Your Cart is Empty
Trusted by families & educators — sensory, learning & support tools.
Trusted by families & educators — sensory, learning & support tools.
If you’ve ever worked with a child who seems to know the common digraphs (when they are in isolation - say on a sound card) BUT the minute those digraphs are in a word their digraph knowledge disappears - this is for you.
Understanding reasons why this might be happening, will help you choose the most effective teaching strategies to support your child or student in their process of learning to read.
A digraph is two letters, side by side, that combine to represent a single sound (known as a phoneme).
Children need to know individual letter sounds AND common digraphs.
Some digraphs are especially important, because of how frequently they occur, and are taught quite early in a phonics based literacy program.
ck says /ck/ eg duck
ch say /ch/ eg chicken
sh says /sh/ eg shark
th says /th/ eg this
Children need to be able to retrieve and name these automatically and with speed, in order to be able to effectively and efficiently decode unknown words containing them.
Because phonics knowledge and rapid serial naming is crucial for reading, we allocate a few minutes of every specialist tutoring session to these.
Occasionally, I encounter a student who can tell me what phoneme a digraph represents when it is on its own (eg /sh/ /ck/ /ee/) BUT NOT use that knowledge when the digraph is contained within a word.
This is referred to in Cognitive Psychology as a gap between declarative knowledge (stating a rule or fact) and procedural knowledge (being able to use this in real life)
Let’s assume there are no hearing or vision issues, phonemic awareness is intact, AND there has been delivery of an evidence based literacy program.
Three possible reasons for this gap between “knowing” and “applying” digraph knowledge when decoding words are:
The term “unitisation” is used more broadly in cognitive psychology and means combining smaller elements into a single chunk (unit) to facilitate faster processing.
Chase & Simon found that chess masters combined multiple moves into patterns or units.
Novices → see separate moves
Experts → see a pattern of moves as a unit or chunk
This is an interesting concept for learning and performance.. When applied to digraphs…
Skilled readers process the two letters (s h) of a digraphs as a single unit (sh)
Whereas some struggling readers may still be processing letters of the digraph individually, which disrupts decoding of words containing digraphs.
We need to make sure we are showing and teaching that TWO letters combine to represent ONE sound - so our students learn the digraph as a chunk.
This is one of the reasons why I much prefer to use the coko bricks rather than magnetic letters for early literacy.
Learning a skill in isolation can keep that skill completely context-bound. Initially, teaching a skill in isolation can be a very effective teaching method. However only ever learning a skill in one context, could mean you are only ever able to perform that skill in that precise way.
We do often need to be able to transfer skills to different contexts, or more complex contexts.
Learning facts by rote can lead to poor transfer of skills, particularly if there has not been effective explanation, demonstration and application of why these “facts” are important and how they can be used.
For example, a child might learn to tell the time on a particular clock but have difficulty telling the time on a different clock.
In regard to the “gap” in knowing and applying digraph knowledge, let us assume our student has learnt the digraph as a chunk (unitisation), they then need to be able to apply (transfer) that knowledge when the digraph is IN a word.
We know that rapid serial naming is linked to decoding success and we know that students need explicit instruction of phonics as this is strongly linked to learning to read.
However, an over reliance on rote learning of digraphs in isolation can lead to children not being able to apply this knowledge when decoding words.
Rapid grapheme recognition as a teaching strategy to support phoneme/grapheme knowledge to automaticity is fine. BUT, if our student is not given the opportunity to see (read) digraphs or use (spell) digraphs within words, it may hamper their ability to apply their knowledge when decoding words.
N.b. It will also slow the development of strong orthographic skills (repeated exposure and practice decoding leads to words being “mapped” and recognised instantly).
In addition to seeing and reading words containing digraphs, we must remember spelling the words also supports learning. They need to segment the word into its sounds, match each sound and apply digraph knowledge. Writing can help the learning stick!
We need to make sure we are teaching digraphs within words, both decoding (reading) and encoding (writing).
This is why we need plenty of examples of words containing the digraph we are focusing on.
To support this, we’ve created a simple word list covering four beginner digraphs (ch, sh, ck, th), designed to give children repeated exposure to reading and writing these sounds within words.
The worksheet genius website also has a free list of words containing digraphs, here.
Cognitive load theory says the brain can only manage a certain amount of information and demands at any one time.
When the cognitive demands placed on a reader are too great, their ability to perform the individual skills within may regress. Or, priority may be given to one aspect of the reading task over another.
