way that guides students' learning and ensures their reading success. Contrasting the strengths of the PST students, “PSTs were most likely to struggle with questions regarding the relationship between phonemic awareness and developing code-related instructional knowledge” (p. 89). Understanding phonemic awareness especially within younger aged students is crucial as a teacher. Helping those students to understand the relationship between letters and the sounds that they can make is important for young learners to then be able to build upon that skill to decode words. Furthermore, PST students struggled with identifying different ways to help more skilled readers decode multisyllabic words, more specifically, they focused primarily on words and methods for decoding words that were more suitable for beginner readers. ​ PST students within this study were extremely successful in creating effective phonics lessons that were designed through the use of a systematic and explicit approach. Sixteen out of the nineteen lessons analyzed were deemed effective in their planning whereas only three were deemed ineffective in their design. Meaning that, those that were ineffective did not follow a pedagogical approach that allowed for increased student engagement and did not follow a systematic approach. In regard to the virtual phonics lesson that PST teachers had to design “most participants (12/20) were able to successfully implement exemplary or proficient lessons of phonics and code-related skills…” (Shedrow & Stoetzel., 2023, p. 92). Some PST students struggled in their ability to provide their instruction with less “teacher talk” and more opportunity for students to critically analyze the material being presented to them. Additionally, SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 23 PST students struggled with being able to apply the scope and sequence in relation to their decodable readers, or guided practice opportunities. ​ This research by Shedrow and Stoetzel (2023) sought to examine the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs in their ability to successfully teach their preservice teachers all that they need to know to successfully teach phonics to their students. While the majority of the PSTs in this research scored proficient or consistent on their abilities to implement phonics instruction into different assessments, not all PST teachers were successful which shows that universities need to ensure that their future teachers are ready before they allow them to move on in their teaching programs. When PSTs are finished with their programs they take a licensure exam in which they are not assessed on their ability to successfully implement lessons but rather are given certain scenarios where they must choose answers that could potentially occur. Oftentimes teachers go into the profession without real knowledge as to what they will be teaching or effective ways to teach it. “Overall, we reiterate previous calls by researchers to increase studies of pedagogical assessments, especially in preparing PSTs to teach phonics instruction (Shedrow & Stoetzel, 2023, p. 97). ​ A study shown through the work of Meeks et al. (2016) asked Preservice teachers (PST) to rate their preparedness to implement phonics instruction using two different platforms, the first being Teacher Efficacy Scale for the Teaching of Reading (TESTR) and the second Preparedness to Teach Reading Survey. The overall results portrayed that teachers in fact did not feel prepared, and the results ranged from not prepared, to moderately prepared. This solidifies that teachers are leaving their preservice programs lacking the skills to successfully teach beginning readers. Furthermore, four studies (Bos et al.,2001; Mahar & Richdale, 2008; Meehan & Hammond, 2006; Washburn et al., 2011). These studies gauged the confidence of PSTs to SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 24 teach struggling students learning to read, the results showed that they are feeling “not adequately prepared” (Meeks et al., 2016). Making an Effective Phonics Teacher ​ Teaching children to read is challenging and teachers all over are facing the struggles of identifying the best practices for teaching reading. Some teachers are very well prepared and others, to no fault of their own, are not. If teachers are not effective in teaching their students how to read, then what can be done to fix that? “Every child deserves excellent reading teachers because teachers make a difference in children’s reading achievement and motivation to read” (Santa et al., 2000, p. 193). The research collected by Santa et al., (2000) discusses what it takes to make an effective reading teacher, one that can successfully teach students how to read, here are the main points the author states are relevant: 1.​ They understand reading and writing development and believe all children can learn to read and write. 2.​ They continually assess children’s progress and relate reading instruction to children’s previous experiences. 3.​ They know a variety of ways to teach reading, when to use each method, and how to combine the methods into an effective instructional program. 4.​ They offer a variety of materials and texts for children to read. 5.​ They use flexible grouping strategies to tailor instruction to individual students. 6.​ They are good reading “coaches” (that is, they provide help strategically). Not only are these the skills that the author states are most important but also that the teachers must be strong in other areas as well, including pedagogical knowledge, classroom management and strong knowledge of the content that they are teaching (p. 193). If teachers are not familiar SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 25 with these components and are pushed into the field without being properly trained, they are not going to be effective in allowing their students to become successful readers. Teacher Knowledge on Phonics If a teacher is not knowledgeable on teaching students to read, or how to implement phonics in a systematic way, that will greatly impact their students abilities to be successful. Therefore, “teachers who are knowledgeable about instruction play a significant role in helping children to learn to read, and especially children who are at risk for reading failure” (Podhajski et al.,2009, p.404). Where the struggle lies is in identifying what exactly teachers need to know in order to be considered effective based on state expectations in their phonics instruction and understanding what teacher preparation courses need to teach. When teachers are more prepared to deliver