












































Georgia Journal of Literacy 
2024, Vol. 46(2), pp. 4–19 
https://doi.org/10.56887/galiteracy.165 
ISSN: 2833-7611 

   
Practitioner Article 

   
 

 

CONTACT Dr. Stephanie Grote-Garcia, Professor, Dreeben School of Education, University of the Incarnate Word, 
San Antonio, TX; email grotegar@uiwtx.edu (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5764-8719). Dr. Bethanie Pletcher, 
Associate Professor, Curriculum, Instruction, and Learning Sciences Department, Texas A&M University-Corpus 
Christi, Corpus Christi, TX; email pletcher@tamucc.edu (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9248-1291). Hanna B. Patton-
Elliott, Doctoral Student, Curriculum, Instruction, and Learning Sciences Department, Texas A&M University-Corpus 
Christi, Corpus Christi, TX; helliott@islander.tamucc.edu. 
 

Phonetic Continuum Matrix: A Research-
Informed Approach to Selecting Decodable 
Words for Phonics Instruction 
 
Stephanie Grote-Garcia 
University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX 

Bethanie Pletcher 
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX 

Hanna B. Patton-Elliott 
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX 

 
ABSTRACT 

This article presents a sequential system for selecting words for early decoding 
instruction. We have named our model the Phonetic Continuum Matrix due to its 
intersection with the developmental continua of phonemic awareness and phonics. 
Our purpose for creating this model is to offer teachers an efficient and sequential 
method of selecting words for word making, word breaking, sorting, and other 
activities and games during phonemic awareness and phonics instruction. We begin 
this article with a literature review to explain “why” we teach explicit phonemic 
awareness and phonics skills during early literacy instruction. Following that 
discussion, we explore the research used to create our sequential system for 
selecting words. Next, we present the Phonetic Continuum Matrix and share 
recommendations for using the model when designing early literacy instruction. 

KEYWORDS 

phonics; 
phonemic 
awareness; early 
literacy 
instruction; 
research-based 
instruction 

 
t was early September at Lamar Elementary and first-grade teacher Mr. Reyes sat at the front 
of his inclusive classroom of 16 students. He knew through observations and universal 
screening data that seven students needed support in orally blending phonemes to form spoken 

single-syllable words, while nearly all of his students needed support in decoding consonant-
vowel-consonant (CVC) words. During today’s whole group gathering, he decided to combine 
these two skills by asking his students, “What word am I saying, /m/ /a/ /n/?” His students quickly 
replied with, “man”. He then asked his students to help him spell the word man, and they did so 
without hesitation. He repeated this exercise with the words sit, bat, and dig. His students were 
once again successful with the word sit, but many of them struggled with the words bat and dig. 
How could this be? Mr. Reyes ended the exercise by asking his students to read the same four 
words. Once again, his students were successful with the words man and sit, but they demonstrated 
more difficulty with the words bat and dig—leaving Mr. Reyes wondering why his students 
experienced more difficulty with some words and less difficulty with others.   

I 

mailto:grotegar@uiwtx.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5764-8719
mailto:pletcher@tamucc.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9248-1291
mailto:helliott@islander.tamucc.edu


Grota-Garcia et al. 5 
 

   
 

 Although the opening vignette is fabricated, we have heard teachers share similar 
experiences and ask the same questions as Mr. Reyes. Perhaps the information that Mr. Reyes is 
missing in his teaching materials includes a word list that is more nuanced than those traditionally 
provided in phonological awareness and phonics lists – a word list that takes linguistic research 
into account. For example, the reason the children in Mr. Reyes’s class may have experienced 
difficulty in blending the phonemes in man, but not bat is because the letter m makes a continuous 
vocal sound, and the letter b is a stop plosive. In this article, we present a sequential system for 
selecting words for early decoding instruction. We have named our model the Phonetic Continuum 
Matrix due to its intersection with the developmental continua of phonemic awareness and phonics 
knowledge. Our purpose for creating this model is to offer teachers an efficient and sequential 
method of selecting words to use for word making, word breaking, sorting, and other activities and 
games during phonemic awareness and phonics instruction. We begin this article with a literature 
review to explain “why” we teach explicit phonemic awareness and phonics skills during early 
literacy instruction. Following that discussion, we explore the research that was used to create our 
sequential system for selecting words. Next, we present the Phonetic Continuum Matrix and share 
recommendations for using the model when designing early literacy instruction. For the purpose 
of printing, the Phonetic Continuum Matrix has been split into two Figures—those being Figures 
1 and 2. 
 
Literature Review 
Recent publications that are focused on phonemic awareness and phonics are largely influenced 
by the current attention being given to the science of reading (Grote-Garcia & Ortlieb, 2023). That 
recent attention led us to initially set out to find within the available research a tiered system for 
evaluating the difficulty of decodable words. For this, we utilized our university database and an 
internet search engine, employing search terms such as decodable word list, phonics word 
difficulty levels, decodable reading words by level, and word difficulty continuum for phonics. 
Although we found various lists of decodable words, these resources did not provide the tiered 
structure or detailed progression we were seeking. This absence in the literature prompted us to 
develop the Phonetic Continuum Matrix to fill this gap.  

The literature review that follows explores “why” we teach explicit phonemic awareness 
and phonics skills in elementary classrooms. Also explained is the research used to formulate our 
sequential system for selecting decodable words. The reviewed research spans a total of 66 years, 
with publications as early as Templin’s 1957 publication detailing language development. We felt 
it to be important to revisit classic studies within our literature review because the relationship 
between phonemic awareness, phonics, and overall reading success has been established for 
several decades and many of those earlier studies contributed significant findings that guided the 
formation of our model. 
 
The Why 

Lindsey and colleagues (2020) remind us, that in order to read an alphabetic language, such as 
English, “students must possess secure knowledge of the alphabetic principle (i.e., speech sounds 
are represented by combinations of letters in the alphabet) as well as the ability to aurally separate 
the distinct sounds (phonemes) that make up words” (p. 159). The latter part of this statement 
refers to phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness is “the ability to focus on and manipulate 
phonemes [or the smallest sounds] in spoken words” (Liberman et al., 1974). During phonemic 
awareness instruction, students might be asked to isolate, blend, segment, or manipulate phonemes 



6 Georgia Journal of Literacy 46(2) 
 

   
 

(Collet, 2021). In the opening vignette, we read that Mr. Reyes asked his students, “What word 
am I saying, /m/ /a/ /n/?” His students blended the stated phonemes together and said the word 
“man”. In that exchange, Mr. Reyes’s students demonstrated the phonemic awareness task of 
blending phonemes. No graphemes (i.e., letters or letter combinations used to represent the sounds) 
were used in that example—as is the case for phonemic awareness tasks (Lindsey et al., 2020; 
Kilpatrick, 2015, NRP, 2000).  

