Citation
Phonological awareness instruction for middle school students with reading problems

Material Information

Title:
Phonological awareness instruction for middle school students with reading problems
Creator:
Bhat, Preetha
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Decryption ( jstor )
Learning ( jstor )
Learning disabilities ( jstor )
Phonemes ( jstor )
Phonological awareness ( jstor )
Phonology ( jstor )
Reading difficulties ( jstor )
Reading instruction ( jstor )
Syllables ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
24876074 ( ALEPH )
45230791 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS INSTRUCTION FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL
STUDENTS WITH READING PROBLEMS












BY

PREETHA BHAT












A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2000














ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was completed with the support of many people. My gratitude is extended to all those who helped me in many ways. At the outset, I wish to thank my committee chairs, Drs. Paul Sindelar and Cynthia Griffin, for their guidance and feedback at every point during this study and in my doctoral program. I have learned a great deal from both of them. In addition, I also appreciate the input I received from Dr. Cecil Mercer during the planning phase of my study.

My appreciation goes to all the middle school teachers who were willing to be

involved in the study. All of them were very cooperative and patient, despite the fact that I had to keep pulling out students in the middle of class. I also wish to thank all the students who participated in this study. I could not have completed this project without them.

Most of all, I sincerely appreciate all the support that I received from my family and all my friends throughout my stay in Gainesville. All of them were helpful and very supportive, particularly during rough times. Their words of encouragement were valuable and will never be forgotten.












ii















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS .......................................................................................... ii

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... v

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM .................................................................. 1

Introduction .... ...................................................................................... ...... ....... 1
Rationale for the Study........................................................... 4
Scope of the Study ................................................................................................ 6
Definition of Terms ................................................................................................. 7
Overview ........... .................................................. 8

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .............................................................. 9

Introduction ........................................... ......... 9
Phonological Awareness and Reading Ability ........................................................ 9
Deficits in Phonological Awareness ......................... .............. 25
Instruction in Phonological Awareness ................................................................... 34
Older Students with Phonological Awareness Deficits ..................................... 60
Implications for Research ............................................................. ......................... 69

3 RESEARCH M ETHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 72

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 72
Hypotheses and Research Question ..................................... ............. 72
Setting and Subjects .............................................................................................. 73
Instructional Procedures ..................................................................................... ....... 76
Research Instrumentation .......................................................................................... 83
Experimental Design ................................................................................................. 88
Treatment of the Data.......................................... ................................................... 89









4 R E SU L T S .................................................................................................................... 90

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 90
Reliability of Instructional Procedures.............................................................. ... 91
Statistical Analysis of Data ........................................................................ ..... 92
Summary of the Hypotheses and Results .................................................................... 104

5 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 107

Discussion of Findings ................................................................................................ 109
Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................. 119
Implications for Practice ............................................................................................. 121
Suggestions for Future Research ................................................................................. 122

APPENDICES

A INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR PARENTS ....................... 126

B INSTRUCTIONAL LESSONS .................................................................................. 128

C LESSON SCORE SHEET......................................................................................... 146

D MEAN SCORES ON THE CTOPP ........................................................................... 147

E NUMBER OF ADMINISTRATIONS FOR EACH LESSON FOR
GROUPS A AND B.................................................................................................. 148

F SCORES FOR EACH LESSON FOR GROUPS A AND B.................. 150

REFERENCES ........................................................................................... .. 153

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH........................................................................................... 162


















iv














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS INSTRUCTION FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH READING PROBLEMS


By

Preetha Bhat

August 2000


Chairperson: Paul T. Sindelar Cochairperson: Cynthia C. Griffin Major Department: Special Education

Two decades of research on phonological awareness intervention support the idea that phonological awareness skills are crucial to reading success. The present study aimed to build on existing research by extending previous research findings to older students who have deficits in phonological awareness. The purpose of the study was to determine if older students (at the middle school level) who were identified as having phonological awareness deficits could improve their phonological awareness skills after instruction, and if these skills could impact their word recognition.










v








Forty middle school students with learning disabilities who were identified as

having phonological awareness deficits were matched and split into two groups, A and B. After both groups received the pretest, group A began intervention. After group A completed intervention, both groups were given a midtest. At this point, group B began instruction. After group B completed instruction, both groups were given the posttest. Both groups received the same type of phonological awareness instruction.

Results of the ANOVA indicated that for the word identification subtest, there was no group effect. However, there was main effect for occasion; that is, for both groups, posttest scores were significantly higher than the midtest scores, and midtest scores were significantly higher than the pretest scores. With respect to the CTOPP scores, results indicated an interaction effect. Follow-up t-tests indicated that for the midtest, group A significantly outperformed group B on the CTOPP. This implied that the intervention did have an effect for phonological awareness. Further, for group A, the posttest score on the CTOPP was not significantly different from the midtest score, indicating that group A showed maintenance on the posttest. Both groups also had significantly higher posttest scores compared to the pretest scores, implying that both groups improved on phonological awareness skills over time.

Results of this study suggest that older students who have deficits in phonological awareness are capable of improving these skills after instruction. This finding is promising, considering the fact that the participants in this study were far below grade level at the beginning of the study. However, it is difficult to make conclusions about the impact of phonological awareness on word identification skills.





vi








Implications for research include designing interventions for older students to

determine the optimal duration and intensity of instruction that would facilitate transfer of phonological awareness skills to word recognition. In addition, longitudinal experimental studies involving older students would be informative regarding the benefits of phonological awareness instruction for word identification.









































vii














CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM

Introduction

Learning to read is crucial for academic success. Reading is an integral part of every school's curriculum, and all content areas require children to be able to read and process information. Children who learn to read tend to do well in academics, because their comprehension is facilitated, thus increasing their knowledge base. This increase in knowledge base may prompt children to learn more information, thus enhancing their reading skills.

Reading skills continue to develop as children grow older. Thus, learning to read is not an isolated event; rather it is a process that begins when a child is an infant and continues throughout school (Jenkins & Bowen, 1994). During the early literacy stages, it is important for children to develop several skills as prerequisites for reading. One of the most vital skills that children need to develop is phonological awareness (Adams, 1990; Liberman & Liberman, 1990; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Phonological awareness refers to an individual's awareness that spoken words consist of sound segments smaller than the syllable (Ball, 1997).

Experimental evidence clearly indicates that phonological awareness is a critical prerequisite for learning to read (Juel, 1988; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988). Phonological awareness helps children to map sounds





1





2


onto symbols and to break words into their individual sounds. Mapping sounds to symbols and being aware that words are made up of individual units are crucial prerequisite skills for learning to read (Adams, 1990; Jenkins & Bowen, 1994). Phonological awareness has received much attention because of its strong, consistent, and positive correlation with word recognition (Adams, 1990; Juel, 1988; Tunmer et al., 1988). Children who demonstrate a high level of phonological awareness are usually the same children who recognize printed words accurately and rapidly, and thus become good readers. Findings are fairly consistent that young children with a high level of phonological awareness are likely to be the better readers in first and second grades (Juel, 1988; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988).

Because phonological awareness has a strong correlation with reading success, it would seem evident that deficits in phonological awareness should be linked to reading problems. In fact, research has pointed out that children who have difficulties in reading words often display phonological deficits (Frith, 1981; Torgesen, 1985). For those children with phonological deficits, learning phonological awareness skills (such as blending and segmenting) presents a challenge. The problems children with reading disorders have in processing phonological information make learning sound and letter associations very difficult (Jenkins & Bowen, 1994). Difficulties in associating letter and sound could limit the ability to understand the phonological structure of words, and, hence, contribute to difficulty with word recognition (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994).

Because research has established that phonological awareness is crucial to decoding and word recognition, much attention has been devoted to the training of phonological awareness in children with deficits in phonological awareness. Among the





3


many researchers who have investigated the effectiveness of explicitly training phonological awareness, several investigators have developed interventions that can be adapted for use with children in kindergarten and first grade (Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Cunningham, 1990; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; Olofsson & Lundberg, 1983, 1985).

Researchers have explored a variety of intervention models (i.e., whole class,

small group, or one-to-one instruction), varying the duration of the intervention and the choice of activities. Some studies focused on rhyme training alone (e.g., Layton, Deeny, Tall, & Upton, 1996), while others focused on blending and segmenting. Some training studies provided blending and segmenting instruction at the onset and rime level (e.g., O'Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993; O'Connor, Slocum, & Jenkins, 1995; Slocum, O'Connor, & Jenkins, 1993), while others provided blending and segmenting instruction at the phoneme level (e.g., Hurford et al., 1994; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992; Williams, 1980).

All the studies on phonological awareness training provide evidence that

phonological awareness can be taught and that children who have deficits in phonological awareness benefit from such instruction. Children who were trained in phonological awareness showed improvement in phonological awareness skills such as blending and segmenting phonemes. These children also showed improvements in reading words and spelling. Those training studies that involved a follow-up component showed evidence that phonological awareness skills tend to be maintained over an extended period of time (6 to 8 months) (e.g., Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; McGuinness, McGuinness, & Donohue, 1995).





4


These research-based findings have important implications for children who have reading problems and those who are at-risk. However, one limitation of these findings is that they may not be generalizable to all children who have reading problems. Almost all the landmark studies on phonological awareness training have focused on only one population, elementary school students. Thus, a large gap exists in the literature with respect to training studies for older students who have phonological deficits. Despite years of basic skill instruction (at the elementary school level), there are still students in the middle school and high school level who experience reading difficulties (Deshler, Warner, Schumaker, & Alley, 1983). Reading problems could prevent students from progressing academically and learning higher order skills. Further, instruction in the middle and high school level rarely focuses on acquisition of basic skills (Juel, 1988). Lack of appropriate instruction and increasing academic demands placed on older students may prevent these students from enhancing their reading skills. In order to catch up with their peers, older students who experience reading difficulties need appropriate instruction to develop skills that are basic to reading.

Rationale for the Study

The research on phonological awareness has provided experimental evidence that phonological awareness is a necessary skill in learning to read (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992). Furthermore, research has also proved that children with decoding problems and phonological deficits are capable of learning phonological awareness skills and applying them to the process of decoding words (e.g., Bradley & Bryant, 1985; O'Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992). Despite this large body of research on





5


phonological awareness training, there have been very few intervention studies involving older students who have decoding problems (e.g., Williams, 1980; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). This older population of students seems to have been ignored, despite the fact that there are students in the middle and high school level who have decoding problems (Reith & Polsgrove, 1994). The next logical step in this area of research is to design an appropriate phonological awareness intervention program for older students who have decoding problems, and to determine if the intervention facilitates their word recognition and decoding skills. Suitable intervention programs for older students are needed because most instruction in the middle and high school level involves enhancing higher order skills (Juel, 1988). Consequently, older students who have decoding problems have no opportunity to develop those skills that are necessary for word recognition (i.e., phonological awareness skills).

One of the purposes of this study was to determine the effects of instruction in phonological awareness for students in the middle school level who were identified as having phonological deficits. The instruction was designed to target specifically phonological awareness skills such as blending, segmenting, deletion, and reversal of phonemes. Thus, we needed to determine if these students' phonological awareness skills improved after instruction. The second purpose of this study was to find out if these phonological awareness skills facilitated the students' word identification skills.

The training was based on the theoretical model as espoused by Adams (1990). According to Adams' model, four processors are interrelated during the process of reading: the orthographic processor, the phonological processor, the meaning processor, and context processor. This study focused on strengthening the phonological processor:





6


the processor that is directly responsible for translating symbols into sounds. The phonological processor would then influence the meaning and context processors, thus enabling fluent reading and comprehension.

Scope of the Study

This study was conducted within a limited scope. The delimitations and limitations of this research are described below. Delimitations

The study was delimited by geographical location to Gainesville, Florida, a city

located in the north central part of the state. The subjects were 40 middle-school students in three schools in Alachua County. Subject selection did not include consideration for gender or ethnicity.

Limitations

Previous informal reading experiences and formal reading instruction of the students may limit this investigation. Many of the students in the sample already experienced phonics instruction in the elementary school level. This previous knowledge may have contributed to their familiarity with phonics rules, thus enabling the word recognition process. Some of the students in the sample were provided reading instruction at the time of the study. This may have confounded the results.

Subject selection could be a limitation of the study. Only schools that provided permission for the study were included in the study, and only those students who turned in their parental permission forms were included in the sample. Thus random sampling procedures could not be used. Further, the results of this study may not be generalizable





7


to younger students or to students with strong phonological skills without systematic replication with these populations.

Definition of Terms

An understanding of the constructs, variables, and procedures discussed in this

study requires an understanding of the terminology. The terms defined in this section are critical to the interpretation of this study.

Blending is the process of combining verbal units such as words, syllables, onsets and rimes, and phonemes in order to pronounce a word.

Continuous sounds are sounds that can be spoken or held for a length of time, for example, /s/, /f/, /m/, and /z/.

Onset and rime are units within a word. The onset is the spoken sound that corresponds to any consonants at the beginning of each written syllable, and the rime corresponds to the sound at the rest of the syllable (Goswami & Bryant, 1990). For example, in the spoken word "sake," the onset is I/s/ and the rime is "ake."

Phoneme is the smallest unit of sound (Goswami, 1995). Phonemes usually correspond to single alphabetic letters, as in the examples of /s/ and /p/ in "sip." However, they also can correspond to pairs of letters, for example, /ch/ in "chair.'

Phonological awareness is one's sensitivity to, or explicit awareness of, the

phonological structure of the words in one's language (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994).

Segmenting is the act of breaking down of units such as words, syllables, onset and rimes, and phonemes.





8


Stop sounds are sounds that cannot be spoken or held for a long period of time. They are usually brief, staccato-like sounds, for example, /b/, /d/, /t/, and /p/.

Overview

The focus of this study is the investigation of the effects of phonological awareness training for middle school students with reading problems. Chapter II provides a review of relevant literature in the areas of phonological awareness, its role in the reading process, deficits in phonological awareness, and intervention involving phonological awareness. A theoretical model on which the intervention is based and implications of research are also discussed in this chapter. Chapter III provides a description of the methods and procedures used in this study. The results of the study are discussed in Chapter IV. Finally Chapter V presents a discussion of the results, implications for teachers and teacher educators, and recommendations for future research.













CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

Chapter II includes a summary of the literature on the role of phonological awareness in reading, implications of phonological deficits, benefits of phonological awareness instruction, and phonological awareness instruction for older students with reading problems. The chapter is divided into several sections. The first section involves a description of phonological awareness and its role in reading. A theoretical model that integrates phonological awareness into the reading process is also described in this section. The second section provides a description of the nature of phonological awareness deficits, how they manifest, and their influence on the reading process. The third section involves a detailed description of some of the landmark intervention studies that focus on phonological awareness skills. The fourth section focuses on older children who have reading problems and some of the intervention studies that have included older children. The chapter concludes with implications of previous research for this study.

Phonological Awareness and Reading Ability

Reading and writing in English depend on abilities that are language related and go beyond the abilities required for speaking and listening. Research has indicated that because English is an alphabetic language, success in learning to read is related to the degree to which children are aware of the underlying structure of words (Liberman &




9





10


Shankweiler, 1985). Over the last two decades reading research has seen a growing consensus about the importance of phonological processing abilities in the acquisition of early reading skills (Shankweiler & Liberman, 1989; Stanovich, 1988; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Phonological processing refers to mental operations that make use of the phonological or sound structure of oral language when individuals are learning how to decode written language (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). According to previous research, there are three kinds of phonological processing skills related to reading ability: phonological memory, rate of access for phonological information, and phonological awareness (Adams, 1990; Brady & Shankweiler, 1991; Crowder & Wagner, 1991; Torgesen, 1993).

Phonological memory is typically assessed by tasks that require brief, verbatim retention of non-meaningful sequences of verbal items (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). Performance difficulties on this type of task involve problems in mentally representing the phonological features of language (Torgesen, Kistner, & Morgan, 1987). According to Torgesen and his colleagues, evidence suggests that the representations, or codes, used to store verbal material on memory span tasks requiring immediate, verbatim, and ordered recall are composed primarily of the phonological features of the stimuli. Difficulties with the mental representation of phonological information make it difficult to engage in any task that requires the simultaneous storage and processing of individual sounds in words.

Rate of access for phonological information has been assessed in the literature by rapid automatic naming tasks. Denckla and Rudel (1976) introduced this type of task as a way of predicting and understanding individual differences in reading ability. The tasks








require individuals to name as rapidly as possible a series of 30 to 50 items printed on a page. Individual differences in the speed with which kindergarten children can name these types of items are strongly predictive of later differences in the rate at which they acquire word-reading skills in first grade and beyond (Bowers, Steffy, & Tate, 1988; Felton & Wood, 1989).

Of all the phonological processing abilities, phonological awareness seems to

have been most frequently studied. Phonological awareness is generally defined as one's sensitivity to, or explicit awareness of, the phonological structure of the words in one's language (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). Experimental evidence indicates that phonological awareness is a critical prerequisite for learning to read (Juel, 1988; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988). Phonological awareness helps children to map sounds onto symbols and to break words into their individual sounds--skills that are necessary to read an alphabetic language (Adams, 1990; Jenkins, & Bowen, 1994). The following sections provide a more in-depth discussion of phonological awareness. The following topics will be addressed: dimensions of phonological awareness, levels of phonological awareness, reciprocal relationship between phonological awareness and reading, and the role of phonological awareness in reading.

Dimensions of Phonological Awareness

The research on phonological awareness has given considerable attention to whether phonological awareness is a general ability or a collection of independent but related abilities (e.g., Lenchner et al., 1990; O'Connor et al., 1993). A few studies in the literature provide support for a "general ability" theory stemming from the high degree of





12


interrelatedness among dimensions of phonological awareness (e.g., O'Connor et al., 1993; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987; Yopp, 1988). This degree of interrelatedness means that the dimensions shared significant commonality and tapped a similar construct (Yopp, 1988).

Despite moderate support of phonological awareness as a general ability, a few issues remain unresolved. First, Lenchner et al. (1990) drew attention to the relatively few studies focusing on whether or not tasks measure an underlying single ability. Second, Wagner's (1988) meta-analysis indicated differential relations dependent on the measure of reading. Wagner found that two dimensions of awareness, blending and segmenting, did not have independent causal relations with word recognition (linking pronunciation with meaning) but did for word analysis (taking apart phonological units in words). Third, Lenchner et al. (1990) indicated that the way the dimensions relate to each other may represent more independence than we now propose; specifically they argued that varying strengths of relations among phonological awareness tasks may not support a general ability theory.

Researchers have identified and assessed many dimensions of phonological awareness. The following tasks have been used in recent research as indicators of phonological awareness: auditory discrimination, blending, counting, deletion, isolation, rhyme, segmentation, substitution, sound categorization, tapping, reversing order of sounds, and word-to-word matching (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Lundberg et al., 1988; O'Connor et al., 1993; Spector, 1995; Yopp, 1988). Among the dimensions identified, segmentation is the most frequently used. It has often been paired with other dimensions including blending (Cunningham, 1990; O'Connor et al., 1993), letter-sound





13


correspondence (Brady, Fowler, Stone, & Winbury, 1994), and invented spelling (Mann, 1993). In studies of older readers, segmenting has been used in combination with rapid naming and list learning skills (Cornwall, 1992) and with deletion (Lenchner et al., 1990).

The dimensions of phonological awareness can be regarded as falling along a continuum of difficulty. From easiest to hardest, the range of difficulty is as follows: rhyme, auditory discrimination, phoneme blending, word-to-word matching, sound isolation, phoneme counting, phoneme segmentation, and phoneme deletion (Yopp, 1988). Two factors often contribute to the difficulty of phonological awareness: the memory requirements of the task and the characteristics of phonological units.

Memory requirements of the task. Most phonological awareness tasks require material to be held in memory. For example, phonological awareness tasks are divided into two categories based on the memory processes and operations required: (a) one operation of verbal material followed by response, as in segmentation; and (b) one operation followed by holding the response to that operation in memory while performing other operations before making the final response, as in deletion (Yopp, 1988). For example, when asked what sounds are heard in "mat" (segmentation), the response requires one step of pulling apart sounds: /m/ /a/ /t/. However, when asked to delete the first sound from "mat," the response requires two steps: (a) identifying the beginning sound and segmenting the sounds and (b) holding the remaining sounds in memory and blending them.

Characteristics of phonological units. A number of characteristics of

phonological units have been found to affect difficulty including: (a) position of the





14


phonological unit in the word (i.e., first, middle, or last), (b) degree of abstraction, (c) size of sound unit, and (d) phonological properties of the phoneme(s). Research points to the differential difficulty for initial, medial, and final positions, with initial and final positions easier than middle (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989; Mann & Brady, 1988; Spector, 1995). Likewise, degree of abstraction, or degree of meaning, affects difficulty. In Lundberg et al.s (1988) intervention study the sequence began with segmentation of words from idea units in sentences, because words have meaning and are usually recognized naturally (i.e., without instruction). The teaching sequence ended with the least natural and most abstract phonological unit, segmenting phonemes in a word.

With respect to size of sound unit, phonemes are considered to be the smallest

phonological unit. Research indicates that phonemes bear a critical relation to beginning reading (Wagner, 1988) and the processes at the phoneme level do not develop naturally or easily without instruction (Liberman & Shankweiler, 1985). In short, phonemes are difficult to perceive because (a) they are the smallest phonological unit, (b) they are not acoustically pure, and (c) they are independent of meaning.

Several intervention studies have focused attention on the relative difficulty of phonological properties. For example, McBride-Chang (1995) proved that stop sounds (e.g., I/t/ and Id/) were more difficult to identify than continuous consonants (e.g., /f/ and /s/) for third and fourth graders. Other researchers have investigated the combined effects of phonological properties of tasks. For example, Spector (1995) conjectured that differential difficulty between phonemes and syllables (i.e., size) can in part be explained by their differential acoustical properties. Spector (1995) explained that we do not hear discrete pure phonemes, because they overlap; rather we hear syllables. Therefore, tasks





15


that require identifying, moving, and combining phonemes may be more complex than those that require manipulation of syllables. Levels of Phonological Awareness

Recent research on the nature of phonological development has led to a growing understanding of how children set about learning connections between letters and sounds. In the development of phonological awareness, researchers have shown that there is a progression in the units of sounds that young children can identify within spoken words (Goswami, 1995). The levels of phonological awareness development are associated with the different phonological components of language, including words, syllables, onsets and rimes, and phonemes (Blachman, 1991).

Word. The awareness that the speech flow is a compilation of individual words is typically achieved at a very young age. The linguistic play of young children, including nonsense words and rhyming, provides evidence of this early level of phonological awareness (Bradley, 1988). When a child utters a single word that he has only heard in combination with other words, he is demonstrating the word level of phonological awareness.

Syllable. The simplest phonological unit within a word is the syllable (Goswami, 1995). Most children acquire the ability to segment words into syllables with minimal instruction (Lundberg, 1988; Liberman, Shankweiler, & Liberman, 1989). Activities such as clapping, tapping, and marching are often used to develop syllable awareness. This level of phonological awareness is useful for initial instruction in detection, segmentation, blending, and manipulation of phonological components of language.





16


Onset and rime. The terms onset and rime derive from linguistic theory, and

denote units of sound (Treiman, 1988). The onset is the spoken sound that corresponds to any consonants at the beginning of each written syllable, and the rime corresponds to the sound of the rest of the syllable. For example, in the spoken word "night," the onset is In/ and the rime is "ight." Goswami and Bryant (1990) argued that the most important phonological units for young children to manipulate consciously are onset and rime. Moreover, onsets and rimes are more consistent or predictable in their alphabetical representations than is a single phoneme and its letter representation.

