Deep Dives

The Issue

Most educators even casually aware of terms such as science of reading or structured literacy are familiar with the importance of phonics in these contexts. In fact, the emphasis on phonics instruction is a frequent (if misguided) critique that proponents of so-called “balanced literacy” often have regarding structured literacy principles. What often escapes the conversation, however, is the notion that phonics instruction is far from a universal description. Research has only begun to provide clarity or direction into the specificity of phonics instruction that is most effective. The National Reading Panel (2000) concluded that explicit, systematic phonics is effective, with some evidence suggesting that synthetic phonics is more advantageous than analytic phonics, but significant variance remains within these umbrellas. One such variant within the broader scope of systematic, explicit, synthetic phonics is structuring a phonics program through either a print-to-speech or speech-to-print approach, with each of these fundamentally contrasting methodologies touted by fervent supporters.

The Approaches

Print-to-Speech (P2S)

In a print-to-speech (often denoted as P2S) approach, teachers have a progression of letters and letter combinations (“print”) that they systematically teach their students the corresponding sounds to (“speech”). While these programs will almost certainly teach the process of encoding practice that will expect them to hear an oral word (speech), segment the word into sounds, and spell those sounds with letters (print), this inclusion is not to be confused with a true speech-to-print approach (Hansford, 2023). Students learning from a P2S approach will typically learn one letter-sound association at a time (for example, they may initially learn that <ch> represents the /ch/ phoneme, and only much later be taught that the grapheme may also represent /k/).

A P2S approach is arguably the one most often described in professional development programs and represented by many systematic phonics programs and curricula, even if not by name. For example, UFLI Foundations, Corrective Reading, and the Orton-Gillingham (OG) approach use a P2S approach. While any of these programs are valued as familiar, trusted phonics programs, the Orton-Gillingham approach in particular has been a mainstay in reading instruction for decades, and is often referred to by educators and parents as “the gold standard” (Dyslexia PowerUp, n.d.; Marker Learning, n.d.; Young, 2025 ). Instruction is highly structured, and emphasizes explicit, systematic teaching of spelling patterns and syllable types with an expectation of mastery before progression. It incorporates cumulative review and multisensory practice, delivered through individualized, diagnostic lessons with ongoing error correction and adjustment to student performance (Orton-Gillingham Academy, 2022). Some proponents claim that this method is necessary for some students to learn how to read, but beneficial to all (Stapert, n.d., Trident Academy, 2025).

Speech-to-Print (S2P)

Rather than a scope and sequence based on letters, a speech-to-print scope and sequence is organized by sounds. Students learning a speech-to-print (S2P) approach may be introduced to several possible spelling combinations for a single phoneme at once (for example, when introducing /ō/, students may simultaneously learn the <o>, <o_e>, <ow>, and <oa> spelling patterns) (Fein, 2023). These programs will, of course, include activities supporting the P2S process (i.e., decoding), but these two approaches remain fundamentally distinct (Hansford, 2023). A S2P approach often introduces correspondences in the context of whole words, rather than initially introducing a correspondence in isolation. They deemphasize phonics rules, syllable types, letter names, and expectation of mastery before proceeding in the planned scope and sequence (Fein, 2023). S2P programs tend to progress students from controlled, decodable texts to more authentic texts at a faster rate than most P2S programs, due to quicker introductions to more graphemes and less declarative knowledge to memorize (i.e., rules), with the expectation that students will gain mastery over time through repeated, spaced practice and self-teaching (Fein, 2023).

Programs such as EBLI, Reading Simplified, and SPELL-Links use a S2P approach. This framework (sometimes referred to as linguistic phonics or even structured linguistic literacy) has a mighty, if smaller, following of educators who claim the alternate method leads to faster progress with a smaller demand on their cognitive load (Chahbazi, n.d.; Ginsberg, n.d.). They also argue that the earlier exposure to authentic texts better prepares students for the deep orthography of English, and the set for variability needed to resolve these phonetic ambiguities, and also capitalizes on students’ statistical learning to learn patterns from repeated exposures to these authentic texts. S2P is, in part, built on David Share’s self-teaching hypothesis- claiming that while students need sufficient phonics skills to progress, they do not need all of the phonics instruction typically given in P2S programs (Fein, 2023).

Does the research support these claims? Are we facing another reckoning in how children learn phonics?

The Research

It’s worth beginning this section by directly pointing out that, to date, there is little to no published research directly comparing S2P and P2S methods.

We are left to separately analyze the research that we do have on these distinct approaches. Even still, finding relevant research is somewhat obstructed, in part by inconsistent use of terminology. For example, because the P2S approach is considered a more traditional method, it generally isn’t labeled at all, beyond simply “explicit, systematic phonics instruction” or perhaps “synthetic phonics,” but none of these descriptors would exclude the possibility of the researched phonics program actually being an S2P framework.

Additionally, the term “speech-to-print” is often used across the field to describe the aforementioned processes, rather than as an entire programmatic approach. For example, Louisa Moats has frequently advocated for a speech-to-print approach (Moats, 2022), even naming her book on explicit literacy instruction Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers (Moats, 2020). Her use of this term varies from how it is presented in this Deep Dive, however. Despite using the term approach, Moats focuses on instructional processes, such as emphasizing phoneme-level awareness, sound-first presentation during instruction, and providing ample encoding practice (Moats, 2022), rather than program-level design features (e.g., organizing scope and sequence around phonemes rather than graphemes). Some of her advice, such as teaching syllable types (Moats, 2020), is directly at odds with key features of the S2P methodology. Thus, some citations seeming to support S2P as an approach may actually be more appropriately attributed to the associated processes.

