Deep Dives

The Issue

After introducing a new phonics skill, students need ample opportunities to practice the skill both in isolated words and connected text. At times, educators may feel inclined to practice these phonics skills with their students using nonsense words, sometimes known as pseudowords. When a student is decoding nonsense words, the teacher is assured that the child is using their knowledge of letter-sound correspondences, as well as the process of blending those sounds together, negating the impact of memorization of familiar words. Teachers may sometimes rely on using nonsense words out of convenience, rather than restricting themselves to prepared word lists or real words they can think of off the top of their heads that fit their intended targets. They may also perceive value in nonsense words, as a means of creating sufficient, varied practice opportunities (Diamond & Lane, 2022). Teachers may reason that reading them is not unlike reading divided syllables of a multisyllabic word before blending them together. But how well does practice with nonsense words translate to real word reading? What, if any, role do they have in literacy education?

The Research

The use of nonsense words in both research and practice takes three distinct but related roles: as part of a screener or assessment, to identify if the student is at-risk or a struggling reader, and what areas would be appropriate for targeted intervention; to track progress monitoring of literacy development; or to practice phonics skills while decoding and encoding (spelling sound-by-sound).

Many studies have demonstrated that nonsense word reading is an accurate predictor of both current reading achievement, as well as predicted student outcomes for students in Kindergarten through 2nd grade (Clemens et al., 2014; January & Klingbeil, 2020). It is important to note, however, that nonsense word reading becomes a less reliable predictor as students’ phonics knowledge increases. Meaning, nonsense word reading loses its predictive power for young students who are the strongest readers (Fien et al., 2010), and for all students in third grade and beyond (Doty et al., 2015). Because these students have progressed beyond the basic phonics skills typically covered in nonsense word measures, their skill development is correlated more strongly with measures of real word reading fluency (Doty et al., 2015).

Similar findings were shown in research that investigated the use of nonsense words as a component of progress monitoring. While screening measures and assessments track the value in a static measure of performance, components of progress monitoring tools are usually analyzed in terms of rate of growth. While for many students, tracking this slope was correlated with their overall reading growth, it was less sensitive for higher-achieving students who had already mastered basic phonics skills (Fien et al., 2010; Harn et al., 2008).

Two studies, conducted a decade apart, tracked the progress of at-risk 1st graders. Although the students’ Nonsense Word Fluency was associated with year-end outcomes in both studies, neither demonstrated an association as strong as Word Identification Fluency did (Clemens et al., 2014; Fuchs et al., 2004). These suggest that while using nonsense words may be a suitable choice for progress monitoring, they are not the optimal choice.

Little research has been conducted on the effectiveness of instructional practice using nonsense words. While their use has sometimes been documented in studies, those studies were not designed as experiments to test their use in phonics instruction in such a way as to compare their use with that of real words. For example, in 1987, Linnea Ehri used nonsense words (as well as real words written in nonstandard, simplified ways) in a spelling intervention for a small group of Kindergarten students. While these students outperformed matched peers on nonsense word post-tests, compared with a control group who received no spelling intervention, we cannot project from there that the intervention using real words would have been any less effective, or even that this instruction would yield any meaningful gains reading or spelling true words. Similarly, another study (Diliberto et al., 2009) showed that practice with nonsense words could be an effective strategy as part of an intervention in syllable training. Again, it should be noted that this was not in comparison to using real words for practice, so the implications of this study are relatively limited. As these examples show us, the limited research we have implies that using nonsense words for phonics practice isn’t harmful and is better than not having any intervention at all. The research does not imply, however, that nonsense words should be used instead of, or even alongside, real words in phonics instruction.

Although research using nonsense words to practice decoding and encoding skills is limited, we do have research on the benefits of multiple exposures to real words. Repeated exposure to words during decoding and encoding practice is thought to lead to faster recognition of these words while reading in the future (Ehri, 2014; NRP, 2000; Share, 1995). This practice also offers a chance to build vocabulary and tie decoding practice to oral language (Adams, 1990; NRP, 2000; Perfetti & Hart, 2001). Furthermore, practice reading real words also supports students’ spelling. Multiple exposures to a word foster a familiarity that allows students to gain a sense of what does and doesn’t “look right” when attempting to spell a word (Ehri, 2000). For example, only familiarity with the printed word noun will help a student to spell the word accurately, rather than <nown>.

Educators should also consider that an important, but often overlooked, step in reading an unfamiliar word is verifying if the decoded word is a familiar one.