Phoneme. The final level of phonological awareness that emerges with

development is the phonemic level. Phonemes are the smallest units of sound that change the meaning of spoken words (Goswami, 1995). For example, "mat" and "hat" differ by a single phoneme at the beginning. Phonemes usually correspond to single alphabetic letters, as in the examples m and t in "mat." However, they can also correspond to digraphs (pairs of letters with a single sound), for example, /sh/ in "shop." Full phonemic awareness does not usually develop until children have been learning to read an alphabetic script for about a year (Morais, Cary, Alegria, & Bertelson, 1979). The relatively late emergence of phonemic awareness does not mean that children lack any knowledge of phonemes. Even pre-readers can hear individual phonemes at beginnings of words, where these initial phonemes often constitute single-phoneme onsets (Goswami, 1995).

Phonological Awareness and Reading: A Reciprocal Relationship

Previous research has hypothesized phonological awareness to be (a) a

prerequisite for learning to read, (b) influenced by reading instruction and practice, and





17


(c) both a cause and a consequence of reading acquisition (i.e., reciprocal). The importance of establishing the relation between phonological awareness and reading acquisition is the differential implications of each relation for the timing and content of instruction. For example, if evidence suggests that phonological awareness is a prerequisite condition, then phonological awareness training prior to formal reading instruction is implied. However, if the evidence suggests that formal reading instruction develops phonological awareness, the timing and instructional sequence issues may be reversed. If evidence establishes that phonological awareness is necessary before reading instruction begins and that phonological awareness is developed by specific types of instruction, emphasis on phonological awareness before and during beginning reading instruction is firmly established. Under both conditions, phonological awareness would foster reading acquisition.

Phonological awareness as a prerequisite for learning to read. Over the past decade, growing support for a causal relation between phonological awareness and reading acquisition has been suggested (e.g., Liberman & Shankweiler, 1985; Stanovich, 1985). More recent reviews specifically concluded that evidence is sufficiently strong to establish that phonological awareness is a necessary condition for learning to read (Mann & Brady, 1988; Wagner, 1988; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). The relationship between phonological awareness and reading was examined by scrutinizing three types of studies:

(a) longitudinal, (b) experimental intervention, and (c) comparisons of good and poor readers.

Longitudinal studies were examined to obtain information about the relation

between phonological awareness at an earlier age with reading achievement at a later age.








If consistent and strong correlation is found, phonological awareness could be said to predict later reading achievement. Four longitudinal studies were reviewed (Juel, 1988; MacDonald & Cornwall, 1995; Scarborough, 1998; Stuart & Masterson, 1992). The review revealed that phonological awareness reliably predicted reading achievement across the age levels of participants from preschool through high school.

Intervention studies provide a second source of support for the idea that

phonological awareness is a prerequisite for learning to read (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; O'Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). Wagner and Torgesen (1987) noted that if training in phonological awareness improves subsequent reading, it is reasonable to infer a causal relation. In intervention studies, the effect of phonological awareness instruction on subsequent phonological awareness development and reading was assessed with pre- and posttest comparisons of achievement. Phonological awareness instruction had a significant positive influence on subsequent reading measures in all intervention studies reviewed.

Finally, comparisons between good and poor readers revealed that good readers outperformed poor readers on decoding words, and that phonological awareness skills greatly facilitated decoding ability. Vellutino and Scanlon (1987) reported more than a decade's work of comparing poor second- and sixth-grade readers to good second- and sixth-grade readers. The researchers concluded that the ability to segment phonemes is a prerequisite for linking sounds to corresponding letters and subsequent word identification, and that poor readers were able to profit from phonemic segmentation training with positive effects on ability to identify words. These authors concluded that





19


phonemic segmentation is a necessary condition for decoding and not simply a consequence of reading. Other researchers who examined differences between good and poor readers reached the same conclusions (e.g., Adams, 1990; Lenchner et al., 1990; Stanovich, 1985).

Phonological awareness as a consequence of reading instruction. Smith,

Simmons, and Kameenui (1997) conducted a review that produced limited evidence that phonological awareness is developed by reading instruction. The authors examined reviews of studies with skilled readers in nonalphabetic languages and reviews of studies with adult illiterates in alphabetic languages. Support for the consequence relation (i.e., phonological awareness is facilitated by reading instruction) was inferred from the higher levels of phonological awareness among individuals receiving more instruction and practice in reading skills (e.g., decoding) than those who did not receive instruction.

Reciprocal relation. The practical importance of the reciprocal relation between reading and phonological development has been established by many researchers (e.g., Adams, 1990; Stanovich, 1985; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Previous research has also provided recommendations for early identification of students at-risk for reading failure (e.g., low ability in phonological awareness) and early, explicit instruction in phonological awareness prior to and during beginning reading instruction (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; Layton, Deeny, Tall, & Upton, 1990; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992). Previous research seems to provide limited support for the idea that reading instruction facilitates phonological awareness. However there is strong evidence to suggest a reciprocal relation between phonological





20


awareness and reading. The existence of a reciprocal relation implies that phonological awareness is important prior to and during reading acquisition. Theoretical Model of Phonological Awareness in the Reading Process

All beginning readers of an alphabetic script require word decoding skills to be able to comprehend written text. Kamhi and Catts (1989) discussed some of the requirements of the decoding process. Words heard or seen must be associated with previously stored concepts in an individual's mental lexicon that represents one's vocabulary. The lexicon includes information about a word's phonological or visual form, as well as information about the word's meaning and how the word relates to other words. In processing speech, word meaning is accessed via a word's phonological representation.

Output of the perceptual analysis is a representation of a word's acoustic and

phonetic features used by the listener to activate a word's phonological representation in the lexicon. Print may be processed in two ways: (a) indirectly by way of the phonological representation or (b) directly by way of the visual representation. The phonological approach requires the reader to recode the visually perceived letters into their corresponding phonemes. Individual phonemes are then blended to form a phonological sequence that is matched to a similar sequence in the lexicon. Perfetti and Bell (1991) suggested that good readers are much more dependent on the indirect route than previously thought.

Decoding or word recognition is one part of reading; however, the ability to comprehend what is read i's a higher-level skill (Swank, 1994). To facilitate comprehension, readers typically rely on previously stored knowledge about the language





21


and the world. Syntactic and morphologic knowledge are used by readers in comprehending written material.

Cassidy and Kelly (1991) examined the effects of phonological information for grammatical category assignments based on findings that English verbs contain fewer syllables than English nouns. Their investigation revealed that children and adults are sensitive to these differences. They found that adults use pseudowords more often in sentences as verbs if the number of syllables is small, whereas pseudowords are used as nouns more often if the number of syllables is large. In addition, they found that 4-year old children associate pseudowords with actions more often than objects if the pseudoword contains one rather than three syllables. The researchers found that the reader uses phonological information to process morphologic and syntactic components of sentences during reading comprehension. Thus, phonological codes are found to be the building blocks to not only decoding, but also comprehension.

The idea that phonological information is crucial to comprehension is

corroborated by the "simple" view of reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986). This view of reading proposes that differences in reading comprehension are a function of the outcome of two factors, phonological coding abilities and listening comprehension. The assumption is that each factor is necessary, but not sufficient, for success in reading. Hence, understanding the language being read (i.e., listening comprehension) is only one component of reading comprehension. The ability to use phonological codes to recognize the words of the text is the other necessary component of reading comprehension.





22


Currently, a large body of research supports the simple view of reading (Hoover & Gough, 1990; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Vellutino & Denckla, 1991). These researchers suggest that although reading is a complex process, it can be conceptualized as comprising two primary components: phonological coding abilities (more specifically, decoding, or word recognition) and listening comprehension. Decoding involves using phonological coding abilities and orthographic knowledge to recognize printed words. Conversely, the comprehension process relies on linguistic and world knowledge to grasp the meaning of the printed word.

In the early school grades, phonological coding abilities (e.g., decoding) or

orthographic knowledge accounts for more variance in reading ability than do language and world knowledge (Swank, 1994). On the other hand, in the later elementary grades, individual differences in semantic and syntactic knowledge explain considerably more variance than phonological coding processes (Hoover & Gough, 1990; Juel, 1991). Thus, phonological coding abilities seem to be most critical in the beginning stages of learning to read. Listening comprehension may be more important during the later stages of reading, after children have begun to master basic word recognition skills and as reading materials become more advanced.

Understanding how reading develops provides a framework for planning for

reading instruction and also for diagnosing reading disorders. One theoretical model that analyzes the reading process in depth is Adams's (1990) model of reading. Adams seems to agree with the proposition that decoding is necessary for reading comprehension to occur. Her model explains the process of reading by describing the functions of four





23


interconnected processors. These four processors are the orthographic processor, the phonological processor, the meaning processor, and the context processor.

The orthographic processor. The orthographic processor receives visual information from print. This information is typically recognized from previous associations and is transmitted to the meaning and context processor for interpretation. Previously learned associations make reading automatic and easy. The orthographic processor also helps in reading words that are unfamiliar by breaking long words into syllables that are recognized from previous associations. For example, in reading an unfamiliar word such as "anfractuosity" one would read the word syllable by syllable, rather than holistically or letter by letter. This ability to break unfamiliar words into simple letter sequences is automatic for skillful readers and is facilitated by the orthographic processor.

The context processor. The context processor provides a suitable context for

interpretation of text. The primary function of the context processor is to select the most appropriate word meaning for the text. For example, the context processor would tell the reader the meaning of the word "train" in the following sentence: "She used to train students to play football." The context processor provides information to the reader that in this situation, "train" is not a vehicle; instead it is a verb. The context processor also serves to speed the reading process and facilitate comprehension. However, for the context processor to work, print has to be identified correctly by the orthographic processor.

The meaning processor. The meaning processor provides the meaning to the information that is obtained from print. In addition, it enables the reader to acquire





24


meanings of new words by encountering them in context. Thus, there is a direct link between the meaning and the context processor. Skilled readers seem to be sensitive to prefixes, roots, and suffixes. This may be due to a direct link between the orthographic and meaning processor. This link makes it easy for readers to see the similarities among the following words: "monosyllable," "monologue," and "monochrome." The connection between the meaning and orthographic processor facilitates vocabulary and spelling abilities.

The phonological processor. According to Adams' model, phonological

processing abilities are crucial to skilled reading. Like the orthographic processor, the phonological processor also accepts information from the outside. However, the information it accepts is speech. Although the orthographic processor is responsible for familiar words, most skillful readers activate the phonological processor in addition to the orthographic processor. The phonological processor seems to provide the added accuracy and speed for fluent reading and comprehension. Adams proposed that the phonological processor is responsible for fluent word recognition and comprehension.

With respect to word recognition, the phonological processor provides a backup system for recognizing unfamiliar words. For skillful readers, even if a word is unfamiliar, the phonological processor would recognize patterns of syllables and spelling-sound associations within the word. Thus, the reader's knowledge of soundsymbol correspondence will lead to the pronunciation of the word. The phonological processor facilitates comprehension as well. Phonological translations of words remain in memory longer than visual translations. Thus, the capacity of the short-term memory is increased. Further, the meaning and context processors can be called into play only





25


after words are recognized. Thus a thorough knowledge of sounds, symbols, and spelling patterns are crucial for the decoding process and eventually for comprehension.

Adams' model implies that readers who lack phonological awareness are likely to experience difficulties with reading tasks in which orthographic information is not sufficient. Such readers may not be able to decode unfamiliar words, thus slowing down the decoding process and impairing comprehension. For readers whose phonological processors are impaired, the context and meaning processors may not be automatically called into play. These readers may experience problems with an alphabetic language that has a unique set of sound-symbol correspondences. These problems may eventually lead to difficulties in word recognition and comprehension. The following section presents a brief review of literature on the nature of phonological awareness deficits, how they influence the reading process, and how persistent they are.

Deficits in Phonological Awareness

Research in reading has established a strong correlation between phonological

awareness and reading ability. Thus, it would seem evident that deficits in phonological awareness should be linked to reading problems. The simple view of reading and Adams' model imply that if a person has deficits in phonological processing, word identification would be affected, thus preventing reading comprehension from occurring. Because phonological deficits seem to be at the core of most reading problems, it is important to study the nature of phonological awareness deficits and how they manifest in students who have reading problems. This section presents a discussion on a theoretical model of phonological deficits, characteristics of readers with phonological deficits, and stability of phonological awareness deficits.





26


Theoretical Model of Phonological Awareness Deficits

In recent years, cognitive psychologists have studied extensively the nature of children's reading problems. Rather than looking for factors in the child's environment that may lead to reading problems, experimental psychologists have investigated differences in cognitive processes intrinsic to the child that may explain reading failure (Snowling, 1995). Experimental studies in psychology and medicine that focus on individuals with dyslexia have contributed to our understanding of phonological deficits and some of the underlying causes of reading failure.

Early explanations of dyslexia focused on the role of visual factors (Shaywitz, 1996). It was held that defects in the visual system were to blame for the reversals of letters and words that were observed among people with dyslexia. More recent research has shown that dyslexia involves a verbal deficit (Shaywitz, 1996). More specifically, dyslexic readers have phonological processing difficulties (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). A theoretical model that explains reading problems in dyslexia is the phonological model or the phonological deficits hypothesis (Shaywitz, 1996; Snowling, 1995).

The phonological model is concerned with the development of the phonological system the system responsible for manipulation of sounds used to communicate. During early speech development, children appear to be mapping the speech they hear on to utterances they produce, and there is evidence that the mappings they create become gradually refined as the child's phonological system develops (Nittrouer & StuddertKennedy, 1987). These refinements within the phonological system bring with them improvements in access to underlying phonological representations and increases in speech rate and verbal short-term memory (Snowling & Hulme, 1994).





27


To understand exactly how the phonological model works, one has to consider how language is processed in the brain. The language system is composed of a series of hierarchical modules (Shaywitz, 1996). At the upper levels of the hierarchy are components associated with semantics (vocabulary or word meaning), syntax (grammatical structure), and discourse (connected sentences). At the lowest level of the hierarchy is the phonological module, responsible for processing sounds. The phoneme, defined as the smallest segment of language, is the fundamental element of the linguistic system. Before words can be identified or understood, they must first be broken down into their phonetic units by the phonological module of the brain.

In spoken language, the breaking down process seems to happen automatically. However, reading must be learned at a conscious level and because alphabets are involved, the process is a little more difficult. The beginning reader must first come to a conscious awareness of the internal phonological structure of spoken words. Then he or she must realize that the orthography the sequence of letters represents this phonology.

In contrast, when a child has reading problems, a deficit within the language

system at the level of the phonological module impairs his or her ability to segment the written word into its underlying phonological components. This explanation is sometimes referred to as the phonological deficit hypothesis (Shaywitz, 1996). According to this hypothesis, a deficit in phonological processing impairs decoding, preventing word identification. Thus, a lower-order linguistic function blocks access to higher order linguistic processes and to gaining meaning from text. Although the language processes involved in comprehension and meaning may be intact, they cannot be called into play, because they can be accessed only after a word has been identified.





28


The phonological model establishes a strong relationship between phonological

processing deficits and reading problems. Consequently, more research has been devoted to deficits in phonological processing as the underlying cause of reading problems in a majority of children. These phonological processing deficits often seem to lead to other characteristics that impair the reading process. For purposes of diagnosis and intervention, it is important to study some of the characteristics that seem to be related to phonological processing deficits.

Characteristics of Readers with Phonological Deficits

It follows from the phonological model that the status of a child's underlying

phonological system determines the ease with which he or she will learn to read (Hulme & Snowling, 1992). Several studies have concluded that there are many skills that are related to phonological representations. Consequently, children with phonological awareness deficits have been known to have deficits in these related areas: awareness of sounds in words, use of phonological codes in working memory, and retrieval of phonological codes from long-term memory.

Awareness of sounds in words. Research has shown that children who have reading problems often lack an awareness of sounds in words (Catts, 1993; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). They may fail to appreciate that words may rhyme or begin with the same sound. These children also tend to have difficulties identifying individual sounds in words and performing operations such as blending or segmenting phonemes.

Using phonological codes in working memory. Readers who have deficits in their phonological system have demonstrated difficulties in verbal short-term memory (Torgesen, 1985). These readers may have problems in following directions, taking





29


messages, or learning to pronounce new spoken words. Children with phonological coding deficits may perform poorly on tests of memory span, such as digit span. Others, however, may show no difficulties in digit span but have problems with memory for sentences. According to Webster and Plante (1992), phonological deficits affect the ability to use subvocal speech rehearsal to maintain phonologically coded information in working memory for phonological awareness tasks (such as segmentation or substitution).

Retrieval of phonological codes from long-term memory. There is evidence that some children with reading problems have trouble with long-term memory. Children at risk for reading problems often have word-finding problems (i.e., difficulty with remembering names of objects) (Catts, 1996). These children may demonstrate substitutions in their speech. Many will also frequently use words that lack specificity (e.g., the short thing) or they will show numerous pauses during speech. Some children with word-finding difficulties will demonstrate their deficits on tests of isolated word retrieval. Others, however, will have difficulties in speeded retrieval (Denckla & Rudel, 1976). Extending this work to object naming, Katz (1986) found that children with phonological deficits were less able than controls to label the objects of the Boston Naming Test, and had difficulties with low-frequency and polysyllabic words.

The characteristics of children who have phonological processing deficits make it difficult for them to learn the correspondence between the phonemes of speech and their representations in written language. These problems lead to difficulties in reading and spelling (Jenkins & Bowen, 1994). Initially some poor readers may have deficits that are limited to word recognition. However, as time progresses these children may begin to





30


perform below average on tests of higher-level language abilities as well. One reason for the below-average performance could be that poor readers may not read as much as good readers and, as a result, may not have the same amount of language experience as good readers. This may result in lowered performance by poor readers on tests of vocabulary and measures of listening comprehension. Some evidence is available to suggest that, over time, poor readers' verbal abilities may not keep pace with that of their normally developing peers due to the persistence of phonological deficits over time (Juel, 1988; Stuart & Masterson, 1992).

Persistence of Phonological Awareness Deficits.

Reading research has presented a controversy about whether differences in

performance between children with reading problems and normally developing children should be construed as a deficit or a maturational lag (Satz, Fletcher, Clark, & Morris, 1981). According to the deficit model, there is something atypical in the underlying cognitive and/or neurological structure (Denckla, 1979). The maturational lag model, on the other hand, proposes that reading problems represent variants of normal development (Stanovich, 1986). According to this model, children with reading disabilities may eventually catch up with their normally learning peers.

To test the two models, researchers have conducted longitudinal studies analyzing children's reading performance and phonological processing abilities in elementary school through high school. If the performance of students with reading problems follows a maturational lag model, then these students will catch up with their peers as they grow older. On the other hand, if the deficit model is true, students with reading problems may have difficulties catching up with their peers and a large disparity between





31


students who have reading problems and those who do not may be apparent among students with reading problems and students without reading problems. The four longitudinal studies that were identified all established that academic deficits, especially reading problems, tend to persist for many years (Juel, 1988; MacDonald & Cornwall, 1995; Scarborough, 1998; Stuart & Masterson, 1992). The persistence of reading problems may suggest a deficit model rather than a maturational model, because a maturational model suggests that students with reading problems will catch up with their peers at a later age.

In Juel's (1988) study, the reading and writing development of 54 children was followed as they progressed from first through fourth grade. The children in Juel's sample attended a large elementary school and lived in a low socioeconomic area. The study began with 129 children in the first grade and ended with 54 in the fourth grade. The children were tested every year on phonological awareness, decoding, word recognition, spelling, comprehension, and writing. According to Juel, the probability that the child would remain a poor reader at the end of fourth grade, if a child had been a poor reader at the end of first grade, was .88. The children in Juel's study who became poor readers entered first grade with little phonemic awareness. In fourth grade, the majority of poor readers could not decode all the monosyllabic nonsense words. Juel also inquired about the children's reading experiences at home: what they read and how many books they read over a period of time. Juel reported that one of the factors that prevented students from improving their reading skills was a lack of reading experiences. The average good reader reported reading at home almost four nights per week, whereas the average poor reader reported reading at home about once a week.





32


MacDonald and Cornwall (1995) reported a similar follow-up of 24 teenagers who had participated in a study of phonological awareness when they were in kindergarten. Tests of word recognition, spelling, phonological awareness and comprehension were administered during kindergarten and 11 years later. MacDonald and Cornwall reported that scores on phonological awareness (as measured by the Auditory Analysis Test) in kindergarten were significantly correlated to phonological awareness scores 11 years later (r = .47). The researchers concluded that phonological awareness at the end of kindergarten is stable over an 11-year interval and is also a good long-term predictor of word identification and spelling skills for students at 17 years of age.

It was also found that although reading and spelling skills at kindergarten were not significantly correlated to reading and spelling skills 11 years later, phonological scores in kindergarten were significantly correlated with reading and spelling 11 years later. This finding implied that phonological awareness in kindergarten predicted word identification and spelling skills at age 17 better than did kindergarten achievement in word identification and spelling. In contrast, phonological awareness at age 6, albeit in its early developmental stages, was relatively more stable over this developmental time span, as well as being more accurate in predicting reading and spelling achievement.

Similar results were obtained by Stuart and Masterson (1992) and Scarborough

(1988). Stuart and Masterson (1992) conducted a follow-up study of reading and spelling in a group of 10 year old children (n = 20) who were first assessed as 4-year old prereaders. When IQ was partialled out, there were significant partial correlations between phonological scores and reading ages and phonological scores and spelling ages.





33


These results indicate a predictive relationship between early phonological awareness scores and subsequent reading ability. Scarborough's (1988) study focused on assessing students in second grade and then again in eighth grade. Students were tested for reading, spelling, phonological awareness, verbal memory, rapid naming, and IQ. The correlations between grade 2 and grade 8 scores were .49 for phoneme deletion, .66 for verbal memory, and .51 for rapid serial naming. The findings suggest that phonological awareness skills tend to remain stable over time.

Overall, the longitudinal studies suggest that phonological awareness at

kindergarten and preschool is predictive of phonological awareness skills and reading performance in middle and high school. This finding has practical significance, because it suggests that phonological awareness is a reliable assessment measure to identify atrisk students. Further, the findings suggest that phonological awareness at kindergarten reaches its peak of development sooner than do word identification and spelling skills. The fact that some children with phonological awareness deficits do not catch up with their peers even in middle school suggests that the development of phonological awareness conforms to a deficit model. The findings also imply that phonological awareness is an essential prerequisite for the acquisition of reading skills and corroborate the argument put forth by the phonological deficit model (that phonological awareness is required for decoding and comprehension).

If some children experience phonological awareness deficits and if these deficits are stable over time, then researchers and clinicians are faced with a challenge to learn more about the strategies that best facilitate growth in reading for children of all ages with deficits in phonological awareness. Because research has established that





34


phonological awareness is crucial to decoding and word recognition, much attention has been devoted to the training of phonological awareness in children with (and without) deficits in phonological awareness. Further, researchers have established the most important components of phonological awareness instruction and a preferred sequence of instruction. Almost all the intervention studies reviewed revealed that phonological awareness can be taught to those children who have deficits, and instruction in phonological awareness improves word decoding and phonological awareness skills, such as blending, segmenting, and deletion of phonemes.