Why do we teach phonemic awareness? Research has established that phonemic awareness 
skills can be a predictor of students’ early reading skills because it provides a window into 
students’ ability to learn sounds that can then be used for decoding (Boyer & Ehri, 2011; 
Kilpatrick, 2015; Share, 2004). In fact, Boyer and Ehri (2011) and Share (2004) emphasized that 
being able to segment words into phonemes when entering kindergarten is one of the strongest 
predictors of reading in kindergarten and first grade. Cassano (2018) explained this predictable 
relationship by stating, “although [phonemic awareness] does not involve print directly, there is a 
link between [phonemic awareness] and decoding in alphabetic writing systems, because letters 
represent phonemes in words” (p. 12). Cassano (2018) further explained that “without an 
awareness of the sound structure of words at the phoneme level, children do not understand how 
print works and thus can fail to deploy phonics instruction that teachers provide” (p. 12). Thus, 
one reason we teach phonemic awareness is that children must be aware of phonemes in order to 
map them to their associated graphemes (i.e., the letter or letter combinations that represent 
individual phonemes in print).  

Additional research has established that many children who are struggling with decoding 
and spelling also have deficits in phonemic awareness (Spear-Swerling, 2016). In fact, phoneme 
blending impacts students’ decoding abilities, while segmenting phonemes impacts students’ 
spelling skills. Those two relationships are proven through a vast body of research that spreads 
across decades (Bond & Dykstra, 1967; Ehri et al., 2001; Fox & Routh, 1984; NICHD Early Child 
Care Research Network, 2005; NRP, 2000). The opening vignette illustrates that finding. Mr. 
Reyes’s students looked at the printed word sit and used their knowledge of grapheme/phoneme 
relationships to decode that word. This process required students to recognize the three graphemes 
s, i, t, and to map those graphemes to the phonemes /s/, /i/, /t/—in doing so, students were applying 
their phonic knowledge. Once students identified the three phonemes connected to the printed 
letters, they then blended those phonemes together to pronounce the printed word. The students’ 
successes in blending those phonemes to pronounce the printed word are dependent upon their 
skills in phoneme blending. Had Mr. Reyes’s students only applied their phonetic knowledge and 
struggled with phoneme blending, they would not have been able to state the printed word. Instead, 
their response would have remained as the isolated phonemes of “/s/—/i/—/t/”. In a reversed 
manner, phoneme segmenting impacts spelling because in order to spell a word that is not 
memorized, we must segment the phonemes of the spoken word and then map those phonemes to 
their associated graphemes (Ball & Blachman, 1991).  

Not only do teachers of early reading need to teach phonemic awareness skills explicitly; 
they also need to teach explicit phonics skills—but, why? In addition to phonemic awareness being 
an important and necessary skill for reading an alphabetic language, decades of research have also 
established that phonetic knowledge is highly important (NRP, 2000; Stahl et al., 1998; Torgerson 
et al., 2018). Phonics is the method of teaching phoneme/grapheme relationships. Students’ 
capacity to decode unfamiliar words is impacted by their ability to recognize graphemes, map 
those graphemes to phonemes, and then blend those phonemes together to identify the printed 
word (Lindsey et al., 2020). However, there is an even larger picture. Research has identified that 



Grota-Garcia et al. 7 
 

   
 

students' abilities to decode words (which is influenced by their phonemic awareness and phonic 
knowledge) have direct impacts on their abilities to read text fluently (Ecalle et al., 2020; NRP, 
2000; Saha et al., 2021), and to comprehend them (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Kieffer & 
Christodoulou, 2020; Kim, 2015; Scarborough, 2001). 
 
Continuum of Difficulty 

Research has established that decoding skills are dependent upon the reader’s phonetic knowledge 
as well as the reader’s ability to blend phonemes into words (Bradley & Bryant,1983; Hulme et 
al., 2012; Share, 2011). When creating our sequential system for selecting words for early 
decoding instruction, we revisited the research establishing the continuum of difficulty for 
phoneme blending and phonetic knowledge; by doing so, we developed the sequence found in the 
Phonetic Continuum Matrix (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). That research is reviewed in this section—
establishing the scientific foundation on which the model was built. 
 

Phoneme Blending. The difficulty of phoneme blending tasks can vary from easy to more 
difficult depending upon the number of phonemes (i.e., fewer phonemes are easier, while more 
phonemes are harder) and the type of phonemes featured. The English language has 44 phonemes 
that are placed into two categories: consonants and vowels (Foorman, 2023). Freeman and 
Freeman (2014) remind us that consonant phonemes are closed (i.e., airflow is obstructed), can be 
stopped (i.e., cannot be elongated) or continuous (i.e., can be elongated), and can be voiced (i.e., 
require a vibration of the vocal cords) or voiceless (i.e., do not require vibration of the vocal cords). 
Furthermore, vowels are open (i.e., shaped by the mouth, but unobstructed), continuous, and 
voiced. Following a review of relevant literature, Mesmer (2019) summarized the continuum of 
difficulty for words used in phonemic awareness tasks and organized those findings based on two-
phoneme and three-phoneme words. First, two-phoneme words beginning with a vowel phoneme, 
such as “at” and “on”, are the easiest to hear; followed by two-phoneme words beginning with a 
continuant consonant (e.g., knee, so, me), and then two-phoneme words beginning with another 
consonant (e.g., be, doe, tea,). For three-phoneme words, the pattern is similar with words 
beginning with continuant consonants being easiest (e.g., man, nap, sat) and words beginning with 
other consonants being more difficult (e.g., bag, dig, top). Next, children typically develop the 
ability to segment and blend four-phoneme words with initial blends (e.g., clap, stop, trap), 
followed by four-phoneme words with final blends (e.g., felt, last, jump), and lastly five-phoneme 
words with initial and final blends (e.g., blend, clasp, stomp). These research findings directly 
influenced the formation of the Phonetic Continuum Matrix and are displayed in the columns, 
moving from left to right, of Figure 1 and Figure 2. 
 