the phonics instruction, it is ultimately going to be more effective for their students. Similarly, when teachers are more prepared to deliver explicit and systematic instruction, their students will progress more rapidly within their learning (Podhajski et al.,2009). A key piece of this research stated that “teachers may glean valuable instructional information from student test data, provided that they are trained explicitly in data-driven decision making” (Podhajski et al., 2009, p. 413). When teachers are explicitly trained in their phonics instruction they are then able to take that knowledge and apply it to their data collection as well. When there is a disconnect between their phonics knowledge and their data collection, there can be discrepancies within their teaching. In order to close the gap amongst student development, teachers of both general education and special education must be trained in the benefits of systematic phonics instruction. Podhajski (2009) states that “by improving teacher preparation requirements and helping teachers increase their understanding of reading processes and the essential components of effective instruction, teachers can become agents of change rather than objects of educational SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 26 reform” (p. 414). The power of this quote is amazing, teachers are oftentimes trying to stay afloat within their craft, best practices are constantly being changed, teaching methods are changing, curriculums are changing, and teachers are expected to be able to change with it at rapid speeds. The problem lies with the fact that when the phonics curriculum changes, the ability for teachers to change with it is possible, yet there needs to be time to practice and learn in order for it to be effective and successful. The problem does not lie within the education system, the problem lies within the fact that things within education are ever changing. The expectations of teachers and their students are increasing, their phonics skills are increasing and teachers are not being effectively prepared to implement these new systematic practices. Method This study will seek to gather information from teachers kindergarten through second grade. More specifically the information will delve into the preparedness and readiness for these teachers to successfully implement a new systematic phonics program in an elementary school in the state of Utah. One School’s Phonics Program ​ An elementary school in the state of Utah is rolling out a new phonics program that is said to be using a systematic approach to increase student achievement and close the academic gap. This program has been implemented in grades kindergarten through second grade. There are numerous pieces of this program and each grade implements different pieces. First grade begins the school year with a word knowledge routine and a high frequency word routine. The first cycle lasts 12 weeks. Within those 12 weeks students in kindergarten-2nd grade are learning new high frequency words as well as phonics spelling patterns/sounds. At the end of 12 weeks, the cycle restarts from the beginning, this cycle repeats a total of 3 times. SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 27 Setting The study was conducted in an elementary school in Utah. The school serves a student population of approximately 228 students in grade K-2, with a demographic breakdown of 28% Hispanic/Latino, 3% American Indian, 4.8% Asian, 5.7% African American, 1.3% Pacific Islander, 97% White, and 5.2% Multiracial. The socioeconomic status of the school is low-middle, and the school's academic performance is at the state average. Participants The participants in this study will be eight K-2 teachers from an elementary school in Utah. The teachers will be selected based on their experience levels and willingness to participate in the study. Participants will include three kindergarten teachers, two first grade teachers and three second grade teachers. The teachers' years of experience ranged from 1 to 17 years. It should be noted that one of the teachers is male and eight are female, and one is a first-year teacher. Data Collection and Procedure Surveys will be administered to each of the eight teachers. The surveys will take about 30 minutes each to complete. The purpose of these surveys is to collect data and information regarding the level of confidence these teachers had in their ability to successfully implement the phonics routine their school has rolled out. A thematic analysis of teacher responses will be conducted to identify key themes related to teacher preparedness, challenges, and successes. Measure Teachers were approached and asked to complete a survey regarding their preparedness to implement a new phonics program being rolled out in their school. They were advised to be as open and honest as they can be, as their identities were going to remain completely anonymous. SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 28 The survey has a collection of varying questions such as rating scales, open ended questions and simple yes/no questions. The open ended questions are most powerful as it gives the participants the ability to share their own thoughts and feelings and not feel confined to a rating scale, which may limit the amount of information that can be gathered. However, some of the questions were simply yes or no, or could be answered on a rating scale where an open ended question followed asking participants to provide more detail for their previous response. These participants were given a synopsis of what the research was seeking to explain, and the results will be shared with them. Results Are Teachers Prepared? Of the eight teachers surveyed, 50% felt moderately to less than moderately prepared to implement the new phonics routines, while the other 50% felt mostly prepared. Notably, none reported feeling fully prepared. When asked to elaborate, many teachers noted that the district provided only one training session at the end of the previous school year (in May), leaving them to navigate the program independently when the new school year began. One participant expressed frustration over frequent changes to the systematic phonics program, stating that just as they felt confident in their instruction, new modifications would be introduced unannounced. This program consists of two main components: the Word Knowledge Routine (WKR), which focuses on phonemes and their corresponding graphemes, and the High-Frequency Word Routine (HFWR), which targets grade-level sight words. Half of the teachers felt more prepared to implement