Register
Login
(0)
printAs the Science of Reading takes its rightful place in Australian classrooms, many traditional literacy practices are being scrutinised. The “Look, Cover, Say, Write, Check” (LCSWC) method is often at the top of the list for potential removal.
Many literacy consultants and school leaders now advise teachers to abandon the technique entirely. They argue it is a whole-word memorisation strategy that bypasses the phonological processing needed for skilled reading and spelling.
While the critique is valid when applied to arbitrary word lists, discarding the method itself is a mistake. At PLD we have transformed the practice rather than abandoning it. When integrated into a speech-to-print framework like PLD, LCSWC becomes a powerful retrieval practice task that facilitates orthographic mapping.
The Problem: Arbitrary and Thematic Lists
The legitimate concern with LCSWC arises when children use it on word lists based on a thematic unit with no attention to the phoneme-grapheme correspondences.
Consider a Year 2 student studying a “Healthy Eating” unit. Their spelling list might include: fruit, vegetable, sugar, healthy, lunch, and vitamins.
Using LCSWC on this list asks the student to memorise the visual shape of unrelated letter strings. This list is phonologically chaotic. The “ui” in fruit represents one sound, while in sugar it represents another, and in lunch it represents a third.
When students work through such lists, they gain nothing transferable. They might pass a Friday test through rote visual memory, but they have not learned a linguistic principle applicable to future words. Visual memory for arbitrary shapes is severely limited. This is why children taught through whole-word methods often plateau once they reach more complex vocabulary.
The Solution: List Design
In PLD’s SSP Kits and the SSP TimeSaver programs, word lists are never arbitrary. Every word shares a relationship, such as the same sound or phoneme-grapheme correspondence.
When a student works through a list where every word represents the /ay/ sound spelled “ai,” they are not memorising ten isolated shapes. They are encountering the same phonics concept ten times in different contexts, such as rain, train, wait, and sail.
The Brain as a Statistical Inference Engine
The human brain is naturally built to extract patterns from exposure. It tracks frequency, co-occurrence, and regularity without needing to be explicitly told a rule. By providing curated lists with high-signal input, we engineer the conditions for the brain to do what it does best.
The child is no longer asking what a word looks like. They are discovering how a specific sound is represented in a specific pattern. When every word follows the same pattern, the brain’s inference engine extracts the linguistic rule implicitly.
Orthographic Mapping: How Words Become “Automatic”
Ehri’s theory of Orthographic Mapping explains that skilled readers do not store words as visual images. Instead, the brain maps the sounds (phonemes) onto letters (graphemes).
Phonemic awareness and phonics knowledge act as the bonding agent that glues the spelling to the pronunciation and meaning in long-term memory. Once this mapping occurs several times, the word is stored as a unit and becomes instantly recognisable.
In the PLD model, LCSWC is a consolidation mechanism for this mapping that utilises the “Testing Effect” through four specific steps:
- Look and Say: Cues attention to the PGC (for example: “In these words, the sound /ay/ is spelled with the letters ai”).
- Cover: Forces the brain into effortful recall, which strengthens neural pathways between the sound and the symbol.
- Write: Requires the child to physically encode the phoneme-to-grapheme relationship.
- Check: Provides immediate feedback so the brain can adjust its internal model if an error occurred.
Favouring Patterns Over Complex Rules
Teachers often search for explicit rules to help students navigate the complexities of English spelling. However, for many sounds, reliable rules simply do not exist. Instead, the English language contains multiple ways to represent the same sound, and a student must simply learn which words use which representation.
Consider the /ee/ sound. It can be represented by “ee” as in bee, “ea” as in leaf, “ey” as in key, “e-e” as in Steve, or even a single “e” as in me. There is no catchy rhyme or absolute rule that can reliably dictate which spelling to use in a specific word.
When we try to force these patterns into rigid rules, we often create more confusion for the learner. The brain is actually much more efficient at processing these variations through statistical learning. By seeing a focused list of “ea” words followed by a focused list of “ee” words, the student begins to build an internal database of which words belong to which group. The patterned exposure provides the clarity that a verbal rule cannot.
At PLD, we only offer explicit rules when they are highly reliable, such as “ck” following a short vowel. Otherwise, the structured word list itself provides the necessary instruction.
A Guide for Leaders: Moving to “New” LCSWC
The solution for school leaders is not to ban the worksheets, but to audit the content.
- Audit Word Lists: Stop using theme-sorted spelling lists. Replace them with lists sorted by phoneme-grapheme correspondences.
- Focus on “Speech to Print”: Ensure students are segmenting sounds as they write. They should say “/r/ /ay/ /n/” rather than just “rain.”
- Demonstration video: Check out the demo video to the right.
Conclusion: Facts Versus Principles
Consider the difference between a student memorising that 6×7=42 as a one-off fact, versus learning how to solve any multiplication problem by understanding how numbers are grouped. While the student might write down the correct answer in both scenarios, only the second student has gained a skill they can use to solve the next problem.
Unstructured word lists treat spelling like a series of one-off facts to be memorised. In contrast, the Look, Cover, Say, Write, Check method remains a valid tool when paired with the right content. When every word on the list provides another example of the same phonics concept, the activity reinforces a transferable principle rather than an isolated memory.
References and Further Reading
- Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading.