Phonetic Knowledge. Decoding requires phonemic awareness and phonetic knowledge 
because readers must “use phonics principles to break the word into small chunks and then blend 
those chunks back together into recognizable words” (Lindsey et al., 2020, p. 161). Research points 
to phonics instruction needing to be explicit (meaning the teacher tells students the skill they are 
learning) and systematic and sequential (meaning easier skills are taught and mastered first before 
moving on to more difficult skills; Mesmer & Griffith, 2005). This instruction may begin as early 
as prekindergarten. In this section, we explore the continuum of development for phonics skills. 
We have arranged the discussion to first explore the development of letter knowledge, which is 
then followed by a discussion of how word decoding develops. 

 



8 Georgia Journal of Literacy 46(2) 
 

   
 

Letter Knowledge. Decades of research have documented that preschoolers’ letter 
knowledge (specifically their ability to name letters), is highly correlated to their later word-
reading ability (Bond & Dykstra, 1967; Tunmer et al., 1988; Wagner et al., 1994). In light of 
this correlation, we use this section to review significant research findings that have provided 
insights into the development of letter knowledge—the reason being that these findings 
informed the development of the Phonetic Continuum Matrix. 

According to research, children have more difficulties learning letters with hard-to-
hear sounds and letters that are connected to more than one sound (Treiman et al., 1998). 
Researchers have identified that the sounds of acrophonic printed letters, or letters whose 
names carry information about their sound (e.g., the name of letter m ending with /m/), are 
easier to learn than non-acrophonic letters (e.g., h, w, x; Cardoso-Martins et al., 2011; Piasta 
& Wagner, 2010; Share, 2004; Treiman & Rodriguez, 1999; Treiman et al., 1998). Also, 
Huang et al. (2014), McBride-Chang (1999), and Treiman et al. (1998) presented evidence 
that children learn the sounds of letters whose names are pronounced in consonant-vowel 
order (e.g., b, d) easier than those pronounced in vowel-consonant order (e.g., s, f).  

Although research has largely identified sounds of acrophonic printed letters to be 
easier to learn, Castles and colleagues (2009) remind us that this relationship “may be 
confounded to some degree with phonemic awareness ability because benefiting from the 
sound information provided by the letter name presumably requires that children are 
sufficiently phonologically aware to be able to successfully segment the relevant phoneme” 
(p. 69). This highlights the importance of considering individual differences in phonemic 
awareness when developing effective literacy instruction. Therefore, educational strategies 
should be tailored to address both the phonological and phonemic awareness skills of learners. 

 
Word Reading. Similar to phonemic awareness instruction, there is a general sequence 

for teaching phonics to increase word reading skills. Following a review of relevant literature, 
Lindsey and colleagues (2020) summarized that general sequence. Most phonics curricula 
“move from teaching students patterns with one-to-one correspondences in single-syllable 
words (e.g., big, hat, and tin) to teaching two-to-one (e.g., bath, see, she) and three-to-one 
correspondences in single-syllable words (e.g., eat, eight, and shoot)” (Lindsey et al., 2020, 
p. 169). Overall, the literature review provided by Lindsey et al. (2020) supports the following 
to be a suggested order for phonics instruction (from easy to difficult): short vowel word 
families (e.g., -at, -am, -it), initial consonant digraphs (e.g., ph-, sh-, th-), final consonant 
digraphs (e.g., -ch, -ck, -sh), initial consonant blends (e.g., bl-, fr-, st-), and final consonant 
blends (e.g., -st, -mp, -nd).  After reading words with short vowels, students typically learn 
words with long vowels (e.g., the silent e), vowel digraphs (e.g., ai, oa, ee), vowel diphthongs 
(e.g., oy, oi, ow as in cow), complex consonants (e.g. silent letters such as kn, soft/hard c, 
soft/hard g, and trigraphs), syllable division rules (e.g., VCǀCV, VǀCV), and morphemic 
analysis (e.g., prefix “un” means “not”).  

Many speech and language researchers have purported that there is an order in which 
children master consonant clusters/blends (Higgs, 1968; McLeod et al., 2001; Smit et al., 
1990; Templin, 1957). Dodd (1995), Dyson (1988), Paul and Jennings (1992), and Watson 
and Scukanec (1997) found, in their studies of young children, that word-final consonant 
blends (e.g., -mp, -nd, -ps) appear in language before word-initial clusters do (e.g., st-, tw-, 
pl-); however, Werfel and Schuele (2012) and Lindsay (2020) recommend the opposite. Also, 
children usually acquire consonant blends that consist of stop and liquid sounds (e.g., br-, pl) 



Grota-Garcia et al. 9 
 

   
 

before they acquire blends with fricative and liquid sounds (e.g., fr-, sl-Ingram, 1976; Powell, 
1993; Smit et al., 1990; Smith, 1973; Templin, 1957; Watson & Scukanec, 1997). More 
specifically, Barlow (2004) contended that, because sounds range on a continuum from least 
sonorous to most sonorous (in order from least to most sonorous: stops, fricatives, nasals, 
liquids, glides), consonant clusters whose sounds are further apart on this continuum (e.g. wr) 
are easier than those whose sounds are closer together (e.g., sc-, sp-). Another way of 
explaining this is that clusters whose sounds are formed in the same place of articulation are 
more difficult to pronounce than those whose sounds occur in different parts of the mouth. 
This is partly because during pronunciation, the child can feel their mouth move and see it 
when looking in a mirror. It seems the most difficult blends to hear and pronounce are final 
blends that contain a nasal (/n/) right before a voiceless phoneme (e.g., -mp, -nt) or a voiced 
phoneme (e.g., -nd, -ng; Treiman et al., 1995). Considering which clusters occur with the 
most frequency is important in forming a recommended sequence of instruction (Groff, 1971-
72). We have utilized these findings to inform our model in terms of when these 
clusters/blends might be taught. This information is illustrated in the rows of Figure 1 and 
Figure 2, with the simplest skills at the top and increasing in complexity moving downward. 
 
Theoretical Framework 
The Phonetic Continuum Matrix is designed to be utilized with children at specific stages of word 
reading development. When crafting the matrix, we drew insights from Ehri’s (2005) word reading 
stages and Bear et al.’s (2020) Words Their Way framework. In this section, we explore these two 
staging frameworks to explain the “how” and “when” of employing the Phonetic Continuum 
Matrix in the design of early literacy instruction. By aligning instructional practices with these 
frameworks, educators can better tailor their approaches to the individual needs of students at 
various stages of reading development. This ensures that instruction is both developmentally 
appropriate and research-based, enhancing the overall effectiveness of literacy education.  