The ambiguity of the term speech-to-print is somewhat ameliorated by its synonyms linguistic phonics, or structured linguistic literacy, when these terms are used, however they are arguably even less widely recognized in the field. Regardless of labels, the available research remains relatively limited and tends to focus on the efficacy of specific branded programs, rather than evaluating the effectiveness of the approach as a broader instructional model.

Although not subjected to peer review, Nathaniel Hansford (2023) conducted a meta-analysis of 13 research studies on S2P programs, some of which Hansford described as “the highest quality phonics studies I have read.” This analysis yielded an exceptional (1.52) effect size for the impact S2P programs had on students’ decoding skills, and a strong effect size (.82) for students’ reading comprehension. When the effect sizes were averaged across studied literacy components (e.g., fluency, decoding, comprehension, letter identification, spelling, etc.), the calculation came to .75, which is just shy of the .8 cutoff that is generally considered strong. While effect sizes of all of the included individual studies varied in size, they were all consistently statistically significant, positive outcomes for students. The included studies investigated both classroom-wide application of the programs, as well as that specific to students with identified reading challenges. The research samples primarily included students in kindergarten and 1st grade, but some included upper primary and secondary students as well.

For the purposes of this article, the Orton-Gilligham approach was selected as the closest available proxy for print-to-speech more globally. It’s worth explicitly stating the caveat that Orton-Gillingham programs are not representative of all P2S approaches, but this proxy was selected in order to avoid reducing the P2S to any one specific program, while also not erroneously including S2P programs by defining the targeted phonics instruction too broadly.

Ritchey and Goeke (2006) conducted a systematic review of 12 studies on the Orton-Gillingham approach, including students ranging from kindergarten through college, across a range of reading abilities. The mean effect found for word-reading was a size of .42 (an “average” positive effect size is generally considered to be .5), but this varied widely in the individual studies included, ranging from −.091 (the control group performed better) to 1.56 (exceptional). The mean effect size for comprehension in the five included studies that reported this measure was .76 (just shy of “strong”), with individual studies ranging from .17 to 1.68. Similarly, the mean effect size for total reading was 0.37, again with a large range from −1.18 (the control group performed better) to 1.59 (exceptional). Overall, the authors cautioned that the research at that time was insufficient to justify Orton-Gillingham as evidence-based, based on both quantity and quality of available research.

Stevens et al. (2021) aimed to update Ritchey & Goeke’s (2006) review, as well as similar reviews performed by What Works Clearinghouse, which yielded similarly insufficient evidence to support Orton-Gillingham methods. While Stevens et al. included some of the same studies as Ritchey & Goeke (2006), the updated analysis of 16 studies focused solely on research conducted with struggling readers in kindergarten through 12th grade. It included both named, published programs as well as unlabeled interventions based on Orton-Gillingham principles as identified by the research author(s). However, despite having 15 additional years of research to pull from, Stevens et al. faced similar challenges as Ritchey & Goeke (2006) by finding that the available studies were of overall low quality. The resulting effect sizes were positive, but not statistically significant for either foundational reading skills (including measures of phonological awareness, decoding, word identification, fluency, and spelling) nor comprehension (including reading comprehension, listening comprehension, and vocabulary). Further breakdown of the effect sizes into individual components of reading was not provided.

While the authors interpreted the results of the study to show that Orton-Gillingham methods show “ ‘promise’ but not confidence or evidenced-based effects,” they also caution that future analyses that are able to include more high-quality research may not produce similar results, as higher-quality studies often result in smaller effect sizes. On the other hand, the weak and inconsistent effects for OG in these reviews should be interpreted cautiously, because they aggregate studies across a wide age range, even though evidence from broader phonics research suggests that effects are strongest in kindergarten and first grade (National Reading Panel, 2000). Given well-established grade-level effects in phonics research, it is unclear whether the reported weak average effects reflect the intervention itself or the inclusion of populations for whom smaller effects would be expected.

In Sum

Based on the available research, both S2P-based programs, and OG-based programs (used here as a proxy for the P2S approaches more broadly) appear to have the potential to be effective approaches to reading instruction/intervention. Research on S2P approaches is relatively limited, but the studies that do exist have yielded consistently positive, statistically significant outcomes. In contrast, research on OG-based approaches is more extensive (though still smaller than might be expected given the approach’s longevity in the field and widespread use) but is marked by considerable variability in reported outcomes, including outperformance by the control groups in some studies.

The imbalance of these outcomes cannot be compared directly, however. Hansford’s (2023) synthesis of S2P programs differs in scope and methodology from the reviews of OG-based approaches. As a result, differences in the findings should be interpreted with caution. It is also possible that characteristics of the research on OG-based approaches, such as variation in study quality and the inclusion of older struggling readers alongside early learners, contributed to the more mixed (and overall less favorable) findings.

Taken together, the current evidence does not appear to justify the status often afforded to OG-based approaches as a “gold standard.” Given the widespread use of these programs, there is a clear need for more rigorous, high-quality research to clarify their effectiveness. At the same time, S2P approaches have received comparatively little attention and merit greater focus, particularly through independent research examining their effectiveness and appropriate use.

Questions we just don’t have the answers to:

1. Does a phonics’ program’s scope and sequence alignment to phonemes or graphemes impact its effectiveness?
   1. Should we be using the same approach to teach foundational reading skills in classroom-based instruction that we do for older and/or struggling readers?
2. How would the use of high-quality studies impact the effectiveness of Orton-Gillingham programs?
   1. What grades and/or reading abilities is it most effective for?
3. Given the wide variance of demonstrated effectiveness in print-to-speech programs, what components of these programs lead to the strongest results for students?
4. How much explicit instruction in phonics is necessary before statistical learning and self-teaching take over?