Word Mapping, Instruction, and the Limits of Programme-Based Phonics
 

Word mapping refers to the cognitive process through which learners connect spoken language to written language by linking phonemes, the smallest units of speech sound, to graphemes, the written representations used to encode those sounds. Within contemporary reading science, and particularly within the Science of Reading, there is broad agreement about how skilled reading operates. Research has established that fluent reading relies on orthographic mapping, a process through which words are stored in long-term memory by bonding speech sounds, spellings, and meaning (Ehri, 2005; Perfetti, 2007; Share, 1995).

What is far less settled is how best to teach this process to learners who are at risk of reading failure, particularly those with weak phonemic awareness, speech and language differences, or dyslexia. While the Science of Reading has clarified the cognitive mechanisms involved in reading, it has not resolved how instruction should be structured for children who do not intuitively segment speech into phonemes or who struggle to apply taught correspondences beyond tightly controlled programme content (Castles et al., 2018; Moats, 2005).
 

In many phonics programmes, word mapping is simplified to a procedural activity aligned with a prescribed scope and sequence. Learners are encouraged to assign letters to sounds as they are introduced, often with the implicit assumption that phoneme identification is straightforward and shared by all learners. This assumption does not hold for children with poor phonemic awareness, for whom phonemes are not readily accessible units of analysis (Liberman et al., 1974; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005). As a result, these learners are often left with unresolved ambiguity about how spoken words relate to written forms.
 

A central problem is that instructional discussions frequently prioritise technical debates about what constitutes a legitimate grapheme over the learner’s need for a complete and coherent mapping strategy. For example, in the word cupboard, typically spoken as /kʌbəd/, instructional materials often avoid explicit mapping altogether, or attempt to explain linguistic detail in ways that overload working memory. The outcome is frequently that children memorise the word. That's a highly inefficient strategy for a child who does not have good PA as they can't recode it.
 

Some well-meaning but misguided practitioners may then debate whether letter groupings such as pd or oar qualify as graphemes. From an instructional perspective, this debate misses the point. For the learner, particularly those at risk, what matters is that every phoneme they can hear is accounted for in the spelling, and that no part of the word is left unmapped. What matters is extending the core principle taught in phonics, that phonemes map to graphemes, and that no letters are treated as left over or silent.

Research on orthographic mapping indicates that words are stored efficiently only when learners can form a complete bond between phonology, orthography, and semantics (Ehri, 2014; Perfetti, 2007). Leaving letters or sounds unexplained, or labelling parts of words as irregular or exceptional, increases cognitive load and fosters confusion. In contrast, a simple and consistent strategy in which learners assign letters or letter groups to phonemes, ensuring that nothing is left unmapped, supports clarity and independence. This allows learners to focus on mapping speech sounds to spellings and attaching meaning, rather than trying to reconcile inconsistencies across instructional explanations.
 

Importantly, this does not require resolving theoretical disputes about grapheme status at the point of instruction. Whether a particular letter sequence meets a formal linguistic definition of a grapheme is less relevant to the learner than whether the mapping strategy enables them to read and spell unfamiliar words independently. When children understand that written words are representations of spoken words, and that every spoken element has a corresponding written representation, they are better able to generalise this knowledge beyond taught examples (Share, 1995; Venezky, 1999).
 

From this perspective, word mapping should be understood not as a narrow phonics routine, but as an instructional commitment to making the full structure of words transparent. The Science of Reading has clarified how reading works, but effective teaching for at-risk learners requires strategies that reduce ambiguity, prioritise complete mappings, and support learners in forming robust connections between speech sounds, spellings, and meaning.
 

The International Phonetic Alphabet shows the phonetic symbols used to represent the sounds in words. These may not be the exact sounds used in every accent, but phonics relies on this system. Its purpose is to provide a shared reference for speech sounds so that pronunciation can be discussed consistently across contexts.
 

The 100 or so grapheme–phoneme correspondences that are explicitly taught are intended to kick-start the self-teaching process, because far more correspondences are encountered in the words children need to read and write, even in the early years. Children therefore need to begin storing words in long-term memory. At least 1 in 4 children need additional guidance to access statistical learning, as most reading and spelling are acquired through inquiry learning, when children are working things out independently.

How would a child spell the word cupboard? How many sounds can they hear? There are five phonemes, even allowing for accent variation. To support accurate spelling, the speech sounds must be made visible, the spellings that represent those sounds must be shown, and the meaning of the word must be discussed. These three elements, speech, spelling, and meaning, bond in the orthographic lexicon when a child has sufficiently developed phonemic awareness. That is why we are so OTT about phonemic awareness.

This is also why we use the Speech Sound Play plan before introducing phonics, and then Speedie Readies as a dual-route learning path. The Speech Sound Pics approach can be used in whole-class settings to ensure children experience the kick-start efficiently as they work through the core code of around 100 GPCs at their own pace. This system can also be used alongside any whole-class phonics programme.
 

However, we must focus on upstream screening of the 1 in 4 children who will not begin self-teaching through synthetic phonics alone. While SSP reduces this risk, not all teachers understand its organisation or are supported by school leadership. Many school leaders do not fully understand the science and are influenced by pressures that make effective implementation difficult. As a result, parents and tutors can use Speedie Readies either to protect children from becoming instructional casualties, or to address the effects when they already have been.
 

It is time that parents had access to a system that works for their unique child. Personalised learning is my strength, and I share as much of what I do as possible. Word Mapping Mastery matters. If children are not storing words in the orthographic lexicon, reading with fluency and comprehension becomes unnecessarily difficult. Children do not want to keep memorising words. It is exhausting.

Our technology enables learners to check any word and see how it is spelled by typing in phonemes, using Phonemies.

Join us and help your child read and spell any word, and store those words in the orthographic lexicon, their brain’s word bank, for easier retrieval when spelling and more efficient decoding when reading.
 

Emma Hartnell-Baker

​