According to Ehri’s (2005) four stages of word reading, word knowledge evolves through 
distinct phases. Those stages are the pre-alphabetic, partial alphabetic, full alphabetic, and 
consolidated alphabetic stages. Each phase operates on a continuum determined by the mastery of 
specific word knowledge skills. In the pre-alphabetic stage, children rely on visual cues and 
specific contexts to derive meaning, emphasizing visual input over letter sounds and drawing 
connections to environmental print. Notably, the Phonetic Continuum Matrix does not address the 
pre-alphabetic stage, as it commences with Ehri’s subsequent stage, the partial alphabetic stage.  

The partial alphabetic stage incorporates letter names and sounds, enabling children to use 
phonetic cues for comprehension. The Phonetic Continuum Matrix initiates at this stage, featuring 
acrophonic printed letters and one to two phoneme words in the top left corner of the model (refer 
to Figure 1). Moving to Ehri’s third stage, the full alphabetic stage, children utilize all letter sounds 
in reading and engage with graphemic knowledge. As the Phonetic Continuum Matrix progresses 
downward and across (from the top-left toward the bottom-right), it closely aligns with Ehri’s full 
alphabetic stage, encompassing consonant digraphs, consonant blends, vowel digraphs, and vowel 
diphthongs.  

In the consolidated alphabetic stage, Ehri’s fourth stage, children strategically incorporate 
morphological and syllabic elements into their reading, utilizing chunks or clusters within words 
and word families to enhance fluency (e.g., the child recognizes that “happiness” consists of the 
rood word “happy” and the suffix “-ness”). The Phonetic Continuum Matrix does not include 
Ehri’s consolidated alphabetic stage since the matrix is centered on the intersection of phonetic 



10 Georgia Journal of Literacy 46(2) 
 

   
 

knowledge and phonemic awareness. Readers in this advanced stage analyze “chunks” of words 
rather than individual phonemes and graphemes. Consequently, the matrix focuses on earlier 
stages of reading development where phonetic and phonemic skills are foundational, providing a 
structured approach to building these essential skills before students reach the more advanced 
stages of analyzing word patterns and morphemes.  

Bear et al.’s Words Their Way framework (2020) expands upon Ehri’s stages and offers 
developmental timelines for each stage of reading—therefore, it was also consulted as the Phonetic 
Continuum Matrix was being designed.  The initial stage, the emergent stage, typically occurs 
between the ages of two and five years old. During this stage, children make prephonetic attempts 
at reading and writing as they synthesize experiences with six crucial concepts. These concepts 
encompass language concepts and vocabulary, which provide foundational experiences with 
language and accumulated background knowledge. Alphabetic awareness leads children to an 
understanding of print and the literacy input derived from their environment.  Phonological 
awareness increases a child’s ability to blend, segment, and delete sounds when creating new 
words, and rhythmic activities contribute to mastery of syllabication.  Finally, children must have 
an automaticity with familiar words, creating sight words in context through COW-T, or Concepts 
of Words in Text.  Similar to the connections made between Ehri’s (2005) stages and the Phonetic 
Continuum Matrix, the top left corner of Figure 1 relates to Bear et al.’s early stage.  

The remainder of the Phonetic Continuum Matrix relates to Bear et al.’s next two stages—
the letter-name stage and the within word pattern stage. The letter-name stage, which is typically 
when formal reading instruction begins, ranges from kindergarten to the middle of second grade. 
At this stage, pronunciation of letter names can influence children’s reading and writing ability, 
while they also attend to realizations of how mouth shape and intonation affect words read. 
Common areas of focus during Bear and colleagues’ second stage often include short vowel 
families and CVC words. Children must understand phonemes to progress to the next stage, 
referred to as the within word pattern stage, which typically involves children in second and third 
grade. The within word pattern stage involves exploring concepts in word study, including single 
syllable patterns such as CVCe, CVVC, and CVV, with attention to diphthongs. Additionally, 
students grapple with words that have multiple meanings and similar pronunciations, such as 
“steak” and “stake” or “pair” and “pear”. This stage emphasizes a deeper understanding of spelling 
patterns and the ability to decode and spell words with more complex structures, paving the way 
for more advanced literacy skills.  

Bear et al.’s syllables and affixes stage and derivational stage are not depicted in the 
Phonetic Continuum Matrix, mirroring the omission of Ehri’s (2005) final stage. In these advanced 
stages, readers analyze word “chunks” rather than individual graphemes and phonemes. The 
syllables and affixes stage spans third grade through eighth grade, involving morphology, 
etymology, and inflection. The derivational stage, starting in middle elementary and extending 
through college, emphasizes continuous learning by exploring connections between word 
meanings and applications, including the study of word roots, prefixes, and suffixes to understand 
and generate complex words. This progression highlights the evolution from foundational phonetic 
skills to sophisticated word analysis and application, building a comprehensive understanding of 
language.  

Mastering the “how” and “when” to employ the Phonetic Continuum Matrix in literacy 
instruction is contingent on a thorough understanding of Ehri’s and Bear et al.’s stages. The matrix 
commences its journey at the partial alphabetic stage, aligning with Ehri’s model, and then aligns 
closely with the full alphabetic stage, emphasizing the importance of sound recognition and 



Grota-Garcia et al. 11 
 

   
 

graphemic knowledge. It proceeds through consonant digraphs, blends, vowel digraphs, and 
diphthongs, reflecting transition within Ehri’s full alphabetic stages. Additionally, the Phonetic 
Continuum Matrix corresponds largely with the letter-name stage and the within word pattern stage 
in Bear and colleagues’ framework, establishing that the Phonetic Continuum Matrix is a 
comprehensive tool for facilitating tailored literacy instruction throughout different stages of word 
reading development, particularly in grades kindergarten through second grade. 
 
The Phonetic Continuum Matrix 
The Phonetic Continuum Matrix offers a structured and sequential approach for the selection of 
decodable words for use during literacy instruction, incorporating research findings from 
phonemic awareness development, decoding development, and various word reading frameworks 
(i.e., Bear et al., 2020; Ehri, 2005). Examining Figures 1 and 2, the Phonetic Continuum Matrix is 
designed to align with the progression of phonemic awareness development, transitioning from 
less complex to more complex concepts as one moves from left to right across the two figures. 
Simultaneously, the continuum of phonics instruction development is depicted by moving from 
the top to bottom of the two figures. Within the individual boxes present in the model, we have 
integrated points where the research on phonemic awareness and decoding development intersects, 
offering example words that reflect both the findings in phonemic awareness research and 
decoding research. Our objective is not for teachers to adopt these particular words but rather to 
employ the alignment of research as a guide when choosing words for instruction or assessment. 
For example, Figure 1 demonstrates that children generally find it easier to decode words like 
“rash” and “much” compared to “bake” and “poke”. This is because children generally master the 
phonetic rules for single-syllable words with final consonant digraphs and blend three-phoneme 
words with initial continuant sounds (e.g., 'rash' and 'much') before they become proficient with 
silent-e words and those with initial stop consonants (e.g., 'bake' and 'poke'). By following this 
structured approach, teachers of grades K–2 can more effectively match instructional materials to 
the developmental needs of their students, ensuring a more targeted and efficient literacy 
instruction process. 
  