Instruction in Phonological Awareness

This section presents a review of previous studies that focused on instruction in phonological awareness skills and word decoding. The ERIC database located all intervention studies that were published in refereed journals. The descriptors used in the search were "phonological awareness training," "phonological awareness intervention," and "reading instruction." Fourteen experimental studies were examined. Of them, 12 involved elementary school students, and 2 involved older readers. Normally achieving children and children with identified language and phonological awareness deficits were studied.

The length of interventions varied from a few days to about 9 months. Length of sessions varied from 10 to 30 minutes and ranged in frequency from daily to twice a week. Researchers have explored a variety of intervention models (i.e., small group or one-to-one instruction), varying the duration of the intervention and the choice of activities. Although many studies included intervention in phonological awareness skills, most of the studies included components that went beyond phonological awareness.





35


These studies focused on phonics instruction, involving letter-sound correspondences and decoding words. For example, in the Williams' (1980) study, after the students were taught blending and segmenting phonemes, they were taught to combine their auditory skills and letter-phoneme correspondence to decode and spell words made up of complex patters, such as CCVC, CVCC, and CCVCC. These studies and their results will be examined in further detail.

Components of Effective Instruction

In all the studies reviewed, researchers seemed to pay careful attention to the following components of instruction:

1. Phonemes were taught with the help of visual or concrete representations.

2. Phonological awareness skills were modeled by the teacher.

3. Instruction was explicit.

4. Practice with letter-sound correspondences was added to instruction. Among all the phonological skills, blending and segmenting received most attention.

Concrete representation. Use of concrete representation of sound was an

instructional feature of all studies. Concrete representation involves using objects (e.g., blocks) to represent a sound. For example, after students heard the teacher model a sound, the students then said the phoneme while simultaneously moving a marker representing the phoneme (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; O'Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993).

Modeling by teachers. Isolated individual sounds (phonemes) were orally

produced by the teacher in a demonstration and by students in response and practice. Modeling helped students to learn the correct ways to produce sounds and manipulate





36


sounds in words (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; O'Connor, Slocum, & Jenkins, 1995).

Explicit instruction. The following features common across the studies suggested that instruction was explicit: (a) teacher modeling specific sounds, (b) direct teaching of phonological awareness skills, (c) strategies (e.g., concrete representation), (d) rehearsal of skills, (e) scaffolding (i.e., providing graduated amounts of teacher, task, or materials assistance). Explicit instruction seemed to be effective for acquiring phonological awareness skills (e.g., Slocum, O'Connor, & Jenkins, 1993; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992; Williams, 1980).

Letter-sound correspondence. In addition to teaching students the concepts of blending and segmenting, many studies included a component of letter-sound correspondence. The purpose of letter-sound correspondence was to help students understand how sounds relate to written symbols. Interventions that included lettersound instruction with phonological awareness instruction reported significant differences in reading and phonological awareness measures (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988; Brady, Fowler, Stone, & Winbury, 1994; Williams, 1980).

Blending and segmenting. Reading an alphabetic language like English involves primarily blending and segmenting phonemes. Thus, a majority of studies concentrated on the acquisition of blending and segmenting skills. Some researchers focused on blending and segmenting at the onset-rime level (e.g., O'Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993; Slocum, O'Connor, & Jenkins, 1993), while others focused on blending and segmenting at the phoneme level (e.g., Hurford et al., 1994; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992).





37


All the intervention studies were similar in that they had all the components of instruction as discussed above. However, these studies differed in terms of the types of skills taught to children, frequency and duration of instruction, and age of children. These differences will be described and attention will be given to the differences in instructional techniques.

Variations in Instructional Techniques

Among the many researchers who investigated the effectiveness of explicitly training phonological awareness skills, several investigators developed experimental programs that can be adapted for use in the classroom with kindergarten and lowreadiness first grade children (Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1983, 1985; Lundberg et al., 1988). Others have focused their intervention efforts on older students with learning disabilities (Williams, 1980). The literature presented different activities to promote phonological awareness skills and word decoding. The activities described in the following studies can be used and/or modified by classroom teachers and language, reading, and learning specialists. Table 1 provides an analysis of the training studies.

Table 1

Summary of Phonological Awareness Training Research



Intervention Built Around Sound Categorization

Study Sample Intervention Post-tests
Bradley & Bryant 65 Kindergarten and Sound categorization Schonell Test of (1985) first grade children who with visual Reading; Schonell Test had low scores on a representation using of Spelling; Neale sound categorization test plastic letters Analysis of Reading





38


Table 1--continued.


Results: 1. Children who were trained in sound categorization significantly outperformed the untrained children in the Schonell tests of reading and spelling.
2. Group 2 was significantly better than both controls in Schonell reading and spelling and in Neale reading.
3. No significant difference between groups 1 and 2 in the two reading tests, but group 2 surpassed group 1 in spelling.

Intervention at the Level of Onsets and Rimes

Study Sample Intervention Post-tests
O'Connor, Jenkins, 47 preschool children Instruction in onset-rime Tests of rhyming, Leicester, & Slocum with developmental blending and onset-rime blending and (1993) delays segmentation segmenting

Results: 1. Trained groups showed significant gains on posttests. However, the groups showed no evidence of transfer across phonological tasks.
2. On blending, the blending group performed significantly better than the other groups.
3. On segmenting, the segmenting group performed significantly better than the other groups.
4. On rhyming, rhymers performed significantly better than the other groups.

Study Sample Intervention Post-tests OConnor, Slocum, & 66 kindergarten children Instruction was provided Tests of blending, Jenkins (1995) with low phonological to three groups: blend- segmenting, syllable manipulation skills segment; global deletion, rhyme treatment; letter-sound production; rapid letter control naming; reading analog (reading a list of words).

Results: 1. Both treatment groups significantly outperformed the control on blending and segmenting. Blending and segmenting alone was as effective as more varied and broad phonological instruction.
2. The high skilled children named significantly more letters than did children who were lowskilled. The high skilled children also performed better than all of the low-skilled conditions on syllable deletion.
3. The high-skilled condition outperformed the children who were low-skilled on the reading analog task.

Study Sample Intervention Post-tests
Slocum, O'Connor, & 35 children enrolled in Instruction in onset-rime Tests of blending and Jenkins (1993) kindergarten blending and onset-rime segmenting.
segmentation

Results: 1. Children trained in both blending and segmenting showed significant gains in posttest. However, the children did not show evidence of transfer across phonological skills.
2. On tests of blending, only the segmenting-then-blending and word manipulation-then-blending groups made significant improvements from pretests to posttest.
3. On tests of segmenting, only the blending-then-segmenting and word manipulation-thensegmenting groups made significant gains from pretest to posttest.






39


Table 1--continued.


Intervention at the Level of Phonemes

Study Sample Intervention Post-tests
Ball & Blachman (1988) 90 non-readers from Instruction in phoneme Word identification Kindergarten segmentation and letter- subtest of Woodcock sound correspondences Reading Mastery Test; tests of phoneme
segmentation, letter
names and sounds.

Results: 1. The phoneme segmentation group significantly out-performed the control groups on the segmentation test.
2. There were no significant differences among the three groups on letter name knowledge.
3. Both the treatment group and control group 1 had significantly higher letter sound scores than control group 2.
4. Over 34% of the treatment group were able to read 4 or more words on the WRMT, as opposed to 13% for the control group 1, and only 7% for control group 2.

Study Sample Intervention Post-tests
Ball & Blachman (1991) 90 non-readers from Instruction in phoneme Word identification Kindergarten segmentation and letter- subtest of Woodcock sound correspondences Reading Mastery Test; tests of phoneme
segmentation, letter
names and sounds.

Results: 1. The phoneme segmentation group significantly out-performed the control groups on the segmentation test.
2. There were no significant differences among the three groups on letter name knowledge.
3. Phoneme awareness group and language activities group achieved significantly higher lettersound scores than the control group, but did not differ from each other.
4. On the WRMT, scores of children in the phoneme awareness group were significantly higher than the scores of children in either language activities group or control group.

Study Sample Intervention Post-tests
Hurford et al., (1994) 99 first graders Instruction in phoneme Woodcock Reading identified as being at- blending and phoneme Mastery Test; phoneme risk for reading segmenting discrimination; phoneme problems segmentation.


Results: 1. Both training groups significantly outperformed their respective control groups after training.
2. Both training groups significantly outperformed control groups on phoneme discrimination and segmentation
3. On tests of discrimination and segmentation, there were no significant differences between the not-at-risk children and the trained children after training.
4. The trained children's scores on WRMT were significantly higher than the untrained children.






40


Table 1--continued.


Study Sample Intervention Post-tests
Marsh & Mineo (1977) 64 preschool children Recognition of Test of phoneme who were non-readers phonemes: with or recognition without visual cue; stop
v. continuants; initial
position v. final position

Results: Children who had visual cues significantly outperformed those without visual cues; performance was significantly better in the initial position with continuants; performance in the final position was superior for stops.

Study Sample Intervention Post-tests
Torgesen, Morgan, & 51 children enrolled in Instruction was provided Tests of phoneme Davis (1992) kindergarten. Those to three groups: blending and phoneme who scored between 15" Blending & segmenting; segmentation; reading and 50t percentile on a only blending; and analog (reading a list of test of phonological language experience words) awareness were selected activities (control)

Results: 1. The group that was trained in both blending and segmenting significantly outperformed the other groups on posttests.
2. Training in both blending and segmenting facilitated the reading of new words on the reading analog.

Study Sample Intervention Post-tests
Vellutino & Scanlon Second and sixth Instruction in phoneme Phoneme segmentation; (1987) graders, including segmentation word identification.
children with and
without reading
problems. (N = 75)

Results: Children trained in phoneme segmentation had significant gains in phoneme segmentation and word identification. They significantly outperformed those children who did not receive training.

Intervention Built Around Metalinguistic Games

Study Sample Intervention Post-tests
Lundberg, Frost, & 390 children enrolled in Instruction in Letter knowledge; test Peterson (1988) Kindergarten metalinguistic games, of language including rhyming and comprehension; segmentation of words vocabulary; and phonemes metaphonological tests (including rhyming,
blending, and
segmenting at the word,
syllable, and phoneme
level)





41



Table 1--continued.


Results: 1. There were no significant differences between the groups on letter knowledge.
2. There were no significant differences between the groups on language comprehension.
3. On the vocabulary test, the experimental group outperformed the control group.
4. On metaphonological tests, the experimental group outperformed the control group.
5. Follow-up measures revealed that training influenced reading and spelling even in second grade.

Intervention Built Around a Broad Array of Phonological Skills

Study Sample Intervention Post-tests
Brady, Fowler, Stone, & 61 children from Instruction in rhyming, Letter knowledge; word Winbury (1994) Kindergarten segmentation, identification; spelling; categorization, and rhyme production; sound-identification phoneme segmentation; phoneme deletion

Results: 1. There were no significant differences between training group and control on letter knowledge, reading, and spelling.
2. The training group outperformed the control on measures of rhyme and segmentation.
3. There were no significant differences between training group and control on phoneme deletion.

Study Sample Intervention Post-tests
Gillam & Kleeck (1995) 16 preschool children Instruction in rhyming, Tests of rhyming and with developmental identifying initial sound, phoneme awareness speech and language sound matching, (includes sound disorders blending, and matching, blending, and segmenting. segmentation)

Results: Intervention resulted in significant improvements on measures on rhyming and phoneme awareness in children who received training.

Intervention Using Specific Programs

Study Sample Intervention Post-tests
McGuinness, 45 children enrolled in a Instruction in Auditory Word identification and McGuinness, & preschool Discrimination in Depth word attack subtests of Donohue (1995) Woodcock Reading Mastery Test

Results: 1. The trained groups significantly outperformed the control group on word identification and word attack, but did not differ from each other.

Study Sample Intervention Post-tests
Williams (1980) 102 children with Experimental group was Syllable blending; learning disabilities, trained in ABDs of syllable segmentation; Children were enrolled Reading (blending, phoneme blending; in Title I schools and segmenting, and saying initial phoneme; ages ranged from 7 to 12 decoding) phoneme segmentation; decoding; letter-sound
correspondences





42


Table 1--continued.


Results: 1. For the experimental group there was significant gain from pretest to posttest on all subtests
2. For the control group, there was significant gain from pretest to posttest on all but one subtest (final-phoneme analaysis).
3. Posttest scores of the instructed group were significantly higher than those of the control group on letter-sound correspondence, phoneme blending, and decoding. The instructed group's scores on phoneme segmentation were not significantly higher than the scores of the control group.
4. Six months after the completion of the program, the scores of the instructed group were still higher than those of the control group
5. It was also found that experimental group was able to read unfamiliar items (not encountered in the training)



Intervention built around sound categorization activities. Bradley and Bryant (1985) conducted one of the first large-scale training studies and demonstrated a causal relationship between phoneme awareness and reading and spelling. Sixty-five kindergarten and first-grade children who had low scores on a sound categorization pretest were selected and divided into four groups matched on IQ, age, gender, and sound categorization ability. The children in both groups learned to categorize words on the basis of common sounds. In the second group, children also learned to represent the common sounds with plastic letters. For example, they were able to see that when "hen" was changed to "pen" only one letter had to be changed. The plastic letters that represented the sounds stayed in place on the table, while the child changed the "h" to a "p." The children in a third group were taught to categorize the identical pictures on the basis of semantic categories (e.g., "hen" and "dog" were grouped together, because both are animals). These three groups participated in 40 individual lessons over a 2 year period. A fourth group received no intervention.

After the intervention, the children who were trained in sound categorization

consistently outperformed the untrained children in reading and spelling. However, the children who were the most successful on measures of reading and spelling were the





43


children who learned both to categorize words by their common sounds and to represent the sounds with plastic letters. Four years after the original study ended, a follow-up study found that the children who learned to make the connections between letters and sounds as part of their training in sound categorization were still the most successful in reading and spelling (Bradley, 1988).

Intervention at the level of onsets and rimes. O'Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, and Slocum (1993) examined the feasibility of teaching phonological manipulation skills to preschool children with disabilities. Children were selected from 55 children with developmental delays enrolled in preschool. Forty-seven children, 4-6 years old, were randomly assigned to receive training on one of three categories of phonological tasks (rhyming, blending, and segmenting) or to a control group. In Phase 1 of the study, each treatment group received training in only one task format. Blenders were taught to blend two and three phonemes presented as continuous sounds. For example, for "ssseeennn," children would say "seen." Segmenters began separating sounds by saying two- and three- phoneme words slowly, without stopping between the sounds. For example, for "seen," children would say "ssseeennn." Rhymers were provided with examples and were encouraged to generate rhymes for words.

Phase 2 of the study (4 weeks) involved reviewing the previously taught task and extending training to other tasks within the treatment skill area. Blenders were taught to blend words beginning with stop sounds, to blend words with all sounds separated, and to blend onset-rime. Segmenters were taught to separate words into onset-rime (s een), to say all the separate sounds in words, and to identify the first sound. Rhymers continued





44


to produce rhymes, with the additional tasks of identifying whether or not a pair of words rhymed and selecting from three words the one that did not rhyme.

Results of the study showed that blenders and segmenters outperformed rhymers and the control group on posttests that involved blending, segmenting, and rhyming. The investigators concluded that phonological awareness skills can be taught to young children with learning disabilities even before formal reading instruction. Although training in one phonological area did not seem to lead to improvement in other phonological skills, the researchers found that children who received segmenting training improved in blending. This facilitating effect could be explored by teaching segmentation to a higher criterion than that achieved in this research, and by replicating the experiment with larger treatment groups.

O'Connor and her colleagues conducted two other studies that focused on onsetrimes. In a transfer study (Slocum, O'Connor, & Jenkins, 1993), 35 preschool children were divided into four groups based on the training they received in two phases: (a) blending and segmenting, (b) word manipulation and segmenting, (c) segmenting and blending, and (d) word manipulation and blending. Blending was taught using the onsetrime format. For example, for "/k/ /at/", the children had to say cat. As the children blended the onset and rime, they pointed to the appropriate picture. Segmentation was taught using two rectangles, one to represent the onset and one to represent the rime. For example to segment cat, the student had to say "/k/.../at/." The purpose of word manipulation was to control for many of the nonphonological aspects of instruction in phonological skills. The word manipulation tasks were analogous to the phonological tasks and provided experience in manipulating sounds in the speech stream. Although





45


the investigators did not observe transfer to other phonological skills, they found that the blending and segmenting group significantly outperformed all other groups.

In a later study, O'Connor, Slocum, and Jenkins (1995), randomly assigned 66

children into three groups: (a) blending and segmenting, (b) global array of phonological tasks, and (c) only letter-sound correspondence. Blending and segmenting were taught using onset-rime format and pictures were used to facilitate blending and rectangles for segmenting. The global treatment involved teaching children a series of phonological tasks, including blending, segmenting, rhyming, and word-to-word matching. The lettersound control group worked with letters and were asked to give the sound for each letter. Results showed that both treatment groups outperformed the control group (the group that was taught only letter-sound correspondences) on blending and segmenting. It was also found that blending and segmenting were as effective as the global treatment. Hence among all the phonological skills, the most crucial seem to be blending and segmenting.

Intervention at the level of phonemes. Investigators have focused intervention on recognition of phonemes (Marsh & Mineo, 1977), blending and segmenting at the phoneme level (Hurford et al., 1994; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992), and segmenting with letter-sound training (Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987).

In Marsh and Mineo's (1977) study, 34 preschool children were taught to

recognize phonemes. The training session extended over a 4-day period. There were two between-subject factors: (a) presence or absence of a visual cue (uppercase grapheme) and (b) phoneme type (stops vs. continuous) and two within-subject factors: (a) position of phoneme in the word (initial or terminal) and (b) phonemic contrast of the positive and negative exemplars (minimal or maximal). In the maximal contrast condition the two





46


words had no phonemes in common (e.g., "like"-"bag"), while in the minimum contrast condition the words differed in only one phoneme (e.g., "pan"-"dan").

The students in the visual cue group learned to pair the phoneme used in the

recognition task with its grapheme; the remaining students learned the same phonemes but with colored cards rather than the graphemes as stimuli. The recognition task was forced-choice matching-to-sample (A-B-X) paradigm. On each trial, the student was instructed by a taped voice to indicate which word begins (or ends) with the sound X. The first word came from the left speaker and the second, from the right. The child then responded by pointing to one of the speakers. In the visual cue condition, each word appeared on the screen next to the appropriate speaker prior to audio presentation of the words. Students in the stop condition identified which word of a pair contained either the phonemes /b/ and /d/ or the phonemes /p/ or /t/ in the initial or final position. The students in the continuant condition identified words containing either the phonemes I/s/ and /n/ or /f/ and /n/.

Results indicated that preschool children were capable of recognizing phonemes. The visual cue condition group outperformed the non-visual group. It was also found that performance was better in the initial position with continuants and performance in the final position was superior for the stops. Findings implied that continuants should be introduced before stops.

With respect to blending and segmenting at the phoneme level, the studies

established that training resulted in improved performance. Hurford et al. (1994) studied first graders at-risk for reading difficulties. Ninety-nine children were identified as being at risk for reading difficulties; 53 children were at-risk for reading disabilities (RD), and





47


46 children were at risk for becoming "garden-variety" poor readers (GV). Half of the RD and GV groups received the intervention. A third group consisted of children not atrisk.

The phonemic blending and segmentation training was accomplished using

magnetic letters and magnetic boards. The phonemic blending training began with CV syllables and progressed to CVC syllables. The letters were placed on the magnetic board while the student had to put the sounds together. The phonemic segmentation training also began with CV syllables followed by CVC syllables. Like the blending training, the letters were placed on the magnetic board while the student segmented the sounds each time pointing to the appropriate letter.

The training procedure was effective in significantly improving blending and segmenting skills. The training groups performed considerably better than control groups. Results also indicated that although there were significant differences between the trained (at risk) children and the not-at-risk children before training, none existed after training. Hence, the intervention was effective in increasing the phonological processing skills and improving word identification and word attack scores of the trained children.

Torgesen and his colleagues also reported evidence that children in kindergarten are capable of learning to blend and segment at the phoneme level. Torgesen, Morgan, and Davis (1992) studied 48 kindergarten children. Those children who scored between the 15th and 501h percentiles on a phonological awareness test were included in the sample. The sample was divided into three groups: (a) the AB group received training that included both blending and segmenting, (b) the B group received training in only





48


blending activities, and (c) the C group was exposed to a variety of meaning-oriented language-experience activities.

Phonological training for children in the B group involved identifying the words represented by sequences of separately presented phonemes. Blending was introduced as a multiple-choice activity, in which children identified the word (from sets of two or three pictures) that had been pronounced in its segmented form by the trainer. Following this activity, the children were taught to pronounce the segmented word with no visual prompts. Training in both the AB and B groups was accomplished by using the same seven word sets. These word sets were formed so that they each involved a limited number of different phonemes. The last two sets were review sets composed of words from the first five lists. The control group (C) engaged in a variety of activities that emphasized reading and books as enjoyable and meaningful. Training for all groups lasted about 7 weeks. Training was done in groups of three to five children for 20-minute sessions three times a week.

Results indicated that the AB group significantly outperformed the C group on

segmenting. For blending, it was found that the means of both the AB and B groups were significantly higher than the C group. The investigators found that training in both blending and segmenting skills produced significant improvements in children's ability to segment words into phonemes. In contrast, the blending-only group did not show significant improvements in segmenting, compared to the control group. It was also found that the children in the AB group were able to generalize the oral-language phonological awareness they had acquired in training to a novel task: learning to read new words.





49


In contrast to the above studies wherein children were taught both blending and

segmenting, a few studies concentrated on segmentation in combination with letter-sound training. Vellutino and Scanlon (1987) used segmentation and letter-sound correspondence in their training. This study will be discussed in detail in the section on older children. The other studies that involved segmentation and letter-sound training were that of Ball and Blachman (1988, 1991). In the studies by Ball and Blachman (1988, 1991), 90 kindergarten children were randomly assigned to either a treatment group or one of two control groups. Children in the treatment group learned to segment one-, two- and three phoneme items and also learned letter-sound associations. Children in the control group engaged in a variety of language activities (e.g., listening to stories) and also learned letter-sound associations by using the same letter sound stimuli as the phoneme awareness training group.

The children in the phoneme awareness treatment group and the control group met in groups of five for 20 minutes, four times a week for 7 weeks. For the treatment group, each session contained three components: (a) say-it-and-move-it activities, (b) segmentation-related activities, and (c) letter-sound training. During say-it-and-move-it, children were taught to represent the sounds in one-, two-, and three phoneme words by using manipulatives such as disks, tiles, buttons, or blocks. Children were taught to say each sound in a word and move a block or disk to represent that sound. The segmentation-related activity included teaching children to categorize words on the basis of their common sounds. In addition, children learned to segment with the help of Elkonin boxes. The children were taught to say the word slowly as they moved a disk into a corresponding square to represent each sound in the word. For letter-sound





50


correspondences, children learned keywords and phrases to help them remember the sound of each letter (printed on a card). For example, the "f' card was illustrated with five funny faces.

Ball and Blachman (1988, 1991) found that the phoneme segmentation training group performed significantly better than the control group on tests of phoneme segmentation. The investigators concluded that it is possible to teach kindergarten children to segment phonemes. Those children who received training could generalize segmentation training to novel items not presented during training. Increased phoneme awareness also had an impact on the ability to read words. Another conclusion from this study was that increased letter-sound knowledge alone doesn't improve segmentation skills; children need intensive training in both segmentation and letter-sound correspondence.

