The English Alphabetic Code
The Teacher Test of Phonological–Orthographic Mapping (POM)
Grapheme Mapping
We find that teachers struggle more with determining the phonemes (the sounds) than the graphemes, and much of this is due to inconsistent advice or guidance from governing bodies on bidirectional word mapping. Creating a shared phonological–orthographic mapping formula that is mathematical and easy to apply to all words is at the heart of the Mapping the Alphabetic Code (MAC) Project. To support word mapping as the primary strategy for word reading and spelling, it is time to establish a consistent standard for how the alphabetic code is mapped, and use technology to display that mapping at the point of need when teachers are unsure.
NOT JUST ANOTHER WORD MAPPING TOOL
There are already word mapping tools that divide words into sounds and letters. But different tools can analyse the same word differently.
For example, a tool may identify the phonemes in some as /l/ /æ/ /m/, map these to ‹l› ‹a› ‹m›, and leave the final ‹b› as a “silent letter”. Another analysis treats ‹mb› as the grapheme representing /m/, so that every letter forms part of a grapheme.
This is why the standard needs to come before the tool.
Emma Hartnell-Baker has already developed The Code Mapping® Tool, originally designed to give teachers a quick visual reference showing which letters form the graphemes in a word. The current word mapping tool shows the grapheme mapping, but does not display the corresponding phonetic symbols.
With Emma as part of the development team, we plan to develop this further at the Centre into the Word Mapping Standard Tool, so that it can show both sides of the phonological–orthographic mapping according to the agreed Word Mapping Standard for the relevant jurisdiction.
Before The Word Mapping Tool can tell a teacher that lamb maps as ‹l› ‹æ› ‹mb›, or that the final ‹b› should be treated separately as silent, there needs to be an agreed standard that answers that question.
The aim is to give teachers a free tool they can use at the point of need to see which letters form the graphemes and the phoneme value each represents, with confidence that the mapping they are showing a child is consistent with the agreed reference for their jurisdiction.
The standard comes before the tool.
HOW SHOULD TEACHERS MAP LAMB?
The DfE’s 2021 suggested GPC progression, produced as guidance for publishers and systematic synthetic phonics programme developers, includes ‹mb› as a grapheme representing /m/, using thumb as the example.
Applying that GPC to lamb gives: ‹l› ‹a› ‹mb›
However, in the 2023 statutory KS2 English grammar, punctuation and spelling test, lamb itself was classified as S60: “words with ‘silent’ letters (i.e. letters whose presence cannot be predicted from the pronunciation of the word)”.
This raises a specific question about how teachers are expected to map lamb. Is ‹mb› the grapheme representing /m/, consistent with the DfE’s 2021 suggested GPC progression, or should lamb be analysed as: ‹l› ‹a› ‹m› + ‹b› with ‹b› treated as a “silent” letter?
These analyses do not identify the same graphemes in the word. If teachers are expected to identify phonemes and graphemes when supporting word reading and spelling, they need to know which analysis the DfE expects them to use for lamb.
And from the child’s perspective, which analysis is a five-year-old more likely to embrace? One in which ‹m› and ‹b› work together as the grapheme ‹mb› representing /m/, or one in which ‹b› is pushed out of the mapping because it “does not make a sound”?
This is exactly the type of clarification needed to establish a consistent Word Mapping Standard.
Mapping the Alphabetic Code
The DfE’s Reading Framework (2023, p. 40) states:
“A grapheme is a letter or group of letters that usually represents a single phoneme.”
It adds that a grapheme may contain one, two, three or four letters. In a few cases, one grapheme represents two phonemes, such as ‹u› representing /j/ and /uː/ in uniform.
“Understanding that the letters on the page represent the sounds in spoken words underpins successful word reading. Pupils’ knowledge of the English alphabetic code, how letters or groups of letters represent the sounds of the language, supports their reading and spelling.”
(Department for Education, England, 2023)
When the full verson is used teachers can copy the mapped text, download and use any font to create their own resources.
These resources support education department expectations that attention be drawn to taught and also untaught correspondences.
This grapheme-mapping tool was developed for Australian teachers to provide a simple, consistent way to make the graphemes visible throughout any word. Graphemes are displayed by alternating black and grey: the first grapheme is shown in black, the second in grey, the third in black, and so on. Blue is used to show a split digraph.
This grapheme-mapping tool, known as The Code Mapping Tool, is powered by the Ortho-GraphiX® word-mapping algorithm, designed by Emma Hartnell-Baker MEd SEN, who is part of a growing edtech team tackling some of the world’s most difficult speech, language and communication problems. Emma Hartnell-Baker is known for her work on phonological–orthographic word mapping, developing approaches and technology that support teachers and children in identifying and mapping the phonemes and graphemes in English words.
As far as we have been able to ascertain, the underlying grapheme analysis already aligns with current expectations in both Australia and England, including Department for Education guidance on phoneme–grapheme correspondence. However, if the technology is to show teachers the grapheme mapping of any word, we need to be confident that the analysis displayed reflects what the relevant education authorities expect teachers to use.
This grapheme-mapping tool displays only the graphemes. Other technology developed by Emma Hartnell-Baker also shows the corresponding phonemes, using alternatives to IPA phonetic symbols that are designed for children but serve the same purpose.
We are exploring a range of display options that can be used by teachers as a reference, regardless of programme. As with the Teacher Test of Phonological-Orthographic Mapping (POM), the goal is to create consistency in bidirectional word mapping that is, for the most part, driven by what the relevant education department expects teachers to know and apply.
Where current guidance is unclear, inconsistent, or differs between jurisdictions, we need clarification. We can then ensure that the Ortho-GraphiX® algorithm reflects the mapping expected of teachers, adjusting the algorithm or providing jurisdiction-specific mapping options where necessary.