the HFWR, citing its straightforward nature and fewer district-mandated changes. Additionally, these teachers had piloted the HFWR the previous year, giving them greater familiarity with its structure. SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 29 Table 1. Professional Developments and Training Training experiences among participants varied significantly. Approximately 38% of respondents reported receiving comprehensive professional development (PD), including full training sessions, ongoing district support, or participation in the LETRS program. Another 25% mentioned having some level of training, such as a brief summer session, a beginning-of-year (BOY) rollout, or occasional instructional coaching. However, 37% of participants expressed dissatisfaction with their training, stating that they received minimal instruction, such as only being provided with scripts and slides, or that initial training was ineffective due to later changes in program expectations. While some teachers benefited from structured district-led PD and LETRS training, others felt unprepared and lacked consistent guidance. Training satisfaction among participants was divided, with 43% expressing confidence in the training provided, while 57% felt it was insufficient. Those who found the training effective highlighted the use of live classroom demonstration videos, hands-on engagement with materials, and clear guidance from the LETRS program and district-led sessions. These SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 30 participants felt adequately prepared to implement the new program with confidence. Conversely, a majority of respondents indicated that the training lacked depth, with 29% specifically noting the need for more hands-on practice and real-world application. Additionally, 14% felt that essential components, such as testing, were either insufficiently covered or completely overlooked, leading to confusion and frustration during implementation. Another 14% strongly believed the training was inadequate, stating that they were left to navigate the program on their own. While some participants eventually gained confidence through experience, the overall feedback suggests inconsistencies in training effectiveness and a need for more comprehensive support. Teacher Prep Programs ​ When asked about their teacher preparation programs and readiness to implement phonics instruction, only 25% of participants felt adequately prepared upon graduating. The remaining 75% reported either learning more about phonics instruction after they began teaching or feeling that their college or university did not provide sufficient preparation. ​ ​ ​ ​ Figure 2. ​ ​ SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 31 Discussion The following information contains a multitude of ways in which these teacher participants felt they needed more support to ensure the smooth running of this systematic phonics program. Continued, progressive training throughout the duration of the program would be highly beneficial, as the routines and expectations shift over time. For example, as the slides change and new skills are introduced, it would be helpful to have updated scripts or at least all slides included in the provided script. This would ensure that teachers know exactly what to say and what activities to guide students through. At times, the slides can be unclear, leaving teachers uncertain about what is being asked or how to interpret the content. Additionally, the display of answers at the bottom of the slides often leads higher-level students—who can read cursive—to simply copy the words rather than fully engage with the routine. Furthermore, it would be helpful to allocate extra funds for replacing necessary materials (e.g., word bags, tokens, laminating sheets, etc.) to ensure the program’s smooth implementation. A refresher course at the beginning of the school year, along with ongoing professional development during the first one to two months, would provide valuable clarification. This could be supplemented with email communication, site visits, and district resource documents. Additionally, it would have been beneficial to have experienced teachers from various grade levels pilot the program and share their implementation strategies, as this real-world feedback would be more insightful than the presentations given by district staff. Clearer expectations and better examples of how to execute the program would also help, as would additional visual aids, songs, and other interactive resources. Specific training on when slide decks and materials change, as well as guidance on how to teach new patterns, would be valuable. While some of these changes are expected to be addressed through LETRS, the transition to new materials can still be confusing. SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 32 Finally, effective classroom management strategies are essential to handling the numerous materials and moving parts, as these can make it challenging to manage student behaviors. Limitations and Future Direction Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the results of this study. First, the study utilized a small sample size, which may limit the validity of the results. ​ Second, the sample consisted primarily of female teachers. While female educators do represent a large portion of the elementary school population, the lack of male participants may limit the ability to understand whether these findings apply the same to a more diverse group of educators. Future research should focus on including a more gender balanced representation to ensure more accurate results. ​ Additionally, data was collected from a single elementary school, which may not reflect the experiences and challenges faced by teachers in other schools. Factors such as school resources, administration support, and student demographics can significantly vary across school settings. Conducting future research in multiple elementary schools with diverse populations will strengthen the overall study results and provide a more concrete understanding of teacher preparedness in regard to implementing the phonics program. ​ Addressing these limitations in future research will allow for a more powerful body of research and provide educators and administrators with insight into how teachers are feeling in regard to implementation of their new phonics program. Conclusion ​ Research has proven that there are many teachers who are not receiving the training that are needed in order for them to feel successful when implementing phonics programs. Teachers go through the preparation process and