Intervention built around metalinguistic games. The studies reviewed so far have demonstrated that teaching phoneme awareness and making the connections between letters and sound segments in the words have a positive influence on reading and spelling acquisition. Lundberg and his colleagues (1988) have reported a positive effect on reading by providing training in phonological awareness that did not include explicit instruction in sound-symbol associations. The researchers provided 8 months of metalinguistic instruction to nonreading kindergarten children. A wide variety of games, starting with rhyming activities followed by the segmentation of sentences into word units and the segmentation of multisyllabic words into syllables, were conducted for the first 2 months of training. Phonemes were introduced during the third month of training by helping children identify the initial phonemes in words, starting with words that begin





51


with continuous sound letters. Two months later, activities progressed to two-phoneme items and then to more complex words. Whole groups of children (15 to 20) participated in these activities.

The results of the study indicated that children who participated in this program had significantly greater phonological awareness than the control children, although there were no differences between the two groups on post-tests of prereading skills (letter knowledge and segmentation skills). By the end of first grade, however, the treatment children outperformed the control children in spelling, and by the end of second grade the treatment children outperformed the control children in reading and spelling. Thus Lundberg and his colleagues (1988) were able to increase phonological awareness outside the context of formal literacy instruction by using group games and whole-class instruction provided by regular classroom teachers. Once formal reading instruction began, it appears that this heightened awareness of the phonological structure of language gave children an edge that was evident in their superior scores in reading and spelling at the end of second grade.

Intervention built around a broad array of phonological skills. Instead of

concentrating on one isolated phonological awareness skill, some researchers studied the effects of teaching children a broad array of phonological skills. Brady, Fowler, Stone, and Winbury (1994) studied the effects of phonological awareness training on at-risk kindergarten children. There were 24 children in the training group and 37 in the control group. Phase one of the training involved phonological awareness above the level of the phoneme. Children were trained in rhyming, segmentation, categorization, and identification. Rhyming games included listening to nursery rhymes, completing rhymes,





52


and generating rhyming words. Segmentation training involved breaking up sentences, phrases, and words into progressively smaller units. Categorization involved grouping pictures on the basis of similar initial sound or rhyme. Identification was taught by having children identify a particular syllable in a series of words. This phase of the training lasted about 4 weeks.

Phase two of the training lasted for about 6 weeks. In this phase, children were taught to isolate phonemes. Activities involved introducing one pair of phonemes at a time. The similarities and differences were highlighted by providing descriptive labels and by using mirrors so that children could receive feedback on mouth and tongue positions while making the sounds. Other activities such as sound categorization, phoneme deletion, and phoneme identification were also taught.

After children were comfortable with isolating phonemes, they were taught in a third phase to segment words into individual phonemes. Pictures of words were presented and empty squares (Elkonin boxes) under the picture represented the word segments. The children learned to put a tile into each square to represent each phoneme. This phase of training lasted for about 8 weeks. Results of the study showed that the training program yielded significant gains in rhyming, phoneme segmentation, and phoneme deletion. Findings were encouraging because there was evidence to show that at-risk nonreaders could master phonological awareness skills and training in these skills improved the children's spelling skills (on posttest).

A broad array of phonological skills was also the focus of a study carried out by Gillam and van Kleeck (1996). They trained 16 preschool children with developmental speech and language disorders on phonological awareness tasks for a period of 9 months.





53


The control group included a group of older children (mean age = 6) with speech and language impairments from the same school. In the fall semester, training included rhyming activities. Children attended a rhyming center for 15 minutes twice a week. Rhyming activities involved recognizing, imitating, identifying, and generating rhymes. During the spring semester, phoneme awareness activities were introduced. The sequence of activities followed was: teaching the initial sound, identifying when words are pronounced correctly, initial position sound matching, initial sound identification, generating words, phoneme blending, and phoneme segmentation.

Intervention resulted in significant improvement on measures of rhyming and

phoneme awareness in the groups of preschool children with language impairments who received training. The treatment groups also significantly outperformed the control group. At the beginning of the study, children in the training groups performed poorly on the phoneme awareness tests. After training, the treatment groups were significantly better than the control group on the same tasks. Finally, the researchers found that phoneme awareness improvement correlated significantly with a measure of pre-literacy development.

Phonological awareness training using specific programs. Two studies in the review involved specific programs. Williams (1980) used the ABDs of Reading. This study will be discussed in the section on older children. The other study that used specific programs was that by McGuinness, McGuinness, and Donohue (1995). The researchers selected 45 first graders and assigned them to two experimental groups (one with 16 children and the other with 15 children) and a control group (with 14 children). The children had above-average verbal ability, and they also had some prior exposure to





54


letter-sound correspondences, phonics, and invented spelling. The training program used was Auditory Discrimination in Depth (ADD). The classroom teachers received a total of 32 hours of training in ADD.

The ADD consists of teaching children how sounds are formed by encouraging them to look closely at their mouth with help of mirrors. They are taught categorization of nasals, simple vowels, complex vowels, and multisyllable words. Multisyllable words are taught by using large colored felt pieces to represent syllables and blocks to stand for phonemes. Blending and segmenting were also taught using the blocks (to represent phonemes). The sessions were about 45 minutes in length everyday. The children in the control group engaged in their normal everyday activities. Posttests were administered to the children in both experimental groups and the control group.

ADD was effective in significantly increasing children's reading scores compared to their own initial performance. Both the experimental groups significantly outperformed the control group on word identification and on the Woodcock Reading Mastery series. The researchers also found that the ADD had a larger impact on decoding than on word recognition. The letter-sound correspondences and other phonological skills (blending, segmenting) facilitated the children's ability to read and spell. The investigators may have found positive results, because the children in the sample were already familiar with letter-sound associations and were already in a phonics program. This may have helped them to improve their reading and spelling skills.

From all the studies discussed thus far, it seems obvious that phonological

awareness training benefits children who are at-risk for reading problems and those who have not had formal reading instruction. Previous experimental studies focusing on





55


phonological awareness training have generated some conclusions that have important implications for clinicians and practitioners. The next section discusses the conclusions that have come from these studies.

Conclusions from Phonological Awareness Training Studies

The findings of the studies on phonological awareness training indicate that a

unidirectional causal model may not be appropriate for our understanding of the reading process. Evidence shows that early phonological processing skill predicts subsequent success in learning to read and that phonological processing is highly impacted by learning to read. Learning to read is facilitated if phoneme awareness is connected in a coherent way to graphemes for a child to be able to learn accurate and fluent decoding skills. The studies reviewed provide clinicians, practitioners, and researchers valuable information regarding phonological awareness and its relation to learning to read and how instruction in phonological awareness could be carried out. Some of the conclusions common to the studies are discussed below.

Children can learn phonological awareness skills even before formal reading instruction. Many studies showed that preschoolers who have not had formal reading instruction could learn phonological awareness skills such as blending and segmenting phonemes (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Brady, Fowler, Stone, & Winbury, 1994; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; Marsh & Mineo, 1977). If formal reading instruction is not required to learn phonological awareness skills, clinicians and practitioners could build these skills in children early in their literacy development. These phonological skills would enhance children's reading and spelling abilities and also improve the





56


reading performance of those children who may be at-risk for reading problems due to phonological deficits.

Children with phonological awareness deficits can be taught phonological awareness skills. Children who have phonological awareness deficits tend to have problems reading an alphabetic language. Because many of these children are not able to break words into individual sound units and match sounds to their symbols, they find decoding words and spelling difficult. However, research has shown that children with phonological awareness deficits and those who are at-risk can be taught phonological awareness skills required to read an alphabetic language (e.g., Brady, Fowler, Stone, & Winbury, 1994; Hurford et al., 1994; O'Connor, Slocum, & Jenkins, 1995; O'Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993). These skills include identifying initial sound in a word, blending and segmenting at the onset rime level, and blending and segmenting at the phoneme level. This conclusion seems most important for practitioners, because it provides hope that children with phonological awareness deficits can still learn those skills that are required to read an alphabetic language.

Phonological awareness skills, when taught, are enduring. Despite a dearth of longitudinal studies that addressed long-term effects of trained phonological awareness skills, training studies that involved a follow-up component showed evidence that trained phonological awareness skills tend to be maintained over an extended period of time (6 to

8 months) (e.g., Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; McGuinness, McGuinness, & Donohue, 1995). More follow-up studies that involve assessing children a year or more after training may provide more information about the lasting effects of phonological awareness training. However, the fact that these skills may be sustained implies that





57


phonological awareness training for those children with deficits is worthwhile and should be considered in remedial reading programs.

Phonological awareness training can facilitate word identification skills.

Experimental research on children with and without phonological deficits has provided evidence that phonological awareness skills facilitate word identification and spelling abilities (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Hurford et al., 1994; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; McGuinness, McGuinness, & Donohue, 1995; O'Connor, Slocum, & Jenkins, 1995). This finding implies that phonological awareness is a crucial prerequisite for reading. Hence, it makes sense to teach phonological awareness skills at an early age. Further, evidence shows that if children with phonological deficits are provided training in phonological awareness skills, their reading scores improve (e.g., Hurford et al., 1994). Thus the core problem in reading deficits may be phonological deficits, in which case it may be important to target these skills in children who are at-risk for reading problems.

Phonological awareness facilitates generalization. In addition to facilitating

reading and spelling performance, phonological awareness training has also been shown to facilitate generalization, (i.e., children are able to read new combinations of phonemes, even those that they have not encountered in the training situation) (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992). Phonological awareness training involving sound-symbol associations may help children make correspondences between orthographic patterns and their pronunciations. This ability would help children read new words while they simultaneously make associations with words they encountered previously. If children are able to read new combinations of phonemes after training, it





58


implies that to facilitate children's word decoding skills, phonological awareness skills should be an integral part of every emergent literacy program.

Phonological awareness training is facilitated by letter-sound correspondences.

Many studies have shown that children benefit from training if a component of lettersound associations is included, along with phoneme blending and segmentation (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Brady, Fowler, Stone, & Winbury, 1994; Gillam & van Kleeck, 1996; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). Training in letter-sound correspondences may help children to be aware of the fact that one symbol can have different sounds. This knowledge could increase children's fluency in word recognition. Further, because English is an alphabetic language, knowledge of symbols and their respective sounds is crucial in word decoding and spelling. However, training in letter-sound correspondence alone does not seem to be adequate; it should be accompanied by training in other phonological awareness skills, such as blending and segmenting (O'Connor, Slocum, & Jenkins, 1995).

Some level of phonological awareness is necessary for training to be effective.

Although studies have established that phonological awareness can be taught (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1983, 1985) and training in phonological awareness improves reading performance (Hurford et al., 1994; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; McGuinness, McGuinness, & Donohue, 1995), some studies suggest that children should already have some phonological awareness abilities for training to be effective (e.g., Layton, Deeny, Upton, & Tall, 1988; Williams, 1980). This finding suggests a reciprocal relationship between phonological awareness and reading ability (i.e., phonological awareness helps a reader benefit from instruction and facilitates





59


reading performance). Research, however, is not clear as to the exact level of phonological awareness required in order to benefit from instruction.

The research in phonological awareness has been tremendously informative about beginning reading. Not only has a predictive relationship between phonological awareness and reading success been demonstrated, but it has also been established that phonological awareness is an important prerequisite for learning to read. Training studies have shown that providing systematic instruction in phonological awareness to kindergarten and first grade children can have a positive impact on beginning reading and spelling acquisition, especially when the instruction includes helping children make the connections between the sound segments of the word and the letters representing those segments.

For those researchers and practitioners interested in improving reading instruction and reducing reading failure, the real challenge is to ensure that all children are able to benefit from reading instruction. Research-based findings on phonological awareness training have important classroom implications, especially for those children who have reading problems and those who are at-risk. However, one limitation of these findings is that they may not be generalizable to all children who have reading problems. Almost all landmark studies on phonological awareness training have focused on only one population (i.e., elementary school students). Thus, a large gap exists in the literature with respect to training studies that target older students (middle and high school students) with phonological deficits.





60


Older Students with Phonological Awareness Deficits

Research on beginning reading has established that phonological awareness is a prerequisite for learning to read (Adams, 1990; Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1985). This finding implies that deficits in phonological awareness lead to reading problems, and research has established that children who have phonological deficits do have problems learning to read (Shaywitz, 1996). Although research on phonological awareness training has shown that children who have deficits can learn many of the phonological awareness skills, some studies have proved that these deficits tend to be persistent over time (Juel, 1988; MacDonald & Cornwall, 1995; Stuart & Masterson, 1992). The stability of phonological awareness deficits implies that students in middle and high school who have deficits will also experience difficulties in word decoding and spelling skills. The purpose of this section is to present information as to why middle school students may be a viable target population for phonological awareness training. The following topics will be discussed: prevalence of reading problems among children in the middle school, the nature of instruction in middle school, and phonological awareness training for middle school students. Prevalence of Reading Problems in Middle School

Carnine, Silbert, and Kameenui (1990) suggested that reading deficits are the principal cause of failure in school. Considering the general school population, 10% to 15% of students experience difficulty in reading (Harris & Sipay, 1990). In special education, a majority of all students with learning disabilities have reading problems (Williams, 1980). It has also been documented that adolescents with learning disabilities experience academic deficits (Mercer, 1997). In a study of 300 students with learning





61


disabilities, Deshler, Warner, Schumaker, and Alley (1983) reported a clear trend in achievement levels from 7h to 12th grade. In reading and written language, the average performance of these students began at the high third grade level of 7th graders and plateaued at the 5t grade level for upper grades. Reith and Polsgrove (1994) also have documented academic deficits of adolescents with learning disabilities. They noted that the deficits are across the areas of reading, spelling, and math.

These studies provide evidence that many middle school students have deficits in basic skill areas. Many adolescents with learning disabilities fail minimum competency tests even when the tests are modified for them (Reith & Polsgrove, 1994). These deficits in basic skills and the skills measured on minimum competency tests are supported in the literature (Adams, 1990; Algozzine, O'Shea, Stoddard, & Crews, 1988). Deficits in basic skill areas (such as reading and spelling) could prevent students from progressing academically and learning higher order skills. Consequently, these students may have deficits in more than one area, because they may not be able to apply their basic skills effectively.

To determine the prevalence of phonological deficits in middle school students, the author conducted a study in Alachua County, Florida. As part of this study, special education teachers were contacted from four public middle schools. The teachers were asked to identify students who demonstrated reading problems. In this manner, 64 students in special education classrooms were identified and were administered the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (LACT). The purpose of the LACT is to determine if students could identify individual sounds within words and perform phonological operations such as phoneme substitution and reversal. (A more detailed





62


description of the test is presented in chapter 3). Table 2 provides descriptive information about the sample, including scores on the LACT. Table 2

Descriptive Information for Subjects by School



School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 Total Gender Male 4 5 2 27 38

Female 7 3 2 14 26 Mean Age 12.40 13.90 13.00 13.60 Grade 6 9 2 9 20

7 2 6 1 10 19 8 2 1 22 25 Race Caucasian 5 4 2 12 23

African- 6 4 2 28 40
American

Asian

Hispanic/Latino 1 1

Other

SES Free lunch 9 5 1 26 41

Reduced lunch 2 3 3 12 20 Mean IQ 91.40 100.40 100.60 90.40 (WISC-R)

Mean 40.74 68.81 69.90 54.90 Scores on
LACT





63


All of the students scored below the average score for middle school students (i.e., 93). They had difficulties with phonological skills such as phoneme addition, phoneme deletion, phoneme substitution, and phoneme reversal. These difficulties may be contributing to the reading problems they demonstrate in the classroom. The findings of this study suggest that there are middle school students who have reading deficits and that these deficits may be exacerbated by deficits in phonological awareness skills.

Research has suggested that adolescents tend to have academic problems because of the many demands placed on them in the middle school level. These demands include working independently with minimal feedback, demonstrating a broad set of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, taking frequent tests, expressing information through writing, and maintaining appropriate social interactions (Schumaker & Deshler, 1984; Putnam, 1992). In addition to these demands, the academic problems of middle school students may be exacerbated by the nature of instruction in the middle school level. Nature of Instruction in Middle School

Some researchers have been concerned about the reasons behind adolescents' persistent academic problems and basic skill deficits. One explanation is that the secondary school setting does not provide adequate instruction in basic skills, and the criterion for success shifts from skill acquisition to content acquisition (Mercer, 1997). Many middle school teachers may assume that students already have the prerequisite basic skills. Moreover, even if middle school students get additional instruction in basic skills, they may not be able to practice applying their skills in the classroom, because teachers may concentrate more on higher order strategies.





64


Two studies provided information about the nature of instruction in the middle school level (Garcia et al., 1995; Maclver, 1991). Garcia et al.'s (1995) study targeted a

7 grade public school in a Midwestern school district. The investigators conducted observations of the classrooms and interviewed nine classroom teachers, two special education teachers, and a Chapter I teacher. With respect to reading instruction, the teachers reported that students engaged in oral reading in round-robin fashion and instruction was mostly whole-group. According to the teachers, comprehension was an important skill to develop. However, they did not teach students comprehension strategies. Most of the teachers did not feel comfortable teaching basic skills in reading to middle school students. Students who had reading deficits were not provided with additional instruction nor were they taught how to read or learn from textbooks. None of the teachers assigned out of class reading, on the grounds that they would not be completed.

Maclver's (1991) study proposed to describe the nature of remedial instruction in the middle schools. Questionnaires were sent out to 1025 schools, of which 1,008 responded. Results of the survey showed that the most common remedial activities were extra work or homework (in 56% of the schools), pull-out programs in reading (50%), after- or before-school coaching classes (46%), and peer-tutoring (45%). Although the study did not address the exact type of reading method(s) used during remedial instruction, the investigator found that the majority of the schools did not have one-onone tutoring for students.

Although few studies provide information about the curriculum in the middle school level and the nature of reading instruction, the existing studies seem to suggest





65


that middle school students who have reading deficits may not be getting adequate instruction in basic skills. According to Juel (1988), many secondary schools tend to provide instruction in higher order skills (e.g., comprehension). Instruction in higher order skills may not benefit students who have reading problems, because their problems may lie at a more basic level. Juel (1988) proposed that the most straightforward way to reduce reading deficits in adolescents is to concentrate on the rapid and early attainment of lower level and prerequisite skills.

Phonological Awareness Instruction for Middle School Students

According to some studies, some middle school students have problems in word decoding. Hence, it would make sense to determine if students in middle school can be taught phonological awareness skills and if so whether reading acquisition accelerates. Among all the studies that focused on phonological awareness training, only two studies targeted older students (Williams, 1980; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987).

Williams (1980) conducted a 2-year study to determine the effectiveness of an instructional program called ABDs of Reading. During the first year, the investigator selected children who were identified as having learning disabilities. The ages of the children ranged from 7 to 12. The pretests included auditory segmentation and blending of both syllables and phonemes, letter-sound correspondences, and decoding. According to Williams (1980) those children who were likely to profit from the program were selected. No cut-off scores were reported in the study. A total of 63 children formed the training group. Pretests were also administered to another group of children in comparable school districts. A total of 64 children from this group formed the control. For purposes of comparison, the pretests were also administered to a group of normally





66


functioning second graders. (The scores of the second graders were substantially higher than those of the other groups).

Classroom teachers were trained to use the program. They were asked to use the program everyday for 20 minutes. In the program (ABDs of Reading), children first learned the concept of analysis (segmenting) at the syllable level and then at the phoneme level. Children learned to represent phonemes using wooden squares. The next section, blending, was also taught using squares. Only CVC (consonant-vowel-consonant) units were taught. After the instruction on analysis and blending, letters were introduced, and letter-sound correspondence was taught. Again using wooden squares, which had letters on them, children learned to decode and spell combinations of CVC units. Teachers provided a meaningful context for the words by using them in a sentence. Overall, 26 weeks of instruction were completed.

Posttests indicated that scores of the trained group were significantly higher than those of the comparison groups on letter-sound correspondences, saying the middle phoneme in a word, saying all three phonemes in a word, and decoding. Even 6 months after the completion of the program, the scores of the instructed group were still higher than those of the comparison group.

During the second year of the study, the investigator selected classrooms from six different school districts. All classrooms were randomly assigned to treatment or a control group. There were 24 experimental classrooms and 16 control classrooms. Pretests were administered to all the children. The same instructional procedures were followed during the second year. Results from the posttest data indicated that the performance of the experimental groups improved significantly from pretest to posttest





67


on every measure. Also, the experimental groups scored significantly higher than the control groups on every subtest of the posttest except one phoneme analysis subtest (saying initial phoneme). With respect to transfer, the experimental groups performed significantly better than did the control groups on unfamiliar items, indicating that transfer occurred and that the instructional program had succeeded in teaching strategies of decoding.

Vellutino and Scanlon (1987) conducted an experimental study involving second and sixth graders. Children in this study were divided into poor and normal reader groups on the basis of oral reading ability. Poor readers were at or below the 10th percentile on the Gilmore Oral Reading Test, and normal readers were at or above the 50th percentile. Second grade normal readers were matched with sixth grade poor readers for oral reading ability and were found to be equivalent on both decoding and phoneme segmentation ability.

The five treatment conditions were phonemic segmentation training (PST);

response acquisition (RA); phonemic segmentation and response acquisition (PSTRA); and two control conditions. Children in the PST group received 5 or 6 consecutive days (half-hour per day) of training in phoneme analysis. The specific exercises closely paralleled those given on the phoneme segmentation tests (i.e., counting phonemes, vocalizing phonemes, and combining phonemes). The stimuli used for these exercises consisted of both real words and pseudowords, presented both auditorily and visually. Segmentation exercises were followed by a free recall task and a paired associates learning task. The free recall task involved memory for nonsense syllables and was designed to provide children with practice in segmenting auditorily presented syllables.





68


The paired associates task was designed to provide subjects practice in detecting grapheme-phoneme correspondences in novel alphabetic trigraphs which were paired with consonant-vowel-consonant nonsense syllables.

Children in the RA condition were taught two separate tasks. The first involved 20 trials of free recall of four nonsense syllables. These stimuli were presented auditorily and in random order on each trial. The second task involved 15 association learning trials on which the same nonsense syllables were paired with animal cartoon pictures. The free recall task assessed children's ability to store and retrieve phonetic strings devoid of meaning. The picture-syllable task served as a measure of children's ability to learn the names of objects and simulated the process whereby children learn to attach verbal labels they have heard to objects in their environment.

Children in the PSTRA condition were given both phonemic segmentation training and response acquisition training. All five groups were tested 2 days after training. Results showed that poor readers in a given grade performed below the normal readers in that grade on both tests of decoding and segmentation. The second grade normal readers performed as well as the sixth grade poor readers on both tests. With respect to free recall of nonsense syllables and picture-syllable association, poor readers in both grade levels were less proficient than their normal reading peers on both free recall and picture-syllable. Findings also showed that poor readers at both grade levels performed considerably below the normal readers on tests of word identification. Despite these findings, results showed that with each reader group at both grade levels, the experimental treatments had positive effects. Further the scores of the children in the





69


PST and PSTRA were significantly higher than the other groups, but there was no significant difference between the PST and PSTRA groups.

