The English Alphabetic Code
The Teacher Test of Phonological–Orthographic Mapping (POM)
WHEN CONFIDENCE DOESN’T MATCH KNOWLEDGE
Teachers cannot identify a training need if they do not know that a gap in their knowledge exists.
This presents an important challenge for education departments, school systems and school leaders. Asking teachers whether they understand phonics, phonemic awareness or the alphabetic code does not establish whether they can actually demonstrate that knowledge.
Research into teacher knowledge and knowledge calibration has repeatedly identified differences between what teachers believe they know and what they can demonstrate.
KNOWLEDGE CALIBRATION
Knowledge calibration describes how accurately someone can judge their own level of knowledge.
This matters in early literacy because teachers may feel knowledgeable and confident while being unaware of specific gaps in the underlying linguistic knowledge needed for teaching reading and spelling.
Cunningham et al. (2004) examined teachers’ disciplinary knowledge and their ability to accurately judge that knowledge. Teachers were generally positive about their knowledge, but demonstrated limited knowledge in phonemic awareness and phonics. The researchers identified poor calibration between perceived and demonstrated knowledge in these areas.
This is not simply a question of confidence.
A teacher can be experienced, confident and highly competent in many aspects of classroom practice while still having specific gaps in knowledge of the alphabetic code.
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT TEACHER KNOWLEDGE IN ENGLAND?
This question is particularly important in England because teachers are expected to teach systematic synthetic phonics and apply knowledge of phoneme–grapheme correspondences when supporting children with reading and spelling.
Yet there is evidence that the underlying knowledge required to do this cannot simply be assumed.
Stainthorp (2004) assessed 38 graduate trainee primary teachers at the University of London on their phonological awareness. The trainees did not initially demonstrate a consistent system for segmenting words into their component sounds. Although performance improved following teaching, six months later many still did not demonstrate sufficient insight into the sound structure of words to teach phonemes with certainty.
This distinction is particularly relevant to word mapping.
Being literate does not automatically provide conscious access to the phonological structure of words. Knowing how to read and spell a word is not the same as being able to identify its phonemes and explain how those phonemes correspond with its graphemes.
More recently, Flynn (2021) reported on Department for Education-funded phonics training delivered to 584 practitioners from 379 schools across 14 regions of England. The research identified an ongoing need for professional development of teachers’ subject knowledge for teaching reading, alongside their ability to assess children’s phonic knowledge and provide targeted intervention.
Research involving preservice teachers in England also continues to demonstrate variation in relevant knowledge. A recent study involving 140 English preservice teachers found an average accuracy of 81.53% across its phonics-knowledge items, with substantial variation between individual questions. On some items, around 40% of the English participants answered incorrectly or reported being unsure.
The question therefore cannot be answered by assuming that teachers have the required knowledge because they have completed teacher training, teach phonics or work within a school using a phonics programme.
It needs to be demonstrated.
INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE
The same issue has been identified internationally.
Australian research provides particularly useful evidence because studies have directly compared teachers’ perceived knowledge with demonstrated knowledge.
Carson and Bayetto (2018) investigated 102 registered Australian early childhood and early primary teachers. They found overestimation of self-reported phonological awareness knowledge alongside weaknesses in demonstrated knowledge.
Stark et al. (2016) investigated the linguistic knowledge and self-rated ability of 78 Australian teachers. Teachers commonly rated their ability to teach areas including spelling and phonics positively, while demonstrated knowledge of relevant linguistic constructs was limited and variable.
Research from New Zealand has similarly found difficulties in trainee teachers’ phonological and phonics knowledge. Nicholson and McIntosh (2020) found that believing oneself to be proficient was associated with greater phonological knowledge, but not with higher phonics scores.
Across the wider literature, the important distinction remains:
Perceived knowledge is not the same as demonstrated knowledge.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN EXISTING KNOWLEDGE IS CHALLENGED?
There is a further issue.
When people believe they already possess particular knowledge or expertise, information that conflicts with that belief can create cognitive dissonance: psychological discomfort arising from inconsistency between existing beliefs and new information (Festinger, 1957).
The response to that discomfort is not necessarily to immediately revise the existing belief.
People may instead question the new information, reinterpret it in ways that preserve their existing understanding, or reject the premise of the task.
This has important implications for teacher assessment.
An experienced teacher who has successfully delivered a phonics programme for many years may reasonably believe that they have strong knowledge of phonics and the alphabetic code.
Being asked to independently map a word and discovering that their mapping does not align with the phonological–orthographic knowledge being assessed may therefore be unexpected.
The issue is not whether that person is a good teacher.
The question is much narrower:
Can they demonstrate the specific phonological–orthographic knowledge required?