An example of this in action is below:
“Significant advancements have been made in the treatment of MM, resulting in improved outcomes and quality of life for patients. Traditional chemotherapy and radiation remain important treatment modalities, but newer therapeutics, including proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunonodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and monoclonal antibodies, have shown promising results and currently incorporated in the treatment paradigm. The use of high-dose chemotherapy and tandem hematopoietic stem cell transplantation along with the introduction of PIs and IMiDs resulted in long term survival with an approximately one-third of patients achieving cure." Rafae, Ree, Hadid (2024) The Oncologist
If, like me, you have a limited medical background knowledge, when reading the above excerpt - my reading is slow, disjointed and laboured.
I struggled to decode some of the words AND make sense of what I am reading at the same time. I was in cognitive overload.
I had to re-read sections of text several times before I could grasp the meaning. Initially, decoding was prioritised before I was able to devote cognitive capacity to understanding what I was reading.
This is what it is like for beginners in the early stages of learning to read, because they have not yet mastered the reading skills required for decoding to be accurate, effortless and fluent.
When a beginner steps from an isolated digraph knowledge to using it in a whole word, the task complexity increases, as do the cognitive demands.
Even at word level, multiple demands are placed on our student.
Some of the cognitive demands required to decode a word such as clash include:
When the cognitive load of a task is too high, even previously learned knowledge and skills can become weakened. Even though our student may “know” phonics, be able to blend phonemes, scan left to right etc the cognitive load decoding an unfamiliar word pushes them into overload and their skills and knowledge fall away.
In explaining the “gap” between knowing and using digraphs - our student is finding performing ALL of the demands required to decode a word is simply too much “work” to manage simultaneously. Knowledge of the digraph and applying that knowledge seems to disappear (is sacrificed) in order to juggle other demands of decoding.
A child may “know” a digraph but retrieval of that knowledge is slow and strained (high effort). Automaticity develops through repeated successful practice. Certainly the National Reading Panel (2000) supports repeated practice to consolidate skills and improve fluency.
Common factors that contribute to decoding a word that contribute to cognitive overload.
Insufficient overlearning - most students require many practice opportunities in order for a skill to become mastered and effortless. If the skills needed are not automatic and effortless, they require cognitive “work”.
Limited reading volume - not enough exposure, demonstration and successful practice across many words and in meaningful contexts.
Complexity Jump - when the word to be decoded increases in skill level (the number of phonemes increase from 4 to 5 eg brick to branch. Or the difficulty is increased (eg adding a complication such as the word being completely unfamiliar or even a non-word eg banish or shiln).
Working Memory- some students have difficulty “holding” all the information needed and this adds to the cognitive demands of the task.
N.b.We need to teach phonemic awareness (especially blending and segmenting), phonics (letter/sound correspondence), decoding and encoding to automaticity.
We need to teach synthetic phonics using successive blending.
We need to increase task complexity in line with our student’s skills and current capacity.
If our student has a significant learning difficulty or executive function challenges, this can impact the learning process of decoding words containing digraphs more profoundly, and in my experience, even more so if they have both.
Significant Learning Difficulties and/or Intellectual Disabilities Zigler, 1969
Children with significant learning difficulties usually require far more repetition and practice than in mainstream teaching.
Children with ADHD and/or Executive Function Challenges Barkley, 2015
Children with ADHD and/or executive function challenges:
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language.
Barkley, R. A. (2015). Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
Ehri, L. C. (2005, 2014). Orthographic mapping and word reading.
Kilpatrick, D. (2015). Essentials of Assessing, Preventing, and Overcoming Reading Difficulties.
Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading fluency.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read.
Perfetti, C. (1999). Verbal efficiency in reading.
Perkins, D. & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning.
Share, D. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load Theory.
Kirstie Wishart M.Ed (Special Education).
Owner and founder of The Starfish Store. Kirstie’s professional life has included: teaching (in both public and private schools in Australia, New Zealand and Thailand), lecturer and subject coordinator at the University of Wollongong, Educational consultant (working with children and young people with a trauma background), OoHC Case Work Manager, and Specialist Tutor (working with children and young people with significant learning difficulties and/or disabilities).
40 Proprioceptive activities for the classroom. Simple and practical activities to incorporate Proprioceptive into the classroom. 16 A4 sheets to print for your classroom, therapy space or home.