12 Georgia Journal of Literacy 46(2) 

 

   
 

Figure 1: Phonetic Continuum Matrix for Acrophonic Letters and Short Vowels 

Note. “–” denotes the feasibility of providing an example for overlapping phonics and phonemic awareness tasks, either due to one task being developed later or being 
inherently impossible. *Suggested order for beginning blends is the following: tw, kw, fw, pl, bl, cl, gl, fl, pr, br, cr, gr, fr, dr, tr, st, sp, sc, sn, sm, sl, sw, str, squ, spl, scr, spr. 
+Suggested order for final blends is the following: st, ps, ts, nt, ns, mp, nd, nk (Barlow, 2004; Dodd, 1995; Dyson, 1988; Groff, 1971-72; Higgs, 1968; Ingram, 1976; Lindsay, 
2020; McLeod et al., 2002; Paul & Jennings, 1992; Powell, 1993; Smit et al., 1990; Smith, 1973; Templin, 1957; Treiman, 1995; Watson & Scukanec; 1997; Werfel and 
Schuele; 2012).  

 
Phonics 

Sequence: 
Moving from 
Easiest (top) 
to Hardest 

(bottom) 
 
 

                                          Phonemic Awareness Continuum: Moving from Easiest (left) to Hardest (right) 
One-

Phoneme 
Words 

Two-Phoneme Words Three-Phoneme Words Four-Phoneme Words Five-Phoneme 
Words 

with Initial* and 
+Final Blends 

with initial 
vowel 

phoneme 

with initial 
continuant 
consonant 
phoneme 

with initial 
stopped 

consonant 
phoneme 

with initial 
continuant 
phoneme 

with stopped 
initial phoneme 

with *initial 
blends 

with +final 
blends 

Letters Acrophonic 
Printed Letters a, I – – – – – – – – 

Short 
Vowels 

ending in 
consonant 

– at 
am 
an 
in 
up 

if 
it 

on 
us 

– – man 
sit 
not 
men 
set 
sat 
let 
run 

red 
lap 
net 
van 
zip 
sip 
ran 
log 

bat 
pet 
but 
can 
did 
get 
had 

has 
him 
big 
cut 
put 
got 
dog 
pig 

– – – 

with initial 
consonant 
digraphs 

– – – – ship 
this 

shop 
than 

then 
them 
this 
shut 

chip 
chat 
chop 

 

chin 
chug 
chap 

– – – 

with final 
consonant 
digraphs 

– ash 
ick 

 

– – moth 
much 
fish 
such 
lack 

sick 
math 
lash 
rash 
lick 

cash 
dish 
push 
with 
back 

rock 
bath 
hush 
wish 
path 

flash 
sloth 
trash 
black 
stick 

flash 
trick 

swish 
clash 
stash 

– – 

with initial and 
final consonant 

digraphs 

– – – – shuck 
thick 

shack 
shush 

chick 
whack 
when 

which 
check 

– – – 

with *initial 
consonant 

blends 

– – – – – – stop 
swim 
drop 
frog 
flip 
twig 

plan 
clash 
brush 
swish 
clap 
grip 

– – 

with +final 
consonant 

blends 

– – – – ant 
ink 
elk 

ask 
end 

– – jump 
link 
sent 
long 
hand 
help 
just 
land 

must 
thing 
think 
last 
left 
list 

song 
best 

– 

with *initial and 
+final 

consonant 
blends 

 

– 
 

– – – – – – – blend 
clump 
stomp 
plant 

stand 
bring 
frost 
blink 



Grota-Garcia et al. 13 
 

   
 

Figure 2: Phonetic Continuum Matrix for Long Vowels, Vowel Combinations, and Complex Consonants 

Note. “–” denotes the feasibility of providing an example for overlapping phonics and phonemic awareness tasks, either due to one task being developed later or being 
inherently impossible. *Suggested order for beginning blends is the following: tw, kw, fw, pl, bl, cl, gl, fl, pr, br, cr, gr, fr, dr, tr, st, sp, sc, sn, sm, sl, sw, str, squ, spl, scr, spr. 
+Suggested order for final blends is the following: st, ps, ts, nt, ns, mp, nd, nk (Barlow, 2004; Dodd, 1995; Dyson, 1988; Groff, 1971–72; Higgs, 1968; Ingram, 1976; Lindsay, 
2020; McLeod et al., 2002; Paul & Jennings, 1992; Powell, 1993; Smit et al., 1990; Smith, 1973; Templin, 1957; Treiman, 1995; Watson & Scukanec; 1997; Werfel and 
Schuele; 2012).

 
Phonics 

Sequence: 
Moving from 
Easiest (top) 
to Hardest 

(right) 
 
 
 

 

  Phonemic Awareness Continuum: Moving from Easiest (left) to Hardest (right) 
  One-

Phoneme 
Words 

Two-Phoneme Words Three-Phoneme Words Four-Phoneme Words Five-Phoneme 
Words 

with initial* and 
+final blends 

  with initial 
vowel 

phoneme 

with initial 
continuant 
consonant 
phoneme 

with initial 
stopped 

consonant 
phoneme 

with initial 
continuant 
phoneme 

with stopped 
initial phoneme 

with *initial 
blends 

with +final 
blends 

Long Vowels 

single long 
vowel 

– – me 
so 
no 

my 
the 

be 
go 
he 

by 
we 

– poll 
toll  

both. 
. 