Especially when reading a language with a deep orthography such as English, readers need to anticipate having to attempt other corresponding phonemes to a given grapheme as well as potentially alternating syllabic stress in a multisyllabic word to connect it with a known word in their oral vocabulary (Venezky, 1999). For example, students will have to adjust the pronunciation of the vowel 'a' to both alternative phonemes (as in 'fall') as well as larger shifts, such as the common pronunciation of 'catch' as /kĕch/. The same letter may also confuse students trying to pronounce the words 'around' or 'above' with the long /ā/ sound, rather than /ə/ in both of these unstressed syllables. 

This step of acknowledging whether or not the decoded attempt is a known word, and expecting to adjust one's pronunciation accordingly (known as set for variability), is not necessary when decoding nonsense words, and thus may be depriving students of the opportunity to practice this important skill.

In Sum

Research has consistently shown that assessing nonsense word reading correlates with phonics knowledge, reading fluency, and overall reading achievement for students in Kindergarten through 2nd grade. However, this validity is consistent with static measures only. Nonsense word reading is not the best way of tracking progress for students, especially those who have already mastered basic phonics knowledge. Real word reading fluency would better demonstrate this growth.

It is important that educators understand that appropriate components of assessment do not necessarily indicate appropriate components of instruction. In this instance, using nonsense words as a component of screening/assessment is indicated, while having students** practice** on nonsense words during instructional time is not. While there is no evidence of any harm in using nonsense words in decoding/encoding practice, it may be an inefficient use of instructional time, robbing students of time practicing with real words, which has benefits beyond the direct skill of phonics reinforcement being practiced.

Nitty-gritty of some of the research:

Fien et al., 2010

Participants

• 3,506 first graders across 50 schools

Study Design

• Students’ Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) on the DIBELS was measured at the beginning of the year and at each trimester throughout the school year. At the end of the year, student gains demonstrated on this measure were compared to their oral reading fluency (ORF) and reading comprehension skills. During the school year, all students were provided a 90-minute reading block each day, which consisted of at least 30 minutes of small-group instruction with a teacher. Instruction focused on phonemic awareness, the alphabetic principle, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. Additional intervention was provided for students not making adequate progress.

Findings

• Student performance on NWF measures at the beginning of the year predicted how those students would perform in broader measures of reading achievement at the end of the year, including both oral reading fluency and reading comprehension. Additionally, the rate of growth students demonstrated in these tasks throughout the school year also correlated with end-of-year reading achievements, except those of the highest-achieving students who were already decoding nonsense words proficiently at the beginning of first grade.

Notes/Limitations

• While a very large study, the fact that all of these students were administered the same measure of NWF speaks to the validity of this specific subtest, not necessarily the construct of reading nonwords at large.

Fuchs et al., 2004

Participants

• 151 at-risk 1st graders

Study Design

• Students were tracked on high-frequency word fluency as well as the DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) one-to-two times per week for 20 weeks between beginning-of-year and end-of-year assessments. Because the dataset for this study came from an experimental research design on the impact of Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS), approximately two-thirds of the students received this peer-tutoring, while the remainder were in the control group.

Findings

• High-frequency word fluency more strongly predicted almost all end-of-year measures assessed, as compared to nonsense word fluency, including: word reading, oral reading fluency, and comprehension.

Notes/Limitations

• Despite using the same nonsense word reading measure, the results of this study conflict with those of the Fien et al. 2010 study, above. While this may have been somewhat impacted by the different outcomes assessments used, it is likely that the students’ NWF progress did not align with student outcomes because the intervention they received did not support phonic decoding abilities. Meaning, because it is unknown how much, if any, instruction these students received in phonics and decoding skills, any growth they may have demonstrated at the end of the year may have reflected memorization of high-frequency words, rather than decoding skills. This thus explains why NWF progress did not align with their overall reading growth. An additional variance between the studies is the frequency with which this measure was tracked. This means that the number of data points of the progress slope may impact how valid the analysis is.

Ehri, 1987

Participants

• 24 Kindergarten students who were familiar with letter names and sound correspondences, but not yet successfully reading or spelling decodable words

Study Design

• After peer matching by abilities, students were randomly selected into the treatment or control group. The treatment group received 7-18 individual sessions lasting 15-40 minutes, practicing spelling nonsense words (or real words spelled in simplified ways) using a bank of 10 letters.

Findings

• The treatment group was better able to segment sounds, spell nonsense words, and match printed, simplified spellings to a word read aloud than the control group.

Notes/Limitations

• While these students outperformed matched peers on nonsense word post-tests, compared with a control group who received no spelling intervention, we cannot project from there that the intervention using real words would have been any less effective, or even that this instruction would yield any meaningful gains reading or spelling true words.