WHY VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT MAY NOT BE ENOUGH
If teachers are unaware of gaps in their own knowledge, they are unlikely to identify those gaps as professional development needs.
There is therefore an inherent problem in relying exclusively on voluntary training.
The teachers who already recognise uncertainty may be the first to seek additional training.
Those who feel confident that they already possess the required knowledge may have little reason to do so.
If assessment reveals something that conflicts with that confidence, cognitive dissonance may also make it easier to challenge the assessment than to immediately recognise a previously unidentified training need.
This means education departments, multi-academy trusts, school systems and school leaders may need to consider whether assessment of phonological–orthographic mapping knowledge should become a routine professional expectation rather than something undertaken only by teachers who believe they need it.
The purpose is not to catch teachers out.
It removes the unreasonable expectation that teachers should identify for themselves a knowledge gap they may not know exists.
WHY PHONICS PROGRAMME TRAINING CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTION
A phonics programme provides teachers with a predetermined sequence of grapheme–phoneme correspondences.
It may also provide the words, pronunciations, lesson plans, explanations, activities and teaching materials through which those correspondences are taught.
Teachers can therefore become highly skilled and confident in delivering their chosen programme.
But this does not establish whether they can independently calculate the phonological–orthographic structure of words outside it.
Children do not encounter only the words and correspondences explicitly taught within their phonics programme.
They encounter words throughout the school day.
When they do, teachers may need to determine:
How many phonemes are in the spoken word?
Which letters are functioning as graphemes?
What is the sound value of those graphemes in that word?
How do the phonemes and graphemes map?
Can the word be mapped in both directions, for reading and spelling?
How does pronunciation or accent affect that mapping?
These questions require teachers to apply their own knowledge of the alphabetic code rather than follow a mapping already supplied by a programme.
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT TEACHERS CAN DO IT?
We test it.
Self-reported confidence cannot establish it.
Years of teaching experience cannot establish it.
Completion of teacher training cannot establish it.
Completion of phonics programme training cannot, by itself, establish it.
And asking teachers whether they understand the alphabetic code cannot establish it.
The knowledge has to be demonstrated.
THE TEACHER TEST OF PHONOLOGICAL–ORTHOGRAPHIC MAPPING
The Teacher Test of Phonological–Orthographic Mapping (POM) assesses what teachers can actually demonstrate.
Teachers are not asked whether they believe they understand the alphabetic code.
They demonstrate whether they can:
identify the phonemes in spoken words
identify the graphemes representing those phonemes
identify the sound value of those graphemes
map phonemes and graphemes accurately and bidirectionally
account for pronunciation and accent variation
apply this knowledge independently to words containing correspondences that may not have been explicitly taught within their phonics programme.
The assessment is programme-independent.
It does not assess fidelity to a particular phonics programme and does not require schools to change the phonics programme they already use.
It assesses the underlying knowledge teachers need to work with the English alphabetic code independently, including when children encounter words and correspondences beyond those explicitly taught within their programme.
ASSESS IT. TRAIN IT. RETEST IT. CERTIFY IT.
Assessment establishes what teachers can already demonstrate.
Where gaps are identified, programme-independent training can target the specific knowledge required.
Teachers can then be retested.
Those who demonstrate mastery can be certified.
This avoids making assumptions in either direction.
It does not assume that teachers lack the knowledge.
Nor does it assume that because teachers have completed phonics training, confidently deliver a phonics programme or believe they understand the alphabetic code, they can independently demonstrate the required knowledge.
Assess it. Train it. Retest it. Certify it.
REFERENCES
Carson, K. L., & Bayetto, A. E. (2018). Teachers’ phonological awareness assessment practices, self-reported knowledge and actual knowledge: The challenge of assessing what you may know less about. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(6), 67–85.
Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K–3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 139–167.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Flynn, N. (2021). Training teachers for phonics and early reading: Developing research-informed practice. Journal of Research in Reading, 44, 301–318.
Hendry, H. (2020). Becoming a teacher of early reading: Charting the knowledge and practices of pre-service and newly qualified teachers. Literacy, 54(1), 58–69.
Nicholson, T., & McIntosh, S. (2020). An exploration of the relationship between phonological and phonics knowledge, and self-efficacy for teaching. Dyslexia, 26(3), 286–304.
Stainthorp, R. (2004). W(h)ither phonological awareness? Literate trainee teachers’ lack of stable knowledge about the sound structure of words. Educational Psychology, 24(6), 753–765.
Stark, H. L., Snow, P. C., Eadie, P. A., & Goldfeld, S. R. (2016). Language and reading instruction in early years’ classrooms: The knowledge and self-rated ability of Australian teachers. Annals of Dyslexia, 66(1), 28–54.