– bold 
cold 
find 
kind 
most 

went 
hold 
told 
pint 

grind 

with silent e 

– – – – made 
make 
rope 
like 
land 
line 

name 

same 
late 
life 
mile 
side 
fine 

shine 

bake 
poke 
time 
came 
home 
page 
take  

white 
wave 
base 
game 
gave 
date 
gate 

brave 
smile 
write 
state 
plane 
drive 
stove 

frame 
slime 
crime 
plate 
crate 
flame 
globe 

– – 

Vowel 
Combinations 

vowel 
digraphs 

– oak 
eek 

each 
eat 

see 
sea 
may 
they 
mow 
sew 
fee 

say 
show 
saw 
low 

though 
row 

hay 
day 
tow 
way 
tea 
toe 

bay 
bow 
bee 
key 
due 

seek 
leap 
look 
that 

mean 
need 
read 
rain 

feet 
real 

seem 
soon 
feel 

shown 
seat 
meet 

boat 
been 
book 
head 
keep 
coat 

took 
wood 
deep 
heat 
beat 

sleep 
green 
bread 
great 
fried 

cream 
grain 

stood 
queen 
float 
train 
braid 
brain 
great 

toast 
coast 
paint 

quaint 

vowel 
diphthongs 

– oil 
owl 
out 

our 
own 
ouch 

now 
vow 
few 

chow 
new 

cow 
toy 
how 

boy 
high 
chew 

soil 
fowl 

shout 

south 
noun 

town 
coin 

down. 

crown 
brown 
cloud 

frown 
clown 
fruit 

sound 
pound 
found 

point 
round 

– 

Complex 
Consonants 

(with short and 
long vowels) 

silent letters, 
hard/soft and 

trigraphs 

– – knee 
know 

– knit 
lamb 
right 
face 
light 

might 
night 
voice 

known 
knob 

comb 
height 

crumb 
stitch  
place 
close 

school 
space 

brought 
climb 

cent 
ghost 

– 



14 Georgia Journal of Literacy 46(2) 
 

   
 

Instructional Recommendations 
Within this section, we explore the use of the Phonetic Continuum Matrix to elevate and 
synchronize the instruction of phonemic awareness and decoding. Furthermore, we reexamine 
crucial research findings and optimal approaches for teaching phonemic awareness and decoding 
skills. We also explore how consulting the Phonetic Continuum Matrix can reinforce and enhance 
this instructional process. By aligning instructional practices with the matrix, teachers can ensure 
a cohesive approach that integrates research-based strategies with practical application, thereby 
supporting students’ progress through the various stages of reading development. This alignment 
not only enhances the effectiveness of phonemic awareness and decoding instruction but also 
provides a structured framework for monitoring and adapting teaching strategies to meet individual 
student needs.  

Phonemic awareness tasks intentionally avoid incorporating printed letters for several 
crucial reasons. A primary consideration is the necessity for students to initially cultivate the ability 
to distinguish distinct sounds before linking them to written language, as emphasized by Lindsey 
and colleagues (2020). Additionally, the use of printed letters could inadvertently act as “clues,” 
potentially leading to an inaccurate assessment of a child’s genuine phonemic awareness, as noted 
by Kilpatrick (2015). This situation arises when children rely on visual cues rather than authentic 
phonemic awareness. Kilpatrick (2015) also addresses a common misinterpretation of the National 
Reading Panel’s (NRP, 2000) original findings. NRP’s suggestion was not that phonemic 
awareness should be taught with letters; instead, the NRP recommended moving swiftly into 
integrating phonemic awareness with letter recognition and the decoding process. After 
completing a phonemic awareness task without the use of letters, students should promptly map 
those same phonemes to their associated graphemes. Kipatrick argues that this practice helps 
students establish a robust foundation in phonemic awareness, phonetic knowledge, and a deeper 
understanding of the alphabetic principle. Given these considerations, Kilpatrick advises educators 
to use non-letter symbols or tokens when teaching phonemic awareness skills. Subsequently, 
students are encouraged to establish connections between the featured phonemes and printed 
letters by then replacing those tokens with the associated graphemes. 

The importance of following phonemic awareness tasks with connections to decoding is 
further explained by Ehri (2020). Ehri clarifies that readers connect the spellings of words to their 
pronunciations. Therefore, in addition to using tokens like pennies or Bingo chips when perceiving 
sounds in words (e.g., Elkonin boxes), it is also beneficial to establish links between phonemes 
and letters, assisting children in connecting letters to their corresponding sounds (Ehri, 2020). Ehri 
asserts that this process helps children transition from the pre-alphabetic phrase to the partial 
alphabetic phrase and “facilitate[s] learning because the [letters] provide visible, concrete 
representations of phonemes that are transient and disappear as soon as they are spoken or heard” 
(Boyer & Ehri, 2011, p. 441). These research findings highlight the intricate relationship between 
phonemic awareness, decoding, and spelling.  

The shift from phonemic awareness instruction to phonics instruction should be seamless, 
as recommended by Mesmer (2022). The effectiveness of this approach is well-illustrated in the 
opening vignette featuring Mr. Reyes, where he guided his students to orally segment phonemes 
in spoken words and then immediately applied that knowledge by spelling the same words. In the 
vignette, Mr. Reyes’ students successfully read and spelled the words “man” and “sit” but 
encountered difficulty with the words “bat” and “dig”. This challenge aligns with the principles of 
the Phonetic Continuum Matrix, where the initial continuant phonemes of /m/ in the word “man” 
and /s/ in the word “sit” appear earlier on the matrix when compared to the stopped sounds of the 



Grota-Garcia et al. 15 
 

   
 

/b/ and /d/ phonemes found in the words “bat” and “dig”. As Mr. Reyes’ students’ progress in their 
phonics instruction, mastering the stopped initial sounds, they will likely advance to continuant 
initial consonant digraphs like “sh” in the word “ship” and “th” in the word “this”, broadening 
their understanding of more complex phonetic patterns. Subsequently, they will further navigate 
through the Phonetic Continuum Matrix, encountering stopped initial consonant digraphs such as 
“ch” in the words “chat” and “chip” before moving further up and toward the right on the matrix 
into more complex consonant blends appearing at the beginnings and ends of words (e.g., “stop” 
and “ink”). This sequential development illustrates the importance of a systematic and targeted 
phonics curriculum, ensuring students acquire a comprehensive set of skills that progressively 
build upon each other, ultimately enhancing their reading and spelling abilities across a diverse 
range of words. 
 
Final Thoughts 
The Phonetic Continuum Matrix is a valuable tool for educators seeking a systematic and 
sequential approach to selecting words for early decoding instruction. Drawing from a 
comprehensive literature review, the matrix tackles the essential connection between phonemic 
awareness and phonics skills. Through its structured framework, the Phonetic Continuum Matrix 
helps teachers navigate from simpler to more complex phonemic and phonics concepts. The 
reviewed research, spanning over six decades, emphasizes the enduring importance of explicit 
instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics for successful reading outcomes.  

Guided by theoretical frameworks from Ehri (2005) and Bear et al. (2020), the 
development and application of the Phonetic Continuum Matrix ensures alignment with stages of 
word reading development. Beginning at the partial alphabetic stage and progressing through 
consonant digraphs, blends, and beyond, this model offers a comprehensive approach tailored to 
different stages of emergent and early literacy. It is important to note, however, that these stages 
are a guide for how children might work with sounds and print. Thus, teachers should keep in mind 
that different children may progress through these stages differently. The integration of evidence-
based practices, as advocated by Ehri (2005) and Kilpatrick (2015), highlights the significance of 
separating phonemic awareness tasks from printed letters initially and later connecting them 
seamlessly during decoding instruction.  

The instructional recommendations stress the importance of a smooth transition from 
phonemic awareness to phonics, as demonstrated in the vignette featuring Mr. Reyes. The 
sequential development outlined by the Phonetic Continuum Matix emphasizes the importance of 
helping teachers understand that some individual sounds and sound combinations are harder for 
children to hear than others.  This approach ensures students progressively build a strong 
foundation, leading to improved reading and spelling across a diverse range of words in 
increasingly complex texts. In essence, the Phonetic Continuum Matrix not only addresses the 
challenges faced by educators, as exemplified by Mr. Reyes; it also offers a practical solution 
grounded in research-based principles. By incorporating this model into early literacy instruction, 
educators can cultivate an effective and tailored approach, ultimately contributing to improved 
reading outcomes and literacy success for students. 

References 
Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a 

difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research 
Quarterly, 26(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.26.1.3  

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1598/RRQ.26.1.3


16 Georgia Journal of Literacy 46(2) 
 

   
 

Barlow, J. (2004). Consonant clusters in phonological acquisition: Applications to assessment and 
treatment. California Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 34, 10–13. https://hdl.hand
le.net/2022/20100 

Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2020). Words their way: Word study 
for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (6th ed.). Pearson. 

Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading 
instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2(4), 5–142. https://doi.org/10.2307/46948 

Boyer, N., & Ehri, L. C. (2011). Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters 
and articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners. Scientific Studies of 
Reading, 15(5), 440–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.520778 

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. 
Nature, 301, 419–421. https://doi.org/10.1038/301419a0 

Cardoso-Martins, C., Mesquita, T. C. L., & Ehri, L. (2011). Letter names and phonological 
awareness help children to learn letter-sound relations. Journal of Experimental Child 
Psychology, 109(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.12.006 

Cassano, C. M. (2018). A close and careful look at phonological awareness. In C. M. Cassano, & 
S. M. Dougherty (Eds.), Pivotal research in early literacy: Foundational studies and 
current practices (pp. 111–141). Guilford Press. 

Castles, A., Coltheart, M., Wilson, K., Valpied, J., & Wedgewood, J. (2009). The genesis of 
reading ability: What helps children learn letter-sound correspondences? Journal of 
Experimental Child Psychology, 104(1), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.12.003 

Collet, V. S. (2021). The language of literacy education. Brill. 
Dodd, B. (1995). Children’s acquisition of phonology. In B. Dodd (Ed.), Differential diagnosis 

and treatment of speech disordered children (pp. 21–48). Whurr Publishers. 
Dyson, A. T. (1988). Phonetic inventories of 2- and 3-year-old children. Journal of Speech and 

Hearing Disorders, 53, 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5301.89  
Ecalle, J., Dujardin, E., Gomes, C., Cros, L., & Magnan, A. (2020). Decoding, fluency and reading 

comprehension: Examining the nature of their relationships in a large-scale study with first 
graders. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 37(5), 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.
2020.1846007 

Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of 
Reading, 9(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4 

Ehri, L. C. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. 
Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.334 

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. 
(2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the 
National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287. 
https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2 

Foorman, B. R. (2023). Learning the code. In S. Q. Cabell, S. B. Neumann, & N. P. Terry (Eds.), 
Handbook on the science of early literacy (pp. 73–82). Guilford Press. 

https://hdl.handle.net/2022/20100
https://hdl.handle.net/2022/20100
https://doi.org/10.2307/46948
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/10888438.2010.520778
https://doi.org/10.1038/301419a0
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.12.006
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.12.003
https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5301.89
https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.%E2%80%8C2020.1846007
https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.%E2%80%8C2020.1846007
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.334
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2


Grota-Garcia et al. 17 
 

   
 

Fox, B., & Routh, D. K. (1984). Phonemic analysis and synthesis as word attack skills: Revisited. 
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1059–1064. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.76.6.1059   

Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y. S. (2014). Essential linguistics: What teachers need to know to 
teach ESL, reading, spelling, grammar. Heinemann. 

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and 
Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104 

Groff, P. (1971-72). Sequences for teaching consonant clusters. Journal of Reading Behavior, 4(1), 
59–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862967109546976 

Grote-Garcia, S., & Ortlieb, E. (2023). What’s hot in literacy: The duality of explicit instruction 
& cultural and linguistic considerations. Literacy Research and Instruction, 62(1), 1–15. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2023.2162207 

Higgs, J. A. W. (1968). The phonetic development of word initial /s/ plus stop clusters in a group 
of young children. British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 3, 130–138. 
https://doi.org/10.3109/13682826809011451 

Huang, F. L., Tortorelli, L. S., & Invernizzi, M. A. (2014). An investigation of factors associated 
with letter-sound knowledge at kindergarten entry. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 
29(2), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.02.001 

Hulme, C., Bowyer-Crane, C., Carroll, J. M., Duff, F. J., & Snowling, M. J. (2012). The causal 
role of phoneme awareness and letter-sound knowledge in learning to read: Combining 
intervention studies with mediation analyses. Psychological Science, 23(6), 572–577. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435921 

Ingram, D. (1976). Phonological disability in children. Elsevier. 
Kieffer, M. J., & Christodoulou, J. A. (2020). Automaticity and control: How do executive 

functions and reading fluency interact in predicting reading comprehension? Reading 
Research Quarterly, 55(1), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.289 

Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. 
John Wiley & Sons. 

Kim, Y. S. G. (2015). Developmental, component‐based model of reading fluency: An 
investigation of predictors of word‐reading fluency, text‐reading fluency, and reading 
comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(4), 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/
rrq.107 

Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F. W., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and 
phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 
18(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(74)90101-5 

Lindsey, J. B., Kuehl, R., & Mesmer, H. A. (2020). What’s hot in literacy? Phonics and phonemic 
awareness. In E. Ortlieb, S. Grote-Garcia, J. Cassidy, & E. H. Cheek (Eds.), What’s hot in 
literacy: Exemplar models of effective practice (Vol. 11, pp. 159–180). Emerald Publishing 
Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2048-045820200000011016 

McBride-Chang, C. (1999). The ABCs of ABCs: The development of letter-name and letter-sound 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1059
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1059
https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
https://doi.org/10.1080/10862967109546976
https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2023.2162207
https://doi.org/10.3109/13682826809011451
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.02.001
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435921
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.289
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.107
https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.107
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(74)90101-5
https://doi.org/10.1108/S2048-045820200000011016


18 Georgia Journal of Literacy 46(2) 
 

   
 

knowledge. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45(2), 285–308. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2309
3679 

McLeod, S., van Doorn, J., & Reed, V. A. (2001). Normal acquisition of consonant clusters. 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1044/
1058-0360(2001/011) 

Mesmer, H. A. E. (2019). Letter lessons and first words: Phonics foundations that work, preK–2. 
Heinemann. 

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 

Mesmer, H. A. E., & Kambach, A. (2022). Beyond labels and agendas: Research teachers need to 
know about phonics and phonological awareness. The Reading Teacher, 76(1), 62–72. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2102 

National Reading Panel. (NRP). (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children 
to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and 
its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute for 
Literacy. 

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Pathways to reading: The role of oral 
language in the transition to reading. Developmental Psychology, 41(2), 428–442. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.428 

Paul, R., & Jennings, P. (1992). Phonological behaviour in toddlers with slow expressive language 
development. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 99–107. https://doi.org/
10.1044/jshr.3501.99 

Piasta, S. B., & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: A meta-analysis of alphabet 
learning and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 8–38. https://doi.org/
10.1598/RRQ.45.1.2 

Powell, T. W. (1993). Phonetic subgroups of American English consonant clusters. In R. Aulanko, 
& A. Korpijaakko-Huuhka (Eds.), Third congress of the international clinical phonetics 
and linguistics association (pp. 137–142). Department of Phonetics, University of 
Helsinki. 

Saha, N. M., Cutting, L. E., Del Tufo, S., & Bailey, S. (2021). Initial validation of a measure of 
decoding difficulty as a unique predictor of miscues and passage reading fluency. Reading 
and Writing, 34, 497–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10073-x 

Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: 
Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman, & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of 
early literacy research (pp. 97–110). Guilford Press. 

Share, D. L. (2004). Knowing letter names and learning letter sounds: A causal connection. 
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88(3), 213–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.
2004.03.005 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23093679
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23093679
https://doi.org/10.1044/%E2%80%8C1058-0360(2001/011)
https://doi.org/10.1044/%E2%80%8C1058-0360(2001/011)
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1598/RT.59.4.6
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1598/RT.59.4.6
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2102
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.428
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1044/jshr.3501.99
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1044/jshr.3501.99
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1598/RRQ.45.1.2
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1598/RRQ.45.1.2
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10073-x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.%E2%80%8C2004.03.005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.%E2%80%8C2004.03.005


Grota-Garcia et al. 19 
 

   
 

Share, D. L. (2011). On the role of phonology in reading acquisition: The self-teaching hypothesis. 
In S. A. Brady, D. Braze, & C. A. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in 
reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 45–68). Psychology Press. 

Smit, A. B., Hand, L., Freilinger, J. J., Bernthal, J. E., & Bird, A. (1990). The Iowa articulation 
norms project and its Nebraska replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 
779–798. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5504.779 

Smith, N. V. (1973). The acquisition of phonology: A case study. Cambridge University Press. 
Spear-Swerling, L. (2016). Common types of reading problems and how to help children who have 

them. The Reading Teacher, 69(5), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1410 
Stahl, S. A., Duffy-Hester, A. M., & Stahl, K. A. D. (1998). Everything you wanted to know about 

phonics (but were afraid to ask). Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 338–355. https://doi.
org/10.1598/RRQ.33.3.5 

Templin, M. (1957). Certain language skills in children: Their development and interrelationships 
(Vol. 26). University of Minnesota Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctttv2st 

Torgerson, C., Brooks, G., Gascoine, L., & Higgins, S. (2018). Phonics: Reading policy and the 
evidence of effectiveness from a systematic ‘tertiary’ review. Research Papers in 
Education, 34(6), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/1132130 

Treiman, R., & Rodriguez, K. (1999). Young children use letter names in learning to read words. 
Psychological Science, 10(4), 334–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00164 

Treiman, R., Tincoff, R., Rodriguez, K., Mouzaki, A., & Francis, D. J. (1998). The foundations of 
literacy: Learning the sounds of letters. Cognition, 106, 1322–1338. https://doi.org/10.23
07/1132130 

Treiman, R., Zukowski, A., Richmond-Welty, E. D. (1995). What happened to the “n” of sink? 
Children’s spellings of final consonant clusters. Cognition, 55(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0010-0277(94)00638-2 

Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning 
reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(2), 134–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/747799 

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Development of reading-related 
phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent 
variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.73 

Watson, M. M., & Scukanec, G. P. (1997). Profiling the phonological abilities of 2-year-olds: A 
longitudinal investigation. Child Language and Therapy, 13, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/
026565909701300102 

Werfel, K. L, & Schuele, C. M. (2012). Segmentation and representation of consonant blends in 
kindergarten children’s spellings. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 
292–307. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-0005) 

 
Received: July 25, 2024 | Accepted: September 4, 2024 | Published: November 15, 2024 

https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5504.779
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1410
https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.33.3.5
https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.33.3.5
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctttv2st
https://doi.org/10.2307/1132130
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00164
https://doi.org/10.23%E2%80%8C07/1132130
https://doi.org/10.23%E2%80%8C07/1132130
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1016/0010-0277(94)00638-2
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1016/0010-0277(94)00638-2
https://doi.org/10.2307/747799
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.73
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.73
https://doi.org/10.1177/026565909701300102
https://doi.org/10.1177/026565909701300102
https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-0005)

	Literature Review
	The Why
	Continuum of Difficulty

	Theoretical Framework
	The Phonetic Continuum Matrix
	The Phonetic Continuum Matrix offers a structured and sequential approach for the selection of decodable words for use during literacy instruction, incorporating research findings from phonemic awareness development, decoding development, and various ...
	Figure 1: Phonetic Continuum Matrix for Acrophonic Letters and Short Vowels
	Figure 2: Phonetic Continuum Matrix for Long Vowels, Vowel Combinations, and Complex Consonants


	Instructional Recommendations
	Final Thoughts
	References