programs at their colleges, yet are being placed into SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 33 classrooms and expected to successfully teach their students how to read. Many of the teachers in this study stated that they felt that they did not receive the proper training from the district to implement the new phonics program that was being rolled out, when that is the expectation of teachers, to be able to successfully implement the program with fidelity from the beginning. Many of the participants in this study stated that they have learned most of what they know about phonics once they actually started teaching and not through any of the training or preparation programs they have participated in. The overall conclusion being, how can colleges/universities adapt and change their programs in order to allow teachers to enter the workforce feeling prepared and confident in their abilities. Furthermore, how can schools reinvent their phonics training to allow teachers to walk away feeling ready to implement new programs in order to meet the high demands of the schools. ​ SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 34 References Ahearn, M. (2019). What is the Orton-Gillingham Approach? Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators. https://www.ortonacademy.org/resources/what-is-the-orton-gillingham-approach/ Altwerger, B. (2005). Reading for profit: How the bottom line leaves kids behind. Heinemann. Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271 Child Development and Behavior Branch. (2019, June). National Reading Panel Publications. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/der/branches/cdbb/nationalreadingpanelpubs de Graaff, S., Bosman, A. M. T., Hasselman, F., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Benefits of Systematic Phonics Instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(4), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430903001308 Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The science and evolution of a human invention. Viking. Department for Education. (2012). The teaching of early reading: The government's response to the Rose Review. UK Government. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic Phonics Instruction Helps Students Learn to Read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 393–447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393 SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 35 Ehri, L. C. (2020). The Science of Learning to Read Words: A Case for Systematic Phonics Instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S45–S60. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.334 Ehri, L. C., & Flugman, B. (2017). Mentoring teachers in systematic phonics instruction: effectiveness of an intensive year-long program for kindergarten through 3rd grade teachers and their students. Reading and Writing, 31(2), 425–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9792-7 Fava, N. (2024, June 24). 5 things Louisa Moats wants you to know about learning to spell. 95 Percent Group. https://www.95percentgroup.com/insights/5-things-louia-moats-says-you-need-to-know-a bout-learning-to-spell/ Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in whole language? Scholastic. International Literacy Association. (2018). Explaining Phonics Instruction An Educator’s Guide LITERACY LEADERSHIP BRIEF. https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-explaining-ph onics-instruction-an-educators-guide.pdf Kim, J. S. (2008). Research and the Reading Wars. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(5), 372–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170808900514 Leeming, M. (2015). A short monograph on how the orton-gillingham method of instruction helps children with dyslexia to learn to read with greater fluency. 15(8). https://go-gale-com.hal.weber.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=ogde72764&id=GALE%7CA43 0452892&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon&aty=ip SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 36 Lexia® LETRS® Efficacy Research. (2023). In lexialearning.com (pp. 1–18). https://www.lexialearning.com/user_area/content_media/raw/LETRSEfficacyResearch.pd f Meeks, L., Stephenson, J., Kemp, C., & Madelaine, A. (2016). How well prepared are pre-service teachers to teach early reading? A systematic review of the literature. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 21(2), 69–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2017.1287103 Mesmer, H. A. E., & Griffith, P. L. (2005). Everybody’s Selling It-But Just What Is Explicit, Systematic Phonics Instruction? The Reading Teacher, 59(4), 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.59.4.6 National Reading Panel. (2000a). Report of the National Reading Panel. Http://Www.nichd.nih.gov/. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/findings Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 216–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904803260041 Podhajski, B., Mather, N., Nathan, J., & Sammons, J. (2009). Professional Development in Scientifically Based Reading Instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338737 Santa, C. M., Williams, C. K., Ogle, D., Farstrup, A. E., Au, K. H., Baker, B. M., Edwards, P. A., Klein, A. F., Kurek, G. M., Larson, D. L., Paratore, J. R., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Excellent Reading Teachers: A Position Statement of the International Reading Association. Excellent Reading Teachers: A Position Statement, 44(2), 193–199. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40013543. SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Schwartz, S. (2022, July 20). What is LETRS? Why One Training is Dominating “Science of Reading” Efforts. Education Week. https://www.eduweek.org/teaching-learning/letrs-program-teacher-training Shanahan, T. (2005). THE NATIONAL READING PANEL REPORT: Practical Advice for Teachers. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED489535.pdf Shedrow, S., & Stoetzel, L. (2023). Making the transfer: preservice teachers’ technical and pedagogical knowledge of phonics instruction. Teaching Education, 35(1), 82–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2023.2215176 Snow, C. E. (2020). What counts as evidence in evidence-based instruction? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(3), 349–353. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720939677 37 SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Appendix Informed Consent Form ​ ​ 38 SYSTEMATIC PHONICS​ Survey ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 39