The investigators concluded that although older children can learn decoding and phoneme segmentation skills, their phoneme awareness skills may set upper limits on their ability to identify words. Although the poor reader groups exposed to treatment performed better than the control groups, they did not come up to the level of the normal readers. The reason for this may be due to the short duration of the training program. However, the findings seem to suggest that older children can learn phonological manipulations that would help them in word decoding.

Both intervention studies that have involved older students suggest that these

students are capable of learning phonological awareness skills. Although older students may not reach the level of their normally developing peers with respect to phonological processing abilities, instruction in phonological awareness may lead to some improvements in reading and spelling abilities. The persistence of phonological deficits into adolescence may be due to that fact that these skills are not targeted in the middle school level. Because instruction in basic skills tend to be ignored, students' deficits may continue to grow. In order to prevent failure and to improve reading performance, it is crucial for teachers to incorporate some aspects of beginning reading into remedial programs.

Implications for Research

The literature reviewed in this chapter provides a theoretical and empirical basis for this study. Research on beginning reading has provided evidence that phonological awareness is an important aspect of learning to decode words. Adams' theoretical model





70


(Adams, 1990) proposes that for reading comprehension to occur, the reader must have adequate phonological awareness skills. According to Adams' model, the phonological processor is responsible for breaking words into their individual units and performing phonological manipulations. If the phonological processor does not function properly, higher order functions (such as comprehension) cannot be called into play. That phonological awareness deficits lead to reading problems has also been suggested by the phonological deficit hypothesis (Shaywitz, 1996). Deficits in phonological awareness leads to difficulties in word decoding and eventually comprehension. Information based on these theoretical models imply that the reading problems experienced by older children may result from phonological awareness deficits.

Because many remedial programs in the middle school level seem to ignore basic skills such as phonological awareness, deficits in phonological processing abilities tend to persist, leading to many years of reading failure. If research has shown that training in phonological awareness results in improvements in phonological awareness skills, word decoding, and spelling, it seems logical to target these skills even in older children who have deficits in decoding. By teaching older students phonological awareness skills crucial to the reading process, it is hoped that these skills would improve their word decoding abilities.

This study builds on the existing research by examining the effects of

phonological awareness instruction on a population that has been previously neglected middle school students. This approach is supported by Adams' model, the phonological deficit hypothesis, data on the prevalence of reading deficits in the middle school level,





71


and successful results from the body of phonological awareness training research targeting beginning readers and children with reading deficits.














CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

In this chapter, the methods and procedures of the study are presented. The

chapter begins with the hypothesis that was tested. The second section is a description of the subjects, sampling procedures, instructional procedures, and measures. The subsequent sections include descriptions of the design and treatment of the data.

Hypotheses and Research Question

The purpose of the study was to determine the effects of phonological awareness instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities who were identified as having reading problems. The primary research question of the study is: Does instruction in phonological awareness skills influence the acquisition of phonological awareness and word identification skills? To address this question, the following null hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of confidence: Hi: Students who receive phonological awareness instruction will not outperform students who do not receive instruction on measures of phonological awareness, including elision, blending words, nonword repetition, phoneme reversal, blending nonwords, segmenting words, and segmenting nonwords. H2: Students who receive phonological awareness instruction will not outperform students who do not receive instruction on a measure of word identification.





72





73


Setting and Subiects

This section includes a description of the instructional settings and information about the subjects. The setting description includes information about each school. The subject description includes demographic information by school and by group. An explanation of sampling and assignment procedures is also provided.

Instructional settings. The study required a sample of students at the middle school level who have learning disabilities and have been identified as having reading problems. Three public middle schools in Alachua County were selected. These schools have a high percentage of students in ESE classrooms, and they provided permission to include their students in the study. The socioeconomic status of individual students was not considered as a factor in this study. However, this information is presented along with other demographic information in Table 3.

Subject description. Fifty middle school students were screened using the

Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test described later in this chapter. Of these 50 students, 40 were selected as participants in this study. Teachers were asked to identify those students who had poor attendance records or who, for any other reason, may not be able to complete the entire instructional process. These children were eliminated from the pool of participants. Parental informed consent for participation were obtained for all participants as required by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (See Appendix A). A summary of the demographic information from the 40 students is presented by school in Table 3. Table 3 also includes the group assignment of subjects from each school.





74


Table 3

Descriptive Information for Subjects by School


School 1 School 2 School 3 Total Gender Male 6 8 6 20
Female 7 7 6 20

Mean Age 13.50 13.70 12.45

Grade 6 8 8 7 5 11 4 20 8 8 4 12

Race Caucasian 4 4 3 11
African- 7 11 9 27
American
Asian
Hispanic/ 2 2
Latino Other

SES Free lunch 5 6 4 15
Reduced 8 9 8 25
lunch

Group A 7 8 5 20 assignment B 6 7 7 20



Table 4

Descriptive Information for Subjects by Group



Group A Group B
Gender: Male 12 8
Female 8 12

Mean age 12.90 12.90





75


Table 4--continued.


Group A Group B
Grade: 6 2 6
7 8 12 8 10 2 Race: Caucasian 9 2
African-American 10 17
Asian
Hispanic/Latino 1 1
Other

SES: Free Lunch 7 8
Fee-reduced Lunch 15 10

Test Mean Scores Group A Group B Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test- 99 98 R (IQ)

Lindamood Auditory 49.00 49.35 Conceptualization Test


Woodcock Reading Mastery Test- 41.35 40.45
R
Word Identification

Comprehensive Test of 67.35 63.75 Phonological Processing



Matching was used to assign the 40 students into two groups, A and B. The variable that was used for matching was the score on the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test. Table 4 includes information on the two groups. The table also includes test data for the groups.





76


Instructional Procedures

The instructional procedures are described in this section. First, the duration and number of sessions for each group are outlined. The following sections include an account of various aspects of the instructional sessions. Procedures for Instructional Sessions

Instruction in phonological awareness skills were provided on a one-to-one basis for students in both groups A and B. The duration of instruction for both groups was about 4 weeks. Students were instructed for 3 days per week, and they were taught 2 lessons per day. The total number of lessons for both groups was 18 (including a review). The instructional procedures for students in both groups were exactly the same, except that instruction for group B began after instruction for group A has been completed. During instruction, presentation of skills was conducted using the direct instruction procedures described by Carnine, Silbert, and Kameenui (1990). For each skill, the instructor modeled the correct response and provided feedback as the students practiced with the particular skill. When an error was noted in a student's response, the instructor modeled the correct response.

Instructional Program

The instructional program that was used for the study was the Great Leaps

Reading program devised by Mercer and Campbell (1998). It was originally designed for children from kindergarten through second grade. For the purposes of this study, some changes were made to make lessons more age appropriate. For example, two lessons (repeating words and tapping number of words) were omitted. Following are some lessons that were added:





77


1. Blending two words to make a new word

2. Segmenting a word to make two words

3. Phoneme reversal

4. Phoneme substitution Sequence of Instruction

The students worked with easy tasks first and then moved to more difficult ones. The sequence of instruction was as follows: rhyming; identifying words with same beginning or final sound; blending words, syllables, and phonemes; segmenting words, syllables, and phonemes; phoneme deletion; phoneme reversal; and phoneme substitution. This sequence was suggested by previous studies (Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; Yopp, 1988). For blending and segmenting, the sequence that was followed was: words, syllables, and phonemes. This sequence was also suggested by previous research (Goswami, 1995). The lessons for each skill are presented in Table 5. Table 5

Lessons for each phonological skill



Skill Lesson(s)

Selecting the odd one out (the word that doesn't rhyme) Rhyming Generating rhymes


Selecting words with same beginning sound Selecting words with different beginning sound Beginning or final sound Selecting words with same final sound
Selecting words with different final sound Saying beginning, middle, or final sound of a word





78


Table 5--continued.



Blending two words to make a new word Blending Blending syllables Blending phonemes


Segmenting a word into two words Segmenting Segmenting words into syllables Segmenting words into phonemes Saying a word with a part or a beginning sound missing Phoneme deletion Saying a word with a final or middle sound missing


Phoneme reversal Saying a word with two sounds reversed

Phoneme substitution Saying a word with one sound replaced by another sound

Review All lessons Nature of Lessons

Each lesson constituted only one type of task. The lesson began with specific explanations of what the student had to do. The instructor provided an example and modeled the right response. (Table 6 consists of the explanations that the instructor provided for each lesson and the type of response required by the student, and Appendix B has the lessons with all the items). To ensure understanding, two practice items were provided for each lesson. Then, the instructor scored the student's performance on 30 items for each lesson. Students practiced each lesson until they reached mastery. The mastery score was set at 25 for each lesson.

The mode of presentation for all the tasks was auditory, and students'responses for all tasks was verbal. If students offered an incorrect response or stated that they did





79


not know the right response, the instructor provided the correct response verbally. For

every task, correct responses was documented on a chart for each student. When the

student made an incorrect response on a particular item, the item was scored as an error,

but the instructor immediately provided the right response. Number of correct responses

was noted on a progress chart so that students could monitor their own progress on each

lesson until mastery was reached.

Table 6

Description of individual lessons



Selecting the odd one out
Purpose To determine if students can pick the odd one out; i.e. select the word that does not rhyme.
Explanation provided by I am going to say three words. I want you to tell me the one instructor word does not rhyme. For example, if I say, "cat, sat, milk,"
you would say "milk."
Response required by Saying the word that does not rhyme student
Generating rhymes
Purpose To determine if students can produce rhyming words given a target word.
Explanation provided by I am going to say a word. I want you to tell me a word that instructor rhymes with the word that I say. For example, if I say, "book," you would say "look" or "cook."
Response required by Saying a word that rhymes with the target word. student
Selecting words with same beginning sound
Purpose To determine if students can compare beginning sounds of words and select two words (from a list of three) that have the same beginning sound.
Explanation provided by I am going to say three words. I want you to tell me which instructor two words have the same beginning sound. For example, if I say "tent, race, tall," you would say "tent, tall."
Response required by Saying the two words that have the beginning sound. student





80


Table 6--continued.


Selecting a word with different beginning sound Purpose To determine if students can pick the odd one out; i.e., from a list of three words, selecting a word that has a different beginning sound.
Explanation provided by I am going to say three words. I want you to tell me which instructor word has a different beginning sound. For example, if I say, "mine, beach, bat," you would say "mine."
Response required by Saying the word that has the different beginning sound. student
Selecting words with the same final sound Purpose To determine if students can pick out two words (from a list of three) that have the same final sounds. Explanation provided by I am going to say three words. I want you to tell me which instructor two words have the same final sound. For example, if I say, "boat, seed, hat," you would say "boat."
Response required by Saying the two words that have the same final sound student
Selecting words with different final sound Purpose To determine if students can pick out a word (from a list of three words) that has a different final sound Explanation provided by I am going to say three words. I want you to tell me which instructor word has a different final sound. For example, if I say, "bat, time, coat," you would say "time."
Response required by Saying the word that has a different sound. student
Saying beginning, middle, or final sound of a word
Purpose To determine if students can identify the beginning, middle, or final sounds in a given word
Explanation provided by a. I am going to say a word. You need to tell me the instructor beginning sound. For example, if I say, "mouse," you would say /m/
b. I am going to say a word. You need to tell me the middle sound. For example, if I say, "cot," you would say /o/ c. I am going to say a word. You need to tell me the final sound. For example, if I say, "leaf," you would say /f/
Response required by Saying the beginning, middle, or final sounds of a word student according to specific instructions Blending two words to make a new word
Purpose To determine if students can put two words together to make a new word
Explanation provided by I am going to say two words. I want you to put them instructor together to make one word. For example if I say, "butter, fly," I want you to say "butterfly"





81


Table 6--continued.


Response required by Saying the two words as one whole word student
Blending syllables
Purpose To determine if students can blend syllables to make a word Explanation provided by I am going to say two parts of a word. I want you to put instructor them together to make a whole word. For example, if I say, "sum mer," you would say "summer."
Response required by Saying the syllables as one whole word. student
Blending phonemes
Purpose To determine if students can blend individual sounds to make a word
Explanation provided by I am going to say some sounds. I want you to put the sounds instructor together to make a word. For example, if I say, "/p/ /a/ /n/,"
you would say "pan."
Response required by Saying the whole word student
Segmenting a word into two words Purpose To determine if students can segment a word into two words Explanation provided by I am going to say a word. I want you to break the word into instructor two words. For example, if I say "buttermilk," you would say "butter, milk."
Response required by Segmenting the word and saying the two words student
Segmenting words into syllables Purpose To determine if students can segment a word into syllables
Explanation provided by I am going to say a word. I want you to break the word into instructor smaller parts. For example, if I say "summer," you would say, "sum, mer."
Response required by Segmenting the word and saying the syllables. student
Segmenting words into phonemes
Purpose To determine if students can break a word into its individual sounds.
Explanation provided by I am going to say a word. I want you to tell me each sound instructor in the word. For example, if I say, "jot," you would say "/j/ /o/ /t/"
Response required by Saying the individual letter sounds in the target word student
Saying a word with a part or beginning sound missing
Purpose To determine if students can delete the beginning part of a word to make a new word





82


Table 6--continued.


Explanation provided by I am going to ask you to say a word without saying a certain instructor part of the word. For example, if I say, "Say 'cat' without saying /c/," you would say 'at.'
Response required by Deleting the beginning part of a word and saying the new student word, according to instructions.
Saying a word with a final or middle sound missing
Purpose To determine if student can delete the final or middle sound from a word to make a new word Explanation provided by I am going to say a word without saying the ending sound or instructor middle sound of the word. For example, if I say, "Say lost' without saying /t/," you would say los.'
Response required by Deleting the final or middle sound in a word and saying the student new word.
Phoneme reversal
Purpose To determine if students can reverse the order of two phonemes in a word to make a new word
Explanation provided by I am going to say a word. I want you to reverse the order of instructor two sounds and say the new word. For example, for the word "top," I want you to switch places for /t/ and /p/. So you would tell me "pot."
Response required by Reversing the order of two phonemes and saying the new student word.
Phoneme substitution
Purpose To determine if students can say a word if a sound is replaced by another sound
Explanation provided by I am going to say a word. I want you to remove one sound instructor from that word and replace it with another sound and then say the new word. For example, if I say, "Say 'pit;' now remove the /p/ sound and put in a /ll sound, you would say, 'lit.'
Response required by Saying the new word with the replaced sound student


Reinforcement. To encourage student participation and effort during instructional

sessions, a progress chart (See Appendix C) was maintained in a folder for each student.

Students had opportunities to see their charts and evaluate their performance. Students

were also provided verbal reinforcers (praise) during instruction.





83


Research Instrumentation

The research instruments that were used in this study included the screening measure, the pretest measures, and the posttest measures. Screening Measure

The nature of the instruction suggested that the students for this study should be those students who had low levels of phonological awareness. Therefore, a screening instrument was administered to identify potential subjects. The screening instrument was the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (LAC Test) (Lindamood & Lindamood, 1971, 1979). This test was chosen because it had norms for older students (ages 11 and above), while other tests of phonological awareness do not.

Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test. The LAC test is an individualized test designed to measure auditory perception and conceptualization of speech sounds. (A copy of test items is included in Appendix C.) In this test, students use colored blocks to represent phonemes in either consonant sequences (e.g., /p/ /p/ Im/) or nonsense words in a series or chain (e.g., "Show me /a/"; "if that says /a/, show me /ap/"). The test contains a structured training process that involves left-to-right sequencing of the blocks and using one color to represent each different sound.

Reliability of the test was determined by pre/post-testing with alternate forms of the LAC test, on a sample of 52 students (four at each grade level, K-12). The test-retest reliability between Form A and Form B was +.96. With respect to validity, correlations of the LAC total test with the Wide Range Achievement Test combined Reading and Spelling were found to range from +.66 to +.81 at different grade levels, with an average of +.73.





84


The LAC test is scored using the following scoring procedure. One point was allotted for each correct response. (For category I-A and category I-B, students had to use the blocks to represent phonemes in consonant sequences and for category II, students had to make nonsense words with the blocks.) A total raw score was converted to a standard score to allow comparisons across grade levels. According to the norms of the test, for middle school students, the minimum performance score is 93. Those students who scored below 93 were selected for the study. Pretest Measures

Pretest measures assessed word identification and phonological awareness skills. The Woodcock Reading Mastery Revised (Woodcock, 1987) and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999) were used for the pretest measures.

Word identification. The word identification test was administered to determine if students could read words without a context. The test also provided information about students' word reading levels. To assess word identification, the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R) was administered. The word identification subtest of the WRMT-R required students to pronounce words in isolation. This subtest measured students' ability to read words on sight. Further, students could not rely on background information, because there was no context for the words (i.e., the words are not embedded in a sentence). For this subtest, raw scores were calculated and used for analyses.

Reliability and validity of the WRMT-R. The author provided data on the

internal-consistency reliability of the WRMT-R. These data were provided separately for





85


grades 1, 3, 5, 8, and 11 and for college and adult groups. Reliabilities ranged from .8 to .9 for total test scores. Reliabilities were also calculated using the split-half procedure. Split-half reliability coefficients for the word identification subtest was .98. Concurrent validity data are provided for the total reading score of WRMT-R and total reading scores of 4 other batteries (Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Iowa Test of Educational Development, PIAT, and Woodcock-Johnson Reading Achievement). These correlations range from .78 to .92 for samples of 48 to 86 examinees. Correlations among the total score of WRMT-R and the total score of Woodcock-Johnson Reading Test were reported for grades 1 through 8. These correlations ranged from .60 to .91.

Phonological Awareness. To assess phonological awareness, the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP) was administered. The purpose of this test was to identify individuals who have deficits in phonological awareness skills. The CTOPP has the following subtests: elision, blending words, nonword repetition, phoneme reversal, blending nonwords, segmenting words, segmenting nonwords, sound matching, memory for digits, rapid color naming, rapid object naming, rapid digit naming, and rapid letter naming. The sound matching subtest was omitted, because it is used with 5 and 6 year olds. Five other subtests (memory for digits, rapid color naming, rapid object naming, rapid digit naming, and rapid letter naming) were omitted, because the intervention does not address those specific skills. The following subtests were administered: Elision, blending words, nonword repetition, phoneme reversal, blending nonwords, segmenting words, and segmenting nonwords. These subtests are described below.





86


1. Elision. The elision subtest measures the extent to which an individual can say a word, then say what is left after dropping out designated sounds. For example, the student is instructed, "Say bold." After repeating "bold," the student is told, "Now say bold without saying l/b." This subtest has 20 items.

2. Blending words. This 20-item subtest measures an individual's ability to

combine sounds to form words. For example, the student is asked, "What word do these sounds make: "t/-/oil?" The correct response is the word "toy."

3. Nonword repetition. This subtest has 18 items, and measures an individual's ability to repeat nonwords that range in length from 3 to 15 sounds. For example, the student would repeat the word, "nigong."

4. Blending nonwords. This subtest (consisting of 18 items) measures an individual's ability to combine speech sounds to make nonwords. For example, the student is asked, "What made-up word do these sounds make: "/nim/ /by/?" The correct response is "nimby."

5. Segmenting words. This subtest measures the ability to say the separate

phonemes that make up a word. The student is told to repeat a word, then to say it one sound at a time. For example, if the examiner tells the student to say "beast" and then say it one sound at a time, the student would say, "/b/ /e/ /s/ /t/." The total number of items for this subtest is 20.

6. Segmenting nonwords. This subtest (20 items) measures an individual's ability to say the separate phonemes that make up a nonword. For example, if the student listens to the nonword, "ren," he / she would say "/r/ /e/ /n/."





87


7. Phoneme reversal. This 18-item subtest measures the extent to which an

individual can reorder speech sounds to form words. For example, after listening to the sounds, "ood," the student is instructed to repeat "ood" and then to say "ood" backwards. The correct response is "do."

Raw scores were obtained for each subtest and then summed to obtain a total raw score. This score will be used for analyses.

Reliability and validity of the CTOPP. The authors of the CTOPP reported testretest reliabilities for each of the subtests. These reliabilities are shown in Table 7. The authors also reported concurrent validity for the CTOPP. The subtests of the CTOPP were correlated with the word identification and word analysis subtests of the WRMT-R. Some of the subtests of the CTOPP were also correlated with the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test to further establish the validity. Information about validity is summarized in table 8.. Table 7

Test retest reliabilities for the CTOPP subtests

Subtest Reliability Elision .79 Blending words .72 Nonword repetition .75 Rapid letter naming .72 Phoneme reversal .79 Blending nonwords .77 Segmenting words .79 Segmenting nonwords .86





88


Table 8

Concurrent validity for the CTOPP



WRMT-R Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test
CTOPP subtests Word Identification Word Analysis Elision .53 .74 .75 Blending words .16 .32 .58 Memory for .46 .36 .48 digits
Rapid digit .57 .70 .51 naming
Nonword .22 .40 .41 repetition
Rapid letter .52 .65 .49 naming


Mid-test and Posttest Measures

A mid-test (test 2) was administered to both groups after instruction was

completed for group A. The word identification and the phonological awareness tests were used for the mid-test. A posttest (test 3) was administered to both groups after group B completed instruction. The posttest comprised the same measures as the midtest.

Experimental Design

A within group repeated measures design was used for this study. At the outset, all students were given the pretest. Then the sample was split into two equivalent groups, A and B, based on scores on the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test. Instruction began for group A alone. After instruction for group A was completed, both





89


groups were given the mid-test (test 2). At this point, instruction began for group B. After group B completed instruction, both groups were given the posttest (test 3).

Treatment of the Data

The data were analyzed to determine if any significant differences existed

between the two groups on any of the measures. Baseline data, including the mean for each group on each of the pretest measures were collected at the outset of the study. The pretest means were compared to determine if there were any significant differences between the groups. ANOVAs were conducted to compare group means on the word identification subtest of the Woodcock and CTOPP separately. These comparisons told us if instruction had an effect on performance scores. Table 9 contains an illustration of the comparisons to be made during the analysis for each hypothesis. Dependent t-tests were also conducted to examine more closely the differences between cell means (for the CTOPP).

Table 9

Design for Testing the Null Hypotheses



Dependent Group A Group B
Measures
Midtest (Test 2) Midtest (Test 2) CTOPP HI: There will be no statistically significant difference
between the groups on measures of phonological
awareness.

Word H2: There will be no statistically significant difference Identification between the groups on a measure of word identification. (Woodcock)













CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of phonological awareness instruction for middle school students who have been identified as having phonological awareness deficits. Two hypotheses were formulated and tested. The general question of the study was as follows: Does phonological awareness instruction influence the acquisition of phonological awareness and word identification? To investigate this question, 40 middle school students with phonological awareness deficits were split into two groups, A and B. At the outset, both groups were given the pretest. Then, group A began intervention. After intervention was completed for group A, both groups were given a second test (test 2). At this point, group B was provided instruction. After group B completed intervention, both groups were given test 3. The effects of the instruction on phonological awareness skills and word identification skills of the students in both groups were measured and compared.

This chapter contains the results of the statistical analyses of the data from this study. First, the reliability of instructional procedures is explained. Second, the statistical model used to analyze the data is presented, and the results of the data analyses are discussed. Finally, the hypotheses are examined in light of the statistical results.







90





91


Reliability of Instructional Procedures

Procedures were implemented to ensure the reliability of instructional procedures throughout the duration of the study. Because two groups were used, it was necessary to ensure that instructional procedures for both groups were consistent. Procedural Reliability

The researcher conducted the instruction for both groups at all times. In some

situations, having the researcher as the instructor for two treatment groups may introduce a bias, because the researcher is not blind to the treatment conditions and outcomes for the groups. However, in this study, the design itself controlled for such a bias. The research design required both treatment groups to receive exactly the same instructional program and to make similar gains after instruction. Further, the two groups were not instructed at the same time. Group B began intervention only after group A completed intervention. Thus, the chances are less that a bias on the instructor's part could have facilitated one group to perform higher than the other group.

With respect to the instructional program, scripted lessons were used for both groups. Consequently, everyone listened to the same explanations, introductions, and examples. The instructor also made sure that all students in both groups completed the same number of lessons. To further ensure fidelity of treatment, the researcher had planned to be formally observed by a masters student. The purpose of these observations was to ensure the consistent implementation of the instructional program. However, due to circumstances beyond the researcher's control, these observations were not conducted.





92


Statistical Analysis of the Data

Statistical analyses were conducted to ensure the initial equivalence of the two

groups. This section presents data on the ages, gender, and race of the participants of the study. In addition, results of the statistical analyses are examined to compare the effects of training on the phonological awareness and word identification skills of the students. Equivalence of the Intervention Groups

Several analyses were completed to determine if there were any preexisting

differences between group A and group B. The mean age for both groups was the same (12.9). A chi-square (X2) test was used to compare the two groups by gender. The X2 revealed no differences (at the 0.05 level) between the groups for gender (X2 = 1.6, p =

0.20). Table 10 provides a summary of the distribution of subjects into groups by gender, race, and age.

Table 10

Distribution of Subjects by Gender, Race, and Age



Group Gender Race Mean Age
Female Male Caucasian African Hispanic American
A 8 12 9 10 1 12.90 B 12 8 2 17 1 12.90



The means of the pretest scores for the two groups were calculated. Using 1-tests, the pretest scores of the groups were compared to determine if any differences between the groups existed. No significant differences between the two groups' pretest means were found. Table 11 includes the means and standard deviations of the Lindamood





93


Auditory Conceptualization Test (LACT) for both groups. This test was administered at the beginning of the study to select the students. It was also used to match the students before assigning them to the two treatment groups. Table 11

Means and Standard Deviations for the LACT



Dependent Measure Group A Group B t df p (n=20) (n=20)

Mean Mean
(SD) (SD)
Lindamood Auditory 49.00 49.35 0.09 19 .9302
Conceptualization Test (13.69) (13.45)



Descriptive Summary of Pretest to Posttest Data

Table 12 and 13 present the means and standard deviations of the data collected in the study by group. (Average scores for each of the subtests of the CTOPP for the pretest, midtest, and posttest are presented in Appendix D. The number of administrations for each lesson is presented in Appendix E and the student's scores on each lesson is presented in Appendix F). Table 12 presents the means and standard deviations for the two groups on the word identification subtest of the Woodcock, and Table 13 presents the means and standard deviations for the groups on the CTOPP.




Full Text

PAGE 1

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS INSTRUCTION FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH READING PROBLEMS BY PREETHA BHAT A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2000

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was completed with the support of many people. My gratitude is extended to all those who helped me in many ways. At the outset, I wish to thank my committee chairs, Drs. Paul Sindelar and Cynthia Griffm, for their guidance and feedback at every point during this study and in my doctoral program. I have learned a great deal from both of them. In addition, I also appreciate the input I received from Dr. Cecil Mercer during the planning phase of my study. My appreciation goes to all the middle school teachers who were willing to be involved in the study. All of them were very cooperative and patient, despite the fact that I had to keep puUing out students in the middle of class. I also wish to thank all the students who participated in this study. I could not have completed this project without them. Most of all, I sincerely appreciate all the support that I received from my family and all my friends throughout my stay in Gainesville. All of them were helpful and very supportive, particularly during rough times. Their words of encouragement were valuable and will never be forgotten. ii

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS gage ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT v CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1 Introduction 1 Rationale for the Study 4 Scope of the Study 6 Definition of Terms 7 Overview 8 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 9 Introduction 9 Phonological Awareness and Reading Abihty 9 Deficits in Phonological Awareness 25 Instruction in Phonological Awareness 34 Older Students with Phonological Awareness Deficits 60 Implications for Research 69 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 72 Introduction 72 Hypotheses and Research Question 72 Setting and Subjects 73 Instructional Procedures 76 Research Instrumentation 83 Experimental Design 88 Treatment of the Data 89 iii

PAGE 4

4 RESULTS 90 Introduction 90 Reliability of Instructional Procedures 91 Statistical Analysis of Data 92 Summary of the Hypotheses and Results 104 5 DISCUSSION 107 Discussion of Findings 109 Limitations of the Study 1 19 Implications for Practice 121 Suggestions for Future Research 122 APPENDICES A INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR PARENTS 126 B INSTRUCTIONAL LESSONS 128 C LESSON SCORE SHEET 146 D MEAN SCORES ON THE CTOPP 147 E NUMBER OF ADMINISTRATIONS FOR EACH LESSON FOR GROUPS A AND B 148 F SCORES FOR EACH LESSON FOR GROUPS A AND B 150 REFERENCES 153 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 162 iv

PAGE 5

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS INSTRUCTION FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH READING PROBLEMS By Preetha Bhat August 2000 Chairperson: Paul T. Sindelar Cochairperson: Cynthia C. Griffin Major Department: Special Education Two decades of research on phonological awareness intervention support the idea that phonological awareness skills are crucial to reading success. The present study aimed to build on existing research by extending previous research findings to older students who have deficits in phonological awareness. The purpose of the study was to determine if older students (at the middle school level) who were identified as having phonological awareness deficits could improve their phonological awareness skills after instruction, and if these skills could impact their word recognition. v

PAGE 6

Forty middle school students with learning disabilities who were identified as having phonological awareness deficits were matched and split into two groups, A and B. After both groups received the pretest, group A began intervention. After group A completed intervention, both groups were given a midtest. At this point, group B began instruction. After group B completed instruction, both groups were given the posttest. Both groups received the same type of phonological awareness instruction. Results of the ANOVA indicated that for the word identification subtest, there was no group effect. However, there was main effect for occasion; that is, for both groups, posttest scores were significantly higher than the midtest scores, and midtest scores were significantly higher than the pretest scores. With respect to the CTOPP scores, results indicated an interaction effect. Follow-up t-tests indicated that for the midtest, group A significantly outperformed group B on the CTOPP. This implied that the intervention did have an effect for phonological awareness. Further, for group A, the posttest score on the CTOPP was not significandy different from the midtest score, indicating that group A showed maintenance on the posttest. Both groups also had significantly higher posttest scores compared to the pretest scores, implying that both groups improved on phonological awareness skills over time. Results of this study suggest that older students who have deficits in phonological awareness are capable of improving these skills after instruction. This finding is promising, considering the fact that the participants in this study were far below grade level at the beginning of the study. However, it is difficult to make conclusions about the impact of phonological awareness on word identification skills. vi

PAGE 7

Implications for research include designing interventions for older students to determine the optimal duration and intensity of instruction that would facilitate transfer of phonological awareness skills to word recognition. In addition, longitudinal experimental studies involving older students would be informative regarding the benefits of phonological awareness instruction for word identification. vii

PAGE 8

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM Introduction Learning to read is crucial for academic success. Reading is an integral part of every school's curriculum, and all content areas require children to be able to read and process information. Children who learn to read tend to do well in academics, because their comprehension is facilitated, thus increasing their knowledge base. This increase in knowledge base may prompt children to learn more information, thus enhancing their reading skills. Reading skills continue to develop as children grow older. Thus, learning to read is not an isolated event; rather it is a process that begins when a child is an infant and continues throughout school (Jenkins & Bowen, 1994). During the early Uteracy stages, it is important for children to develop several skills as prerequisites for reading. One of the most vital skills that children need to develop is phonological awareness (Adams, 1990; Liberman & Liberman, 1990; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Phonological awareness refers to an individual's awareness that spoken words consist of sound segments smaller than the syllable (Ball, 1997). Experimental evidence clearly indicates that phonological awareness is a critical prerequisite for learning to read (Juel, 1988; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988). Phonological awareness helps children to map sounds 1

PAGE 9

2 onto symbols and to break words into their individual sounds. Mapping sounds to symbols and being aware that words are made up of individual units are crucial prerequisite skills for learning to read (Adams, 1990; Jenkins & Bowen, 1994). Phonological awareness has received much attention because of its strong, consistent, and positive correlation with word recognition (Adams, 1990; Juel, 1988; Tunmer et al., 1988). Children who demonstrate a high level of phonological awareness are usually the same children who recognize printed words accurately and rapidly, and thus become good readers. Findings are fairly consistent that young children with a high level of phonological awareness are hkely to be the better readers in first and second grades (Juel, 1988; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988). Because phonological awareness has a strong correlation with reading success, it would seem evident that deficits in phonological awareness should be linked to reading problems. In fact, research has pointed out that children who have difficulties in reading words often display phonological deficits (Frith, 1981; Torgesen, 1985). For those children with phonological deficits, learning phonological awareness skills (such as blending and segmenting) presents a challenge. The problems children with reading disorders have in processing phonological information make learning sound and letter associations very difficult (Jenkins & Bowen, 1994). Difficulfies in associating letter and sound could limit the ability to understand the phonological structure of words, and, hence, contribute to difficulty with word recognition (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). Because research has established that phonological awareness is crucial to decoding and word recognition, much attention has been devoted to the training of phonological awareness in children with deficits in phonological awareness. Among the

PAGE 10

3 many researchers who have investigated the effectiveness of expUcitly training phonological awareness, several investigators have developed interventions that can be adapted for use with children in kindergarten and first grade (Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Cunningham, 1990; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; Olofsson & Lundberg, 1983, 1985). Researchers have explored a variety of intervention models (i.e., whole class, small group, or one-to-one instruction), varying the duration of the intervention and the choice of activities. Some studies focused on rhyme training alone (e.g., Layton, Deeny, Tall, & Upton, 1996), while others focused on blending and segmenting. Some training studies provided blending and segmenting instruction at the onset and rime level (e.g., O'Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993; O'Connor, Slocum, & Jenkins, 1995; Slocum, OXIlonnor, & Jenkins, 1993), while others provided blending and segmenting instruction at the phoneme level (e.g., Hurford et al., 1994; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992; Williams, 1980). All the studies on phonological awareness training provide evidence that phonological awareness can be taught and that children who have deficits in phonological awareness benefit from such instruction. Children who were trained in phonological awareness showed improvement in phonological awareness skills such as blending and segmenting phonemes. These children also showed improvements in reading words and spelling. Those training studies that involved a follow-up component showed evidence that phonological awareness skills tend to be maintained over an extended period of time (6 to 8 months) (e.g., Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; McGuinness, McGuinness, & Donohue, 1995).

PAGE 11

These research-based findings have important implications for children who have reading problems and those who are at-risk. However, one limitation of these findings is that they may not be generalizable to all children who have reading problems. Almost all the landmark studies on phonological awareness training have focused on only one population, elementary school students. Thus, a large gap exists in the literature with respect to training studies for older students who have phonological deficits. Despite years of basic skill instruction (at the elementary school level), there are still students in the noiddle school and high school level who experience reading difficulties (Deshler, Warner, Schumaker, & Alley, 1983). Reading problems could prevent students from progressing academically and learning higher order skills. Further, instruction in the middle and high school level rarely focuses on acquisition of basic skills (Juel, 1988). Lack of appropriate instruction and increasing academic demands placed on older students may prevent these students from enhancing their reading skills. In order to catch up with their peers, older students who experience reading difficulties need appropriate instruction to develop skills that are basic to reading. Rarionale for the Study The research on phonological awareness has provided experimental evidence that phonological awareness is a necessary skill in learning to read (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992). Furthermore, research has also proved that children with decoding problems and phonological deficits are capable of learning phonological awareness skills and applying them to the process of decoding words (e.g., Bradley & Bryant, 1985; O'Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992). Despite this large body of research on

PAGE 12

5 phonological awareness training, there have been very few intervention studies involving older students who have decoding problems (e.g., Williams, 1980; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). This older population of students seems to have been ignored, despite the fact that there are students in the middle and high school level who have decoding problems (Reith & Polsgrove, 1994). The next logical step in this area of research is to design an appropriate phonological awareness intervention program for older students who have decoding problems, and to determine if the intervention facilitates their word recognition and decoding skills. Suitable intervention programs for older students are needed because most instruction in the middle and high school level involves enhancing higher order skills (Juel, 1988). Consequently, older students who have decoding problems have no oppormnity to develop those skills that are necessary for word recognition (i.e., phonological awareness skills). One of the purposes of this study was to determine the effects of instruction in phonological awareness for students in the middle school level who were identified as having phonological deficits. The instruction was designed to target specifically phonological awareness skills such as blending, segmenting, deletion, and reversal of phonemes. Thus, we needed to determine if these students' phonological awareness skills improved after instruction. The second purpose of this study was to find out if these phonological awareness skills facilitated the students' word identification skills. The training was based on the theoretical model as espoused by Adams (1990). According to Adams' model, four processors are interrelated during the process of reading: the orthographic processor, the phonological processor, the meaning processor, and context processor. This study focused on strengthening the phonological processor:

PAGE 13

6 the processor that is directly responsible for translating symbols into sounds. The phonological processor would then influence the meaning and context processors, thus enabling fluent reading and comprehension. Scope of the Study This study was conducted within a limited scope. The delimitations and limitations of this research are described below. Delimitations The study was delimited by geographical location to Gainesville, Florida, a city located in the north central part of the state. The subjects were 40 middle-school students in three schools in Alachua County. Subject selection did not include consideration for gender or ethnicity. Limitations Previous informal reading experiences and formal reading instruction of the students may limit this investigation. Many of the students in the sample already experienced phonics instruction in the elementary school level. This previous knowledge may have contributed to their familiarity with phonics rules, thus enabling the word recognition process. Some of the students in the sample were provided reading instruction at the time of the study. This may have confounded the results. Subject selection could be a limitation of the study. Only schools that provided permission for the study were included in the study, and only those students who turned in their parental permission forms were included in the sample. Thus random sampling procedures could not be used. Further, the results of this study may not be generalizable

PAGE 14

to younger students or to students with strong phonological skills without systematic replication with these populations. Definition of Terms An understanding of the constructs, variables, and procedures discussed in this study requires an understanding of the terminology. The terms defined in this section are critical to the interpretation of this study. Blending is the process of combining verbal units such as words, syllables, onsets and rimes, and phonemes in order to pronounce a word. Continuous sounds are sounds that can be spoken or held for a length of time, for example, /s/, HI, /m/, and Izl. Onset and rime are units within a word. The onset is the spoken sound that corresponds to any consonants at the beginning of each written syllable, and the rime corresponds to the sound at the rest of the syllable (Goswami & Bryant, 1990). For example, in the spoken word "sake," the onset is /s/ and the rime is "ake." Phoneme is the smallest unit of sound (Goswami, 1995). Phonemes usually correspond to single alphabetic letters, as in the examples of /s/ and /p/ in "sip." However, they also can correspond to pairs of letters, for example, /ch/ in "chair.' Phonological awareness is one's sensitivity to, or explicit awareness of, the phonological structure of the words in one's language (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). Segmenting is the act of breaking down of units such as words, syllables, onset and rimes, and phonemes.

PAGE 15

8 Stop sounds are sounds that cannot be spoken or held for a long period of time. They are usually brief, staccato-like sounds, for example, /b/, /d/, lil, and /p/. Overview The focus of this study is the investigation of the effects of phonological awareness training for middle school students with reading problems. Chapter II provides a review of relevant literature in the areas of phonological awareness, its role in the reading process, deficits in phonological awareness, and intervention involving phonological awareness. A theoretical model on which the intervention is based and implications of research are also discussed in this chapter. Chapter III provides a description of the methods and procedures used in this study. The results of the study are discussed in Chapter IV. Finally Chapter V presents a discussion of the results, implications for teachers and teacher educators, and recommendations for future research.

PAGE 16

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction Chapter II includes a summary of the literature on the role of phonological awareness in reading, implications of phonological deficits, benefits of phonological awareness instruction, and phonological awareness instruction for older students with reading problems. The chapter is divided into several sections. The first section involves a description of phonological awareness and its role in reading. A theoretical model that integrates phonological awareness into the reading process is also described in this section. The second section provides a description of the nature of phonological awareness deficits, how they manifest, and their influence on the reading process. The third section involves a detailed description of some of the landmark intervention studies that focus on phonological awareness skills. The fourth section focuses on older children who have reading problems and some of the intervention studies that have included older children. The chapter concludes with implications of previous research for this study. Phonological Awareness and Reading Ability Reading and writing in English depend on abilities that are language related and go beyond the abihties required for speaking and listening. Research has indicated that because English is an alphabetic language, success in learning to read is related to the degree to which children are aware of the underlying structure of words (Liberman & 9

PAGE 17

10 Shankweiler, 1985). Over the last two decades reading research has seen a growing consensus about the importance of phonological processing abilities in the acquisition of early reading skills (Shankweiler & Liberman, 1989; Stanovich, 1988; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Phonological processing refers to mental operations that make use of the phonological or sound structure of oral language when individuals are learning how to decode written language (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). According to previous research, there are three kinds of phonological processing skills related to reading ability: phonological memory, rate of access for phonological information, and phonological awareness (Adams, 1990; Brady & Shankweiler, 1991; Crowder & Wagner, 1991; Torgesen, 1993). Phonological memory is typically assessed by tasks that require brief, verbatim retention of non-meaningful sequences of verbal items (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). Performance difficulties on this type of task involve problems in mentally representing the phonological features of language (Torgesen, Kistner, & Morgan, 1987). According to Torgesen and his colleagues, evidence suggests that the representations, or codes, used to store verbal material on memory span tasks requiring immediate, verbatim, and ordered recall are composed primarily of the phonological features of the stimuli. Difficulties with the mental representation of phonological information make it difficult to engage in any task that requires the simultaneous storage and processing of individual sounds in words. Rate of access for phonological information has been assessed in the literature by rapid automatic naming tasks. Denckla and Rudel (1976) introduced this type of task as a way of predicting and understanding individual differences in reading ability. The tasks

PAGE 18

11 require individuals to name as rapidly as possible a series of 30 to 50 items printed on a page. Individual differences in the speed with which kindergarten children can name these types of items are strongly predictive of later differences in the rate at which they acquire word-reading skills in first grade and beyond (Bowers, Steffy, & Tate, 1988; Felton & Wood, 1989). Of all the phonological processing abilities, phonological awareness seems to have been most frequently studied. Phonological awareness is generally defined as one's sensitivity to, or explicit awareness of, the phonological structure of the words in one's language (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). Experimental evidence indicates that phonological awareness is a critical prerequisite for learning to read (Juel, 1988; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988). Phonological awareness helps children to map sounds onto symbols and to break words into their individual sounds-skills that are necessary to read an alphabetic language (Adams, 1990; Jenkins, & Bowen, 1994). The following sections provide a more in-depth discussion of phonological awareness. The following topics will be addressed: dimensions of phonological awareness, levels of phonological awareness, reciprocal relationship between phonological awareness and reading, and the role of phonological awareness in reading. Dimensions of Phonological Awareness The research on phonological awareness has given considerable attention to whether phonological awareness is a general abiUty or a collection of independent but related abilities (e.g., Lenchner et al., 1990; O'Connor et al, 1993). A few studies in the literature provide support for a "general ability" theory stemming from the high degree of

PAGE 19

12 interrelatedness among dimensions of phonological awareness (e.g., O'Connor et al, 1993; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987; Yopp, 1988). This degree of interrelatedness means that the dimensions shared significant commonality and tapped a similar construct (Yopp, 1988). Despite moderate support of phonological awareness as a general ability, a few issues remain unresolved. First, Lenchner et al. (1990) drew attention to the relatively few studies focusing on whether or not tasks measure an underlying single ability. Second, Wagner's (1988) meta-analysis indicated differential relations dependent on the measure of reading. Wagner found that two dimensions of awareness, blending and segmenting, did not have independent causal relations with word recognition (hnking pronunciation with meaning) but did for word analysis (taking apart phonological units in words). Third, Lenchner et al. (1990) indicated that the way the dimensions relate to each other may represent more independence than we now propose; specifically they argued that varying strengths of relations among phonological awareness tasks may not support a general ability theory. Researchers have identified and assessed many dimensions of phonological awareness. The following tasks have been used in recent research as indicators of phonological awareness: auditory discrimination, blending, counting, deletion, isolation, rhyme, segmentation, substitution, sound categorization, tapping, reversing order of sounds, and word-to-word matching (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Lundberg et al., 1988; O'Connor et al., 1993; Spector, 1995; Yopp, 1988). Among the dimensions identified, segmentation is the most frequently used. It has often been paired with other dimensions including blending (Cunningham, 1990; O'Connor et al., 1993), letter-sound

PAGE 20

correspondence (Brady, Fowler, Stone, & Winbury, 1994), and invented spelling (Mann, 1993). In studies of older readers, segmenting has been used in combination with rapid naming and list learning skills (Cornwall, 1992) and with deletion (Lenchner et al., 1990). The dimensions of phonological awareness can be regarded as falling along a continuum of difficulty. From easiest to hardest, the range of difficulty is as follows: rhyme, auditory discrimination, phoneme blending, word-to-word matching, sound isolation, phoneme counting, phoneme segmentation, and phoneme deletion (Yopp, 1988). Two factors often contribute to the difficulty of phonological awareness: the memory requirements of the task and the characteristics of phonological units. Memory requirements of the task Most phonological awareness tasks require material to be held in memory. For example, phonological awareness tasks are divided into two categories based on the memory processes and operations required: (a) one operation of verbal material followed by response, as in segmentation; and (b) one operation followed by holding the response to that operation in memory while performing other operations before making the final response, as in deletion (Yopp, 1988). For example, when asked what sounds are heard in "mat" (segmentation), the response requires one step of pulling apart sounds: Iml IsJ 1x1. However, when asked to delete the first sound from "mat," the response requires two steps: (a) identifying the beginning sound and segmenting the sounds and (b) holding the remaining sounds in memory and blending them. Characteristics of phonological units A number of characteristics of phonological units have been found to affect difficulty including: (a) position of the

PAGE 21

14 phonological unit in the word (i.e., first, middle, or last), (b) degree of abstraction, (c) size of sound unit, and (d) phonological properties of the phoneme(s). Research points to the differential difficulty for initial, medial, and final positions, with initial and final positions easier than middle (Byrne & Fielding-Bamsley, 1989; Mann & Brady, 1988; Spector, 1995). Likewise, degree of abstraction, or degree of meaning, affects difficulty. In Lundberg et al.s (1988) intervention study the sequence began with segmentation of words from idea units in sentences, because words have meaning and are usually recognized naturally (i.e., without instruction). The teaching sequence ended with the least natural and most abstract phonological unit, segmenting phonemes in a word. With respect to size of sound unit, phonemes are considered to be the smallest phonological unit. Research indicates that phonemes bear a critical relation to beginning reading (Wagner, 1988) and the processes at the phoneme level do not develop naturally or easily without instruction (Liberman & Shankweiler, 1985). In short, phonemes are difficult to perceive because (a) they are the smallest phonological unit, (b) they are not acoustically pure, and (c) they are independent of meaning. Several intervention studies have focused attention on the relative difficulty of phonological properties. For example, McBride-Chang (1995) proved that stop sounds (e.g., /t/ and Idl) were more difficult to identify than continuous consonants (e.g., /f/ and /s/) for third and fourth graders. Other researchers have investigated the combined effects of phonological properties of tasks. For example, Spector (1995) conjectured that differential difficulty between phonemes and syllables (i.e., size) can in part be explained by their differential acoustical properties. Spector (1995) explained that we do not hear discrete pure phonemes, because they overlap; rather we hear syllables. Therefore, tasks

PAGE 22

15 that require identifying, moving, and combining phonemes may be more complex than those that requke manipulation of syllables. Levels of Phonological Awareness Recent research on the nature of phonological development has led to a growing understanding of how children set about learning connections between letters and sounds. In the development of phonological awareness, researchers have shown that there is a progression in the units of sounds that young children can identify within spoken words (Goswami, 1995). The levels of phonological awareness development are associated with the different phonological components of language, including words, syllables, onsets and rimes, and phonemes (Blachman, 1991). Word The awareness that the speech flow is a compilation of individual words is typically achieved at a very young age. The linguistic play of young children, including nonsense words and rhyming, provides evidence of this early level of phonological awareness (Bradley, 1988). When a child utters a single word that he has only heard in combination with other words, he is demonstrating the word level of phonological awareness. Syllable The simplest phonological unit within a word is the syllable (Goswami, 1995). Most children acquire the ability to segment words into syllables with minimal instruction (Lundberg, 1988; Liberman, Shankweiler, & Liberman, 1989). Activities such as clapping, tapping, and marching are often used to develop syllable awareness. This level of phonological awareness is useful for initial instruction in detection, segmentation, blending, and manipulation of phonological components of language.

PAGE 23

16 Onset and rime The terms onset and rime derive from linguistic theory, and denote units of sound (Treiman, 1988). The onset is the spoken sound that corresponds to any consonants at the beginning of each written syllable, and the rime corresponds to the sound of the rest of the syllable. For example, in the spoken word "night," the onset is Ixd and the rime is "ight." Goswami and Bryant (1990) argued that the most important phonological units for young children to manipulate consciously are onset and rime. Moreover, onsets and rimes are more consistent or predictable in their alphabetical representations than is a single phoneme and its letter representation. Phoneme The final level of phonological awareness that emerges with development is the phonemic level. Phonemes are the smallest units of sound that change the meaning of spoken words (Goswami, 1995). For example, "mat" and "hat" differ by a single phoneme at the beginning. Phonemes usually correspond to single alphabetic letters, as in the examples m and t in "mat." However, they can also correspond to digraphs (pairs of letters with a single sound), for example, /sh/ in "shop." Full phonemic awareness does not usually develop until children have been learning to read an alphabetic script for about a year (Morals, Gary, Alegria, & Bertelson, 1979). The relatively late emergence of phonemic awareness does not mean that children lack any knowledge of phonemes. Even pre-readers can hear individual phonemes at beginnings of words, where these initial phonemes often constitute single-phoneme onsets (Goswami, 1995). Phonological Awareness and Reading: A Reciprocal Relationship Previous research has hypothesized phonological awareness to be (a) a prerequisite for learning to read, (b) influenced by reading instruction and practice, and

PAGE 24

17 (c) both a cause and a consequence of reading acquisition (i.e., reciprocal). The importance of establishing the relation between phonological awareness and reading acquisition is the differential implications of each relation for the timing and content of instruction. For example, if evidence suggests that phonological awareness is a prerequisite condition, then phonological awareness training prior to formal reading instruction is implied. However, if the evidence suggests that formal reading instruction develops phonological awareness, the timing and instructional sequence issues may be reversed. If evidence establishes that phonological awareness is necessary before reading instruction begins and that phonological awareness is developed by specific types of instruction, emphasis on phonological awareness before and during beginning reading instruction is firmly established. Under both conditions, phonological awareness would foster reading acquisition. Phonological awareness as a prerequisite for learning to read Over the past decade, growing support for a causal relation between phonological awareness and reading acquisition has been suggested (e.g., Liberman & Shankweiler, 1985; Stanovich, 1985). More recent reviews specifically concluded that evidence is sufficiently strong to establish that phonological awareness is a necessary condition for learning to read (Mann & Brady, 1988; Wagner, 1988; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). The relationship between phonological awareness and reading was examined by scrutinizing three types of studies: (a) longitudinal, (b) experimental intervention, and (c) comparisons of good and poor readers. Longitudinal studies were examined to obtain information about the relation between phonological awareness at an earlier age with reading achievement at a later age.

PAGE 25

18 If consistent and strong correlation is found, phonological awareness could be said to predict later reading achievement. Four longitudinal studies were reviewed (Juel, 1988; MacDonald & Cornwall, 1995; Scarborough, 1998; Stuart & Masterson, 1992). The review revealed that phonological awareness reliably predicted reading achievement across the age levels of participants from preschool through high school. Intervention studies provide a second source of support for the idea that phonological awareness is a prerequisite for learning to read (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; O'Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). Wagner and Torgesen (1987) noted that if training in phonological awareness improves subsequent reading, it is reasonable to infer a causal relation. In intervention studies, the effect of phonological awareness instruction on subsequent phonological awareness development and reading was assessed with preand posttest comparisons of achievement. Phonological awareness instruction had a significant positive influence on subsequent reading measures in all intervention studies reviewed. Finally, comparisons between good and poor readers revealed that good readers outperformed poor readers on decoding words, and that phonological awareness skills greatly facihtated decoding ability. Vellutino and Scanlon (1987) reported more than a decade's work of comparing poor secondand sixth-grade readers to good secondand sixth-grade readers. The researchers concluded that the ability to segment phonemes is a prerequisite for linking sounds to corresponding letters and subsequent word identification, and that poor readers were able to profit from phonemic segmentation training with positive effects on ability to identify words. These authors concluded that

PAGE 26

19 phonemic segmentation is a necessary condition for decoding and not simply a consequence of reading. Other researchers who examined differences between good and poor readers reached the same conclusions (e.g., Adams, 1990; Lenchner et al., 1990; Stanovich, 1985). Phonological awareness as a consequence of re ading instruction. Smith, Simmons, and Kameenui (1997) conducted a review that produced Umited evidence that phonological awareness is developed by reading instruction. The authors examined reviews of smdies with skilled readers in nonalphabetic languages and reviews of studies with adult illiterates in alphabetic languages. Support for the consequence relation (i.e., phonological awareness is facilitated by reading instruction) was inferred from the higher levels of phonological awareness among individuals receiving more instruction and practice in reading skills (e.g., decoding) than those who did not receive instruction. Reciprocal relation The practical importance of the reciprocal relation between reading and phonological development has been established by many researchers (e.g., Adams, 1990; Stanovich, 1985; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Previous research has also provided recommendations for early identification of students at-risk for reading failure (e.g., low ability in phonological awareness) and early, explicit instruction in phonological awareness prior to and during beginning reading instruction (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; Layton, Deeny, Tall, & Upton, 1990; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992). Previous research seems to provide limited support for the idea that reading instruction facilitates phonological awareness. However there is strong evidence to suggest a reciprocal relation between phonological

PAGE 27

20 awareness and reading. The existence of a reciprocal relation implies that phonological awareness is important prior to and during reading acquisition. Theoretical Model of Phonological Awareness in the Reading Process All beginning readers of an alphabetic script require word decoding skills to be able to comprehend written text. Kamhi and Catts (1989) discussed some of the requirements of the decoding process. Words heard or seen must be associated with previously stored concepts in an individual's mental lexicon that represents one's vocabulary. The lexicon includes information about a word's phonological or visual form, as well as information about the word's meaning and how the word relates to other words. In processing speech, word meaning is accessed via a word's phonological representation. Output of the perceptual analysis is a representation of a word's acoustic and phonetic features used by the listener to activate a word's phonological representation in the lexicon. Print may be processed in two ways: (a) indirectly by way of the phonological representation or (b) directly by way of the visual representation. The phonological approach requires the reader to recode the visually perceived letters into their corresponding phonemes. Individual phonemes are then blended to form a phonological sequence that is matched to a similar sequence in the lexicon. Perfetti and Bell (1991) suggested that good readers are much more dependent on the indirect route than previously thought. Decoding or word recognition is one part of reading; however, the ability to comprehend what is read is a higher-level skill (Swank, 1994). To facilitate comprehension, readers typically rely on previously stored knowledge about the language

PAGE 28

21 and the world. Syntactic and morphologic knowledge are used by readers in comprehending written material. Cassidy and Kelly (1991) examined the effects of phonological information for grammatical category assignments based on findings that English verbs contain fewer syllables than English nouns. Their investigation revealed that children and adults are sensitive to these differences. They found that adults use pseudowords more often in sentences as verbs if the number of syllables is small, whereas pseudowords are used as nouns more often if the number of syllables is large. In addition, they found that 4-year old children associate pseudowords with actions more often than objects if the pseudoword contains one rather than three syllables. The researchers found that the reader uses phonological information to process morphologic and syntactic components of sentences during reading comprehension. Thus, phonological codes are found to be the building blocks to not only decoding, but also comprehension. The idea that phonological information is crucial to comprehension is corroborated by the "simple" view of reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986). This view of reading proposes that differences in reading comprehension are a function of the outcome of two factors, phonological coding abilities and listening comprehension. The assumption is that each factor is necessary, but not sufficient, for success in reading. Hence, understanding the language being read (i.e., listening comprehension) is only one component of reading comprehension. The ability to use phonological codes to recognize the words of the text is the other necessary component of reading comprehension.

PAGE 29

22 Currently, a large body of research supports the simple view of reading (Hoover & Gough, 1990; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Vellutino & Denckla, 1991). These researchers suggest that although reading is a complex process, it can be conceptualized as comprising two primary components: phonological coding abilities (more specifically, decoding, or word recognition) and listening comprehension. Decoding involves using phonological coding abilities and orthographic knowledge to recognize printed words. Conversely, the comprehension process relies on linguistic and world knowledge to grasp the meaning of the printed word. In the early school grades, phonological coding abilities (e.g., decoding) or orthographic knowledge accounts for more variance in reading ability than do language and world knowledge (Swank, 1994). On the other hand, in the later elementary grades, individual differences in semantic and syntactic knowledge explain considerably more variance than phonological coding processes (Hoover & Gough, 1990; Juel, 1991). Thus, phonological coding abilities seem to be most critical in the beginning stages of learning to read. Listening comprehension may be more important during the later stages of reading, after children have begun to master basic word recognition skills and as reading materials become more advanced. Understanding how reading develops provides a framework for planning for reading instruction and also for diagnosing reading disorders. One theoretical model that analyzes the reading process in depth is Adams's (1990) model of reading. Adams seems to agree with the proposition that decoding is necessary for reading comprehension to occur. Her model explains the process of reading by describing the functions of four

PAGE 30

23 interconnected processors. These four processors are the orthographic processor, the phonological processor, the meaning processor, and the context processor. The orthographic processor The orthographic processor receives visual information from print. This information is typically recognized from previous associations and is transmitted to the meaning and context processor for interpretation. Previously learned associations make reading automatic and easy. The orthographic processor also helps in reading words that are unfamiliar by breaking long words into syllables that are recognized from previous associations. For example, in reading an unfamiliar word such as "anfractuosity" one would read the word syllable by syllable, rather than holistically or letter by letter. This ability to break unfamiliar words into simple letter sequences is automatic for skillful readers and is facilitated by the orthographic processor. The context processor The context processor provides a suitable context for interpretation of text. The primary function of the context processor is to select the most appropriate word meaning for the text. For example, the context processor would tell the reader the meaning of the word "train" in the following sentence: "She used to train students to play football." The context processor provides information to the reader that in this situation, "train" is not a vehicle; instead it is a verb. The context processor also serves to speed the reading process and facilitate comprehension. However, for the context processor to work, print has to be identified correctly by the orthographic processor. The meaning processor The meaning processor provides the meaning to the information that is obtained from print. In addition, it enables the reader to acquire

PAGE 31

24 meanings of new words by encountering them in context. Thus, there is a direct link between the meaning and the context processor. Skilled readers seem to be sensitive to prefixes, roots, and suffixes. This may be due to a direct link between the orthographic and meaning processor. This link makes it easy for readers to see the similarities among the following words: "monosyllable," "monologue," and "monochrome." The connection between the meaning and orthographic processor facilitates vocabulary and spelling abilities. The phonological processor. According to Adams' model, phonological processing abilities are crucial to skilled reading. Like the orthographic processor, the phonological processor also accepts information from the outside. However, the information it accepts is speech. Although the orthographic processor is responsible for familiar words, most skillful readers activate the phonological processor in addition to the orthographic processor. The phonological processor seems to provide the added accuracy and speed for fluent reading and comprehension. Adams proposed that the phonological processor is responsible for fluent word recognition and comprehension. With respect to word recognition, the phonological processor provides a backup system for recognizing unfamiliar words. For skillful readers, even if a word is unfamiliar, the phonological processor would recognize patterns of syllables and speUing-sound associations within the word. Thus, the reader's knowledge of soundsymbol correspondence will lead to the pronunciation of the word. The phonological processor facilitates comprehension as well. Phonological translations of words remain in memory longer than visual translations. Thus, the capacity of the short-term memory is increased. Further, the meaning and context processors can be called into play only

PAGE 32

25 after words are recognized. Thus a thorough knowledge of sounds, symbols, and spelling patterns are crucial for the decoding process and eventually for comprehension. Adams' model imphes that readers who lack phonological awareness are likely to experience difficulties with reading tasks in which orthographic information is not sufficient. Such readers may not be able to decode unfamiliar words, thus slowing down the decoding process and impairing comprehension. For readers whose phonological processors are impaired, the context and meaning processors may not be automatically called into play. These readers may experience problems with an alphabetic language that has a unique set of sound-symbol correspondences. These problems may eventually lead to difficulties in word recognition and comprehension. The following section presents a brief review of literature on the nature of phonological awareness deficits, how they influence the reading process, and how persistent they are. Deficits in Phonological Awareness Research in reading has established a strong correlation between phonological awareness and reading ability. Thus, it would seem evident that deficits in phonological awareness should be linked to reading problems. The simple view of reading and Adams' model imply that if a person has deficits in phonological processing, word identification would be affected, thus preventing reading comprehension from occurring. Because phonological deficits seem to be at the core of most reading problems, it is important to study the nature of phonological awareness deficits and how they manifest in students who have reading problems. This section presents a discussion on a theoretical model of phonological deficits, characteristics of readers with phonological deficits, and stabihty of phonological awareness deficits.

PAGE 33

26 Theoretical Model of Phonological Awareness Deficits In recent years, cognitive psychologists have studied extensively the nature of children's reading problems. Rather than looking for factors in the child's environment that may lead to reading problems, experimental psychologists have investigated differences in cognitive processes intrinsic to the child that may explain reading failure (Snowling, 1995). Experimental studies in psychology and medicine that focus on individuals with dyslexia have contributed to our understanding of phonological deficits and some of the underlying causes of reading failure. Early explanations of dyslexia focused on the role of visual factors (Shaywitz, 1996). It was held that defects in the visual system were to blame for the reversals of letters and words that were observed among people with dyslexia. More recent research has shown that dyslexia involves a verbal deficit (Shaywitz, 1996). More specifically, dyslexic readers have phonological processing difficulties (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). A theoretical model that explains reading problems in dyslexia is the phonological model or the phonological deficits hypothesis (Shaywitz, 1996; Snowling, 1995). The phonological model is concerned with the development of the phonological system the system responsible for manipulation of sounds used to communicate. During early speech development, children appear to be mapping the speech they hear on to utterances they produce, and there is evidence that the mappings they create become gradually refined as the child's phonological system develops (Nittrouer & StuddertKennedy, 1987). These refinements within the phonological system bring with them improvements in access to underlying phonological representations and increases in speech rate and verbal short-term memory (Snowling & Hulme, 1994).

PAGE 34

27 To understand exactly how the phonological model works, one has to consider how language is processed in the brain. The language system is composed of a series of hierarchical modules (Shaywitz, 1996). At the upper levels of the hierarchy are components associated with semantics (vocabulary or word meaning), syntax (grammatical structure), and discourse (connected sentences). At the lowest level of the hierarchy is the phonological module, responsible for processing sounds. The phoneme, defined as the smallest segment of language, is the fundamental element of the linguistic system. Before words can be identified or understood, they must first be broken down into their phonetic units by the phonological module of the brain. In spoken language, the breaking down process seems to happen automatically. However, reading must be learned at a conscious level and because alphabets are involved, the process is a little more difficult. The beginning reader must first come to a conscious awareness of the internal phonological structure of spoken words. Then he or she must realize that the orthography the sequence of letters represents this phonology. In contrast, when a child has reading problems, a deficit within the language system at the level of the phonological module impairs his or her ability to segment the written word into its underlying phonological components. This explanation is sometimes referred to as the phonological deficit hypothesis (Shaywitz, 1996). According to this hypothesis, a deficit in phonological processing impairs decoding, preventing word identification. Thus, a lower-order linguistic function blocks access to higher order linguistic processes and to gaining meaning from text. Although the language processes involved in comprehension and meaning may be intact, they cannot be called into play, because they can be accessed only after a word has been identified.

PAGE 35

28 The phonological model establishes a strong relationship between phonological processing deficits and reading problems. Consequently, more research has been devoted to deficits in phonological processing as the underlying cause of reading problems in a majority of children. These phonological processing deficits often seem to lead to other characteristics that impair the reading process. For purposes of diagnosis and intervention, it is important to study some of the characteristics that seem to be related to phonological processing deficits. Characteristics of Readers with Phonological Deficits It follows from the phonological model that the status of a child's underlying phonological system determines the ease with which he or she will learn to read (Hulme & Snowling, 1992). Several studies have concluded that there are many skills Aat are related to phonological representations. Consequently, children with phonological awareness deficits have been known to have deficits in these related areas: awareness of sounds in words, use of phonological codes in working memory, and retrieval of phonological codes from long-term memory. Awareness of sounds in words Research has shown that children who have reading problems often lack an awareness of sounds in words (Catts, 1993; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994). They may fail to appreciate that words may rhyme or begin with the same sound. These children also tend to have difficulties identifying individual sounds in words and performing operations such as blending or segmenting phonemes. Using phonological codes in working memory Readers who have deficits in their phonological system have demonstrated difficulties in verbal short-term memory (Torgesen, 1985). These readers may have problems in following directions, taking

PAGE 36

29 messages, or learning to pronounce new spoken words. Children with phonological coding deficits may perform poorly on tests of memory span, such as digit span. Others, however, may show no difficulties in digit span but have problems with memory for sentences. According to Webster and Plante (1992), phonological deficits affect the ability to use subvocal speech rehearsal to maintain phonologically coded information in working memory for phonological awareness tasks (such as segmentation or substitution). Retrieval of phonological codes from lono-term memory There is evidence that some children with reading problems have trouble with long-term memory. Children at risk for reading problems often have word-finding problems (i.e., difficulty with remembering names of objects) (Catts, 1996). These children may demonstrate substitutions in their speech. Many will also frequently use words that lack specificity (e.g., the short thing) or they will show numerous pauses during speech. Some children with word-finding difficulties will demonstrate their deficits on tests of isolated word retrieval. Others, however, will have difficulties in speeded retrieval (Denckla & Rudel, 1976). Extending this work to object naming, Katz (1986) found that children with phonological deficits were less able than controls to label the objects of the Boston Naming Test, and had difficulties with low-frequency and polysyllabic words. The characteristics of children who have phonological processing deficits make it difficult for them to learn the correspondence between the phonemes of speech and their representations in written language. These problems lead to difficulties in reading and spelling (Jenkins & Bowen, 1994). Initially some poor readers may have deficits that are limited to word recognition. However, as time progresses these children may begin to

PAGE 37

30 perform below average on tests of higher-level language abilities as well. One reason for the below-average performance could be that poor readers may not read as much as good readers and, as a result, may not have the same amount of language experience as good readers. This may result in lowered performance by poor readers on tests of vocabulary and measures of listening comprehension. Some evidence is available to suggest that, over time, poor readers' verbal abilities may not keep pace with that of their normally developing peers due to the persistence of phonological deficits over time (Juel, 1988; Stuart & Masterson, 1992). Persistence of Phonological Awareness Deficits. Reading research has presented a controversy about whether differences in performance between children with reading problems and normally developing children should be construed as a deficit or a maturational lag (Satz, Fletcher, Clark, & Morris, 1981). According to the deficit model, there is something atypical in the underlying cognitive and/or neurological structure (Denckla, 1979). The maturational lag model, on the other hand, proposes that reading problems represent variants of normal development (Stanovich, 1986). According to this model, children with reading disabilities may eventually catch up with their normally learning peers. To test the two models, researchers have conducted longitudinal studies analyzing children's reading performance and phonological processing abilities in elementary school through high school. If the performance of students with reading problems follows a maturational lag model, then these students will catch up with their peers as they grow older. On the other hand, if the deficit model is true, students with reading problems may have difficulties catching up with their peers and a large disparity between

PAGE 38

31 students who have reading problems and those who do not may be apparent among students with reading problems and students without reading problems. The four longitudinal studies that were identified all established that academic deficits, especially reading problems, tend to persist for many years (Juel, 1988; MacDonald & Cornwall, 1995; Scarborough, 1998; Stuart & Masterson, 1992). The persistence of reading problems may suggest a deficit model rather than a maturational model, because a maturational model suggests that students with reading problems will catch up with their peers at a later age. In Juel's (1988) study, the reading and writing development of 54 children was followed as they progressed from first through fourth grade. The children in Juel's sample attended a large elementary school and lived in a low socioeconomic area. The study began with 129 children in the first grade and ended with 54 in the fourth grade. The children were tested every year on phonological awareness, decoding, word recognition, spelling, comprehension, and writing. According to Juel, the probability that the child would remain a poor reader at the end of fourth grade, if a child had been a poor reader at the end of first grade, was .88. The children in Juel's study who became poor readers entered first grade with little phonemic awareness. In fourth grade, the majority of poor readers could not decode all the monosyllabic nonsense words. Juel also inquired about the children's reading experiences at home: what they read and how many books they read over a period of time. Juel reported that one of the factors that prevented students from improving their reading skills was a lack of reading experiences. The average good reader reported reading at home almost four nights per week, whereas the average poor reader reported reading at home about once a week.

PAGE 39

32 MacDonald and Cornwall (1995) reported a similar follow-up of 24 teenagers who had participated in a study of phonological awareness when they were in kindergarten. Tests of word recognition, spelling, phonological awareness and comprehension were administered during kindergarten and 1 1 years later. MacDonald and Cornwall reported that scores on phonological awareness (as measured by the Auditory Analysis Test) in kindergarten were significantly correlated to phonological awareness scores 11 years later (r = .47). The researchers concluded that phonological awareness at the end of kindergarten is stable over an 1 1-year interval and is also a good long-term predictor of word identification and spelling skills for students at 17 years of age. It was also found that although reading and spelling skills at kindergarten were not significantly correlated to reading and speUing skills 1 1 years later, phonological scores in kindergarten were significantly correlated with reading and spelling 1 1 years later. This finding implied that phonological awareness in kindergarten predicted word identification and speUing skills at age 17 better than did kindergarten achievement in word identification and spelling. In contrast, phonological awareness at age 6, albeit in its early developmental stages, was relatively more stable over this developmental time span, as well as being more accurate in predicting reading and speUing achievement. Similar results were obtained by Stuart and Masterson (1992) and Scarborough (1988). Stuart and Masterson (1992) conducted a follow-up study of reading and spelling in a group of 10 year old children (n = 20) who were first assessed as 4-year old prereaders. When IQ was partialled out, there were significant partial correlations between phonological scores and reading ages and phonological scores and spelling ages.

PAGE 40

33 These results indicate a predictive relationsliip between early phonological awareness scores and subsequent reading ability. Scarborough's (1988) study focused on assessing students in second grade and then again in eighth grade. Students were tested for reading, spelling, phonological awareness, verbal memory, rapid naming, and IQ. The correlations between grade 2 and grade 8 scores were .49 for phoneme deletion, .66 for verbal memory, and .51 for rapid serial naming. The findings suggest that phonological awareness skills tend to remain stable over time. Overall, the longitudinal studies suggest that phonological awareness at kindergarten and preschool is predictive of phonological awareness skills and reading performance in middle and high school. This finding has practical significance, because it suggests that phonological awareness is a reliable assessment measure to identify atrisk students. Further, the findings suggest that phonological awareness at kindergarten reaches its peak of development sooner than do word identification and spelling skills. The fact that some children with phonological awareness deficits do not catch up with their peers even in middle school suggests that the development of phonological awareness conforms to a deficit model. The findings also imply that phonological awareness is an essential prerequisite for the acquisition of reading skills and corroborate the argument put forth by the phonological deficit model (that phonological awareness is required for decoding and comprehension). If some children experience phonological awareness deficits and if these deficits are stable over time, then researchers and clinicians are faced with a challenge to learn more about the strategies that best facilitate growth in reading for children of all ages with deficits in phonological awareness. Because research has established that

PAGE 41

34 phonological awareness is crucial to decoding and word recognition, much attention has been devoted to the training of phonological awareness in children with (and without) deficits in phonological awareness. Further, researchers have established the most important components of phonological awareness instruction and a preferred sequence of instruction. Almost all the intervention studies reviewed revealed that phonological awareness can be taught to those children who have deficits, and instruction in phonological awareness improves word decoding and phonological awareness skills, such as blending, segmenting, and deletion of phonemes. Instruction in Phonological Awareness This section presents a review of previous studies that focused on instruction in phonological awareness skills and word decoding. The ERIC database located all intervention studies that were published in refereed journals. The descriptors used in the search were "phonological awareness training," "phonological awareness intervention," and "reading instruction." Fourteen experimental studies were examined. Of them, 12 involved elementary school students, and 2 involved older readers. Normally achieving children and children with identified language and phonological awareness deficits were studied. The length of interventions varied from a few days to about 9 months. Length of sessions varied from 10 to 30 minutes and ranged in frequency from daily to twice a week. Researchers have explored a variety of intervention models (i.e., small group or one-to-one instruction), varying the duration of the intervention and the choice of activities. Although many studies included intervention in phonological awareness skills, most of the studies included components that went beyond phonological awareness.

PAGE 42

35 These studies focused on phonics instruction, involving letter-sound correspondences and decoding words. For example, in the Williams' (1980) study, after the students were taught blending and segmenting phonemes, they were taught to combine their auditory skills and letter-phoneme correspondence to decode and spell words made up of complex patters, such as CCVC, CVCC, and CCVCC. These studies and their results will be examined in further detail. Components of Effective Instruction In all the studies reviewed, researchers seemed to pay careful attention to the following components of instruction: 1. Phonemes were taught with the help of visual or concrete representations. 2. Phonological awareness skills were modeled by the teacher. 3. Instruction was explicit. 4. Practice with letter-sound correspondences was added to instruction. Among all the phonological skills, blending and segmenting received most attention. Concrete representation Use of concrete representation of sound was an instructional feature of all studies. Concrete representation involves using objects (e.g., blocks) to represent a sound. For example, after students heard the teacher model a sound, the students then said the phoneme while simultaneously moving a marker representing the phoneme (e.g.. Ball & Blachman, 1991; O'Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993). Modeling by teachers Isolated individual sounds (phonemes) were orally produced by the teacher in a demonstration and by students in response and practice. Modeling helped students to learn the correct ways to produce sounds and manipulate

PAGE 43

36 sounds in words (e.g.. Ball & Blachman, 1988; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; O'Connor, Slocum, & Jenkins, 1995). Kx plicit instruction The following features common across the studies suggested that instruction was explicit: (a) teacher modeling specific sounds, (b) direct teaching of phonological awareness skills, (c) strategies (e.g., concrete representation), (d) rehearsal of skills, (e) scaffolding (i.e., providing graduated amounts of teacher, task, or materials assistance). Explicit instruction seemed to be effective for acquiring phonological awareness skills (e.g., Slocum, O'Connor, & Jenkins, 1993; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992; Williams, 1980). T.etter-sound correspondence In addition to teaching students the concepts of blending and segmenting, many studies included a component of letter-sound correspondence. The purpose of letter-sound correspondence was to help students understand how sounds relate to written symbols. Interventions that included lettersound instruction with phonological awareness instruction reported significant differences in reading and phonological awareness measures (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988; Brady, Fowler, Stone, & Winbury, 1994; Williams, 1980). Blending and segmenting Reading an alphabetic language like English involves primarily blending and segmenting phonemes. Thus, a majority of studies concentrated on the acquisition of blending and segmenting skills. Some researchers focused on blending and segmenting at the onset-rime level (e.g., 0€onnor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993; Slocum, O'Connor, & Jenkins, 1993), while others focused on blending and segmenting at the phoneme level (e.g., Hurford et al., 1994; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992).

PAGE 44

37 All the intervention studies were similar in that they had all the components of instruction as discussed above. However, these studies differed in terms of the types of skills taught to children, frequency and duration of instruction, and age of children. These differences will be described and attention will be given to the differences in instructional techniques. Variations in Instructional Techniques Among the many researchers who investigated the effectiveness of explicitly training phonological awareness skills, several investigators developed experimental programs that can be adapted for use in the classroom with kindergarten and lowreadiness first grade children (Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1983, 1985; Lundberg et al., 1988). Others have focused their intervention efforts on older students with learning disabilities (Williams, 1980). The literature presented different activities to promote phonological awareness skills and word decoding. The activities described in the following studies can be used and/or modified by classroom teachers and language, reading, and learning specialists. Table 1 provides an analysis of the training studies. Table 1 Summary of Phonological Awareness Training Research Intervention Built Around Sound Categorization Study Sample Intervention Post-tests Bradley & Bryant (1985) 65 Kindergarten and Sound categorization first grade children who with visual had low scores on a representation using sound categorization test plastic letters Schonell Test of Reading; Schonell Test of Spelling; Neale Analysis of Reading

PAGE 45

38 Table 1— continuedResults : 1. Children who were trained in sound categorization significantly outperformed the untrained children in the Schonell tests of reading and spelling. 2. Group 2 was significantly better than both controls in Schonell reading and spelling and in Neale reading. 3. No significant difference between groups 1 and 2 in the two reading tests, but group 2 surpassed group 1 in spelling. Intervention at the Level of Onsets and Rimes Study Sample Intervention Post-tests OXZonnor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum (1993) 47 preschool children with developmental delays Instruction in onset-rime blending and onset-rime segmentation Tests of rhyming, blending and segmenting Results : 1 Trained groups showed significant gains on posttests. However, the groups showed no evidence of transfer across phonological tasks. 2. On blending, the blending group performed significantly better than the other groups. 3. On segmenting, the segmenting group performed significantly better than the other groups. 4. On rhyming, rhymers performed significantly better than the other groups. Study Sample Intervention Post-tests OConnor, Slocum, & Jenkins (1995) 66 kindergarten children with low phonological manipulation skills Instruction was provided to three groups: blendsegment; global treatment; letter-sound control Tests of blending, segmenting, syllable deletion, rhyme production; rapid letter naming; reading analog (reading a list of words). Results : 1. Both treatment groups significantly outperformed the control on blending and segmenting. Blending and segmenting alone was as effective as more varied and broad phonological instruction. 2. The high skilled children named significantly more letters than did children who were lowskilled. The high skilled children also performed better than all of the low-skilled conditions on syllable deletion. 3. The high-skilled condition outperformed the children who were low-skilled on the reading analog task. Study Sample Slocum, 0€onnor, & 35 children enrolled in Jenkins (1993) kindergarten Intervention Post-tests Instruction in onset-rime Tests of blending and blending and onset-rime segmenting, segmentation Results : 1. Children trained in both blending and segmenting showed significant gains in posttest. However, the children did not show evidence of transfer across phonological skills. 2. On tests of blending, only the segmenting-then-blending and word manipulation-then-blending groups made significant improvements from pretests to posttest. 3. On tests of segmenting, only the blending-then-segmenting and word manipulation-thensegmenting groups made significant gains from pretest to posttest.

PAGE 46

39 Tahle 1 -continued. Study Ball & Blachman (1988) Intervention at the Level of Phonemes Sample 90 non-readers from Kindergarten Intervention Instruction in phoneme segmentation and lettersound correspondences Post-tests Word identification subtest of Woodcock Reading Mastery Test; tests of phoneme segmentation, letter names and sounds. Results : 1. The phoneme segmentation group significantly out-performed the control groups on the segmentation test. 2. There were no significant differences among the three groups on letter name knowledge. 3. Both the treatment group and control group 1 had significantly higher letter sound scores than control group 2. 4. Over 34% of the treatment group were able to read 4 or more words on the WRMT, as opposed to 13% for the control group 1, and only 7% for control group 2. Study Sample Intervention Post-tests Ball & Blachman (1991) 90 non-readers from Kindergarten Instruction in phoneme segmentation and lettersound correspondences Word identification subtest of Woodcock Reading Mastery Test; tests of phoneme segmentation, letter names and sounds. Results : 1 The phoneme segmentation group significantly out-performed the control groups on the segmentation test. 2. There were no significant differences among the three groups on letter name knowledge. 3. Phoneme awareness group and language activities group achieved significantly higher lettersound scores than the control group, but did not differ from each other. 4. On the WRMT, scores of children in the phoneme awareness group were significantly higher than the scores of children in either language activities group or control group. Study Sample Intervention Post-tests Hurfordetal.,(I994) 99 first graders identified as being atrisk for reading problems Instruction in phoneme blending and phoneme segmenting Woodcock Reading Mastery Test; phoneme discrimination; phoneme segmentation. Results : 1. Both training groups significantly outperformed their respective control groups after training. 2. Both training groups significantly outperformed control groups on phoneme discrimination and segmentation 3. On tests of discrimination and segmentation, there were no significant differences between the not-at-risk children and the trained children after training. 4. The trained children's scores on WRMT were significantly higher than the untrained children.

PAGE 47

40 Table 1 -continued. Study Sample Intervention Post-tests Marsh &Mineo (1977) 64 preschool children who were non-readers Recognition of phonemes: with or without visual cue; stop V. continuants; initial position V. final position Test of phoneme recognition Results : Children who had visual cues significanUy outperformed those without visual cues; performance was significantly better in the initial position with continuants; performance in the final position was superior for stops. Study Sample Intervention Post-tests Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis (1992) 5 1 children enrolled in kindergarten. Those who scored between 15* and 50* percentile on a test of phonological awareness were selected Instruction was provided to three groups: Blending & segmenting; only blending; and language experience activities (control) Tests of phoneme blending and phoneme segmentation; reading analog (reading a list of words) Results : 1. The group that was trained in both blending and segmenting significantly outperformed the other groups on posttests. 2. Training in both blending and segmenting facilitated the reading of new words on the readmg analog. Sample Intervention Post-tests Second and sixth Instruction in phoneme Phoneme segmentation; graders, including segmentation word identification, children with and without reading problems. (N = 75) Study Vellutino & Scanlon (1987) Results : Children trained in phoneme segmentation had significant gains in phoneme segmentation and word identification. They significantly outperformed those children who did not receive training. Intervention Built Around Metalinguistic Games Study Sample Intervention Post-tests Lundberg, Frost, & 390 children enrolled in Instruction in Letter knowledge; test Peterson (1988) Kindergarten metalinguistic games, of language including rhyming and comprehension; segmentation of words vocabulary; and phonemes metaphonological tests (including rhyming, blending, and segmenting at the word, syllable, and phoneme level)

PAGE 48

41 Table 1 -continued. Results : 1 There were no significant differences between the groups on letter knowledge. 2. There were no significant differences between the groups on language comprehension. 3. On the vocabulary test, the experimental group outperformed the control group. 4. On metaphonological tests, the experimental group outperformed the control group. 5. Follow-up measures revealed that training influenced reading and spelling even in second grade. Intervention Built Around a Broad Array of Phonological Skills Study Sample Intervention Post-tests Brady, Fowler, Stone, & 61 children from Winbury (1994) Kindergarten Instruction in rhyming, segmentation, categorization, and sound-identification Letter knowledge; word identification; spelling; rhyme production; phoneme segmentation; phoneme deletion Results : 1. There were no significant differences between training group and control on letter knowledge, reading, and spelling. 2. The training group outperformed the control on measures of rhyme and segmentation. 3. There were no significant differences between training group and control on phoneme deletion. Study Gillam&Kleeck(1995) Sample 16 preschool children with developmental speech and language disorders Intervention Post-tests Instruction in rhyming, identifying initial sound, sound matching, blending, and segmenting. Tests of rhyming and phoneme awareness (includes sound matching, blending, and segmentation) Results : Intervention resulted in significant improvements on measures on rhyming and phoneme awareness in children who received training. Study McGuinness, McGuinness, & Donohue (1995) Intervention Using Specific Programs Sample Intervention Post-tests 45 children enrolled in a preschool Instruction in Auditory Discrimination in Depth Word identification and word attack subtests of Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Results : 1 The trained groups significantly outperformed the control group on word identification and word attack, but did not differ from each other. Study Sample Intervention Post-tests Williams (1980) 102 children with learning disabihties. Children were enrolled in Title I schools and ages ranged from 7 to 12 Experimental group was trained in ABDs of Reading (blending, segmenting, and decoding) Syllable blending; syllable segmentation; phoneme blending; saying initial phoneme; phoneme segmentation; decoding; letter-sound correspondences

PAGE 49

42 Table 1 -continued. Results 1 For the experimental group there was significant gain from pretest to posttest on all subtests 2. For the control group, there was significant gain from pretest to posttest on all but one subtest (final-phoneme analaysis). 3. Posttest scores of the instructed group were significantly higher than those of the control group on letter-sound correspondence, phoneme blending, and decoding. The instructed group's scores on phoneme segmentation were not significantly higher than the scores of the control group. 4. Six months after the completion of the program, the scores of the instructed group were still higher than those of the control group 5. It was also found that experimental group was able to read unfamiliar items (not encountered in the training) Intervention built around sound categorization activities Bradley and Bryant (1985) conducted one of the first large-scale training studies and demonstrated a causal relationship between phoneme awareness and reading and spelling. Sixty-five kindergarten and first-grade children who had low scores on a sound categorization pretest were selected and divided into four groups matched on IQ, age, gender, and sound categorization ability. The children in both groups learned to categorize words on the basis of common sounds. In the second group, children also learned to represent the common sounds with plastic letters. For example, they were able to see that when "hen" was changed to "pen" only one letter had to be changed. The plastic letters that represented the sounds stayed in place on the table, while the child changed the "h" to a "p." The children in a third group were taught to categorize the identical pictures on the basis of semantic categories (e.g., "hen" and "dog" were grouped together, because both are animals). These three groups participated in 40 individual lessons over a 2 year period. A fourth group received no intervention. After the intervention, the children who were trained in sound categorization consistently outperformed the untrained children in reading and spelling. However, the children who were the most successful on measures of reading and spelling were the

PAGE 50

43 children who learned both to categorize words by their common sounds and to represent the sounds with plastic letters. Four years after the original study ended, a follow-up study found that the children who learned to make the connections between letters and sounds as part of their training in sound categorization were still the most successful in reading and spelling (Bradley, 1988). Intervention at the level of onsets and rimes O'Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, and Slocum (1993) examined the feasibility of teaching phonological manipulation skills to preschool children with disabilities. Children were selected from 55 children with developmental delays enrolled in preschool. Forty-seven children, 4-6 years old, were randomly assigned to receive training on one of three categories of phonological tasks (rhyming, blending, and segmenting) or to a control group. In Phase 1 of the study, each treatment group received training in only one task format. Blenders were taught to blend two and three phonemes presented as continuous sounds. For example, for "ssseeennn," children would say "seen." Segmenters began separating sounds by saying twoand threephoneme words slowly, without stopping between the sounds. For example, for "seen," children would say "ssseeennn." Rhymers were provided with examples and were encouraged to generate rhymes for words. Phase 2 of the study (4 weeks) involved reviewing the previously taught task and extending training to other tasks within the treatment skill area. Blenders were taught to blend words beginning with stop sounds, to blend words with all sounds separated, and to blend onset-rime. Segmenters were taught to separate words into onset-rime (s een), to say all the separate sounds in words, and to identify the first sound. Rhymers continued

PAGE 51

44 to produce rhymes, with the additional tasks of identifying whether or not a pair of words rhymed and selecting from three words the one that did not rhyme. Results of the study showed that blenders and segmenters outperformed rhymers and the control group on posttests that involved blending, segmenting, and rhyming. The investigators concluded that phonological awareness skills can be taught to young children with learning disabilities even before formal reading instruction. Although training in one phonological area did not seem to lead to improvement in other phonological skills, the researchers found that children who received segmenting training improved in blending. This facilitating effect could be explored by teaching segmentation to a higher criterion than that achieved in this research, and by replicating the experiment with larger treatment groups. O'Connor and her colleagues conducted two other studies that focused on onsetrimes. In a transfer study (Slocum, O'Connor, & Jenkins, 1993), 35 preschool children were divided into four groups based on the training they received in two phases: (a) blending and segmenting, (b) word manipulation and segmenting, (c) segmenting and blending, and (d) word manipulation and blending. Blending was taught using the onsetrime format. For example, for "/k/ /at/", the children had to say cat. As the children blended the onset and rime, they pointed to the appropriate picmre. Segmentation was taught using two rectangles, one to represent the onset and one to represent the rime. For example to segment cat, the student had to say "/k/. ./at/." The purpose of word manipulation was to control for many of the nonphonological aspects of instruction in phonological skills. The word manipulation tasks were analogous to the phonological tasks and provided experience in manipulating sounds in the speech stream. Although

PAGE 52

45 the investigators did not observe transfer to other phonological skills, they found that the blending and segmenting group significantly outperformed all other groups. In a later study, O'Connor, Slocum, and Jenkins (1995), randomly assigned 66 children into three groups: (a) blending and segmenting, (b) global array of phonological tasks, and (c) only letter-sound correspondence. Blending and segmenting were taught using onset-rime format and pictures were used to facilitate blending and rectangles for segmenting. The global treatment involved teaching children a series of phonological tasks, including blending, segmenting, rhyming, and word-to-word matching. The lettersound control group worked with letters and were asked to give the sound for each letter. Results showed that both treatment groups outperformed the control group (the group that was taught only letter-sound correspondences) on blending and segmenting. It was also found that blending and segmenting were as effective as the global treatment. Hence among all the phonological skills, the most crucial seem to be blending and segmenting. Intervention at the level of phonemes Investigators have focused intervention on recognition of phonemes (Marsh & Mineo, 1977), blending and segmenting at the phoneme level (Hurford et al., 1994; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992), and segmenting with letter-sound training (Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). In Marsh and Mineo 's (1977) study, 34 preschool children were taught to recognize phonemes. The training session extended over a 4-day period. There were two between-subject factors: (a) presence or absence of a visual cue (uppercase grapheme) and (b) phoneme type (stops vs. continuous) and two within-subject factors: (a) position of phoneme in the word (initial or terminal) and (b) phonemic contrast of the positive and negative exemplars (minimal or maximal). In the maximal contrast condition the two

PAGE 53

46 words had no phonemes in common (e.g., "like"-"bag"), while in the minimum contrast condition the words differed in only one phoneme (e.g., "pan"-"dan"). The students in the visual cue group learned to pair the phoneme used in the recognition task with its grapheme; the remaining students learned the same phonemes but with colored cards rather than the graphemes as stimuli. The recognition task was forced-choice matching-to-sample (A-B-X) paradigm. On each trial, the student was instructed by a taped voice to indicate which word begins (or ends) with the sound X. The first word came from the left speaker and the second, from the right. The child then responded by pointing to one of the speakers. In the visual cue condition, each word appeared on the screen next to the appropriate speaker prior to audio presentation of the words. Students in the stop condition identified which word of a pair contained either the phonemes Ibl and /d/ or the phonemes /p/ or IXJ in the initial or final position. The students in the continuant condition identified words containing either the phonemes /s/ and Ival or /f/ and /n/. Results indicated that preschool children were capable of recognizing phonemes. The visual cue condition group outperformed the non-visual group. It was also found that performance was better in the initial position with continuants and performance in the final position was superior for the stops. Findings implied that continuants should be introduced before stops. With respect to blending and segmenting at the phoneme level, the studies established that training resulted in improved performance. Hurford et al. (1994) studied first graders at-risk for reading difficulties. Ninety-nine children were identified as being at risk for reading difficulties; 53 children were at-risk for reading disabilities (RD), and

PAGE 54

47 46 children were at risk for becoming "garden-variety" poor readers (GV). Half of the RD and GV groups received the intervention. A third group consisted of children not atrisk. The phonemic blending and segmentation training was accomplished using magnetic letters and magnetic boards. The phonemic blending training began with CV syllables and progressed to CVC syllables. The letters were placed on the magnetic board while the student had to put the sounds together. The phonemic segmentation training also began with CV syllables followed by CVC syllables. Like the blending training, the letters were placed on the magnetic board while the student segmented the sounds each time pointing to the appropriate letter. The training procedure was effective in significantly improving blending and segmenting skills. The training groups performed considerably better than control groups. Results also indicated that although there were significant differences between the trained (at risk) children and the not-at-risk children before training, none existed after training. Hence, the intervention was effective in increasing the phonological processing skills and improving word identification and word attack scores of the trained children. Torgesen and his colleagues also reported evidence that children in kindergarten are capable of learning to blend and segment at the phoneme level. Torgesen, Morgan, and Davis (1992) studied 48 kindergarten children. Those children who scored between the 15* and 50"' percentiles on a phonological awareness test were included in the sample. The sample was divided into three groups: (a) the AB group received training that included both blending and segmenting, (b) the B group received training in only

PAGE 55

48 blending activities, and (c) the C group was exposed to a variety of meaning-oriented language-experience activities. Phonological training for children in the B group involved identifying the words represented by sequences of separately presented phonemes. Blending was introduced as a multiple-choice activity, in which children identified the word (from sets of two or three pictures) that had been pronounced in its segmented form by the trainer. Following this activity, the children were taught to pronounce the segmented word with no visual prompts. Training in both the AB and B groups was accomplished by using the same seven word sets. These word sets were formed so that they each involved a limited number of different phonemes. The last two sets were review sets composed of words from the first five lists. The control group (C) engaged in a variety of activities that emphasized reading and books as enjoyable and meaningful. Training for all groups lasted about 7 weeks. Training was done in groups of three to five children for 20-minute sessions three times a week. Results indicated that the AB group significantly outperformed the C group on segmenting. For blending, it was found that the means of both the AB and B groups were significantly higher than the C group. The investigators found that training