Considerations for Instruction of Consonant Blends

Before we decide to take up valuable instruction time to teach a skill or concept, it is critical to gauge its value. WHY am I teaching this and HOW will my students benefit from this? Today I’m discussing whether or not there is value in teaching consonant blends.

Is teaching blends necessary?

One school of thought is NO, it’s not. If you are teaching explicit phonics, and your students can segment and blend the phonemes in a word with automaticity when they look at the graphemes, they are already blending regardless of how those graphemes are classified. They do not need to know that, for example, the letters s + l are a blend in order to successfully sound out the words slime or slow. Makes sense, right?

And I agree.

HOWEVER, there are two reasons why explicit instruction of consonant blends (initial and final) do carry value. 

The first consideration:

The first benefit of teaching blends is for those struggling spellers who may spell a word like stand as sdand. In other words, students who write what they hear themselves sound out, even when our language never spells those letters next to each other. Other examples of similar spelling mistakes are:

jraw for draw

chrain for train

In this case, explicit instruction of blends can help prevent these types of spelling errors when students learn that certain letter combinations simply never go together.

The second consideration:

Another time to consider explicit instruction of blends is to support knowledge of accurate syllable division. For example, VCCCV (vowel-consonant-consonant-consonant-vowel) words like monster, conflict, and pumpkin all require division somewhere among the consonants. Having knowledge of blends that stay together helps immensely in understanding where the division will occur. 

So, is teaching blends absolutely necessary?

When it comes down to it, what’s the verdict? If students have the fluent ability to blend the phonemes represented by the graphemes in front of them to read words, have no spelling deficits, and can effortless divide VCCCV words properly, they will not require much instructional time spent on blends, and may just benefit from a quick reinforcement. Conversely, if students are struggling with spelling and syllable division, time spend on blends will be warranted. As always, explicit instruction is crucial.

Types of Consonant Blends

L-blends: bl, cl, fl, gl, pl, sl

R-blends: br, cr, dr, fr, gr, pr, tr,

S-blends: sc, sk, (sl), sm, sn, sp, st, sw

Final blends: ct, ft, ld, lf, lk, lp, lt, mp, nd, nk, nt, pt, rd, rk, sk, sp, st, xt

3-letter blends: scr, shr, spl, spr, squ, str, thr, nch

Other blends: dw, tw

I hope this information helps to drive meaningful instruction and sorts out any questions you may have had about the shoulds or ifs of consonant blends instruction.

For more literacy information, join me over on INSTAGRAM for new weekly content.

Bye-Bye 3 Cueing System

Studies show that 40% of kids (and that is being generous) will learn to read regardless of the method used. They are intuitive and will pick it up. Not bad, right? Until you begin to consider that means 60% of our children are vulnerable, at risk readers, setting them up for a lifelong struggle with reading.

There are many reasons why students fall behind in reading. What I see with upper elementary students is that many seem to be making headway (mostly through memorization and trained guessing) until about 2nd or 3rd grade when they fall behind and can’t catch up. The culprit is often a weak phonemic and phonological awareness foundation. (While there may be other factors at play, this is a very common one.) While we as educators cannot control all the factors that set up our kids to be successful readers, there are some things we CAN do (or avoid doing) when it comes to teaching them to become strong and confident independent readers, and it starts early on.

One of these steps is eliminating the The 3 Cueing System — the popular (albeit unfortunate) set of strategies that has long been used for emergent readers where the young reader is encouraged to figure out unknown words in a text by employing one or more of these strategies:

1. Looking at the picture

2. Looking at the first letter of the word

3. Skipping the word and deciding what word would make sense

Here's the big problem: While these strategies might help some students arrive at the word, it's a guessing game. But the student got the word, so what's the big deal, right? The student is reading. No, they’re not reading. They are using guessing strategies to navigate the text. But this reader is so proud of herself. Won't she just begin to pick up the patterns? Maybe... for those 40%, there's a good chance. However, the other 60% percent are treading in turbulent waters. Let's look at this from a few different angles and break down the big problem of this cueing system into smaller ones.

1. Sometimes, all three strategies, including the pictures flat out fail and put the student at risk for poor comprehension.

Pictures can be a vital tool for the reading experience, but pictures DO NOT help with decoding unfamiliar words. (For more on this, read my post on the power of pictures.)

Scenario: Student Carla is presented with the text: "The bug is on the twig." Carla gets to twig sees that the first letter starts with a t and sees a tree in the picture. Not surprisingly, she says tree. But, the word isn't tree. It's twig. It makes sense to Carla so she keeps reading. While both those words may make sense in context, they are different words with different meanings that will impact comprehension of the story. Carla is not truly grasping the meaning of the text.

2. One day, the pictures will go away and the body of the text on each page will be longer.

Pictures are abundant in texts for early readers, but they start to fade out as the pages fill up with larger bodies of text.

Scenario: Student Danny heavily relies on pictures for helping him to guess the word that he begins to use them as a crutch. He begins to shy away from reading anything without significant picture support. When he is put into a reading group with books with fewer pictures and heavier text, he tries to use the other cueing strategies, but it slows him down. He is frustrated. He hates reading.

3. This system will not help students with or those at risk for language-based learning disabilities.

Students with language-based learning disabilities need explicit instruction, not guessing strategies.

Scenario: Student Evie starts school with a language-based learning disability that has not yet been detected. She may initially stay under the radar long enough to be moved to the next grade and not be identified until she is so far behind she needs intervention. It is true that Evie, like most students with a learning disability, will likely need supplemental or differentiated instruction from her peers, but she might have been identified earlier or struggled less had she received explicit instruction within a structured literacy model that emphasizes phonics instruction, not guessing.

4. This system is discriminatory.

Take into consideration the English learners, or the student whose socio-economic background does not allow for the same cultural experiences to identify certain pictures. They are quickly put at a disadvantage.

Scenario: Student Teddy is trying to guess a word by looking at the picture. He can't get it. Then he looks at the first letter in the word. It's an f. He doesn't know it. Finally, he tries to figure out the word in context. He still can't get it. The word is ferry. Teddy may not live in a literacy-rich household; his parents may not be native-English speakers; he may not have had the same experiences as another child who has either taken a ride on a ferry or may have read another book with a parent who told them about ferries.

5. This system impacts fluency.

When students spend time analyzing the pictures to guess words, or think about what the word could be based on context, readers are taking too long of a pause from the text. As a result, their fluency is impacted. When fluency is impacted, so is comprehension.

Scenario: Student Hailey is reading and doesn't know a word. She looks at the picture, but she isn't really sure if the picture is giving the right answer. She takes more time to see if she can figure out the word in context. Still no luck. By the time she figures out this word she has no memory of what she read before those words and has to start the sentence again. But when she starts the sentence again and gets to that same stumper of a word, she can't remember what it is.

These are a few of the problems associated with this 3 Cueing System. Again, there are students who WILL persevere regardless of the teaching method. But many will struggle, and the bottom line is that the research not only doesn’t support this method, but advises against it. Why use a system that neglects the needs of 60% of students, especially when you might not know who these students are until it's is too late? So what's the answer? How do we move away from this system and implement a system that benefits 100% of students?

What do we do about it?

Unfortunately, for those of whom the 3 cueing system is deeply ingrained in their teaching philosophy or training, it can be hard to move away from it. The good news, is that there are small steps to be taken to integrate a more structured literacy approach to reading instruction. Right now, I'm going to focus on the vital practice of explicit phonics instruction. While it may be more time consuming, yielding slower results, these results -- I promise you -- will be longer lasting, more efficient, and will empower young readers to become stronger, more resilient, and more confident lifelong readers. THIS is the end goal.

Remember Teddy who couldn't read the word "ferry"? He used the strategies he was given. He looked at the picture, skipped reading and then tried to decide what might fit, and then looked at the first letter. He exhausted his strategies. Still, he just couldn't figure out the word. Teddy had never seen or heard of a ferry before. He also wasn't given explicit phonics instruction on r-controlled vowels or the y that makes the long e sound at the end of a multi-syllable word.

Now, let's put Teddy in a structured literacy classroom with an approach that follows the science where his teacher focuses on explicit, systematic phonics instruction before giving students books with words he is unable to decode. With targeted instruction with books that match the skills taught using controlled text, students practice their phonics skills, build fluency and stamina, and ultimately, yield more proficient comprehension outcomes. When Teddy’s teacher did give him a book with the word “ferry”, he still didn't know what this word was, but he could decode it. Teddy could then use the picture to make meaning of the word he decoded using phonics.

A systematic and explicit phonics instruction as a foundation gives students lasting tools that will support and guide them even when the cueing system does not. It hurts no one, and helps everyone.

It isn’t always easy to make the switch to a structured literacy model, especially if you come from an educational background in which this was not a supported approach. But that’s OK. When we know better, we can do better. No student should have to struggle because they are not being provided with the skills that research shows will best support them. And teachers, we don’t need to struggle if this is a newer concept. If you are new to the science of reading or looking for more information that puts an emphasis on explicit phonics instruction over the 3 Cueing System, here are some of my most recommended go-to (game-changing) reads that will help you help set your students up to become better readers and spellers:

• Speech to Print by Louisa Moats

• Reading for Life by Lyn Stone

• The Logic of English by Denise Eide

• Know Better, Do Better by David Liben and Meredith Liben

To find more information on best literacy practices, join me over on INSTAGRAM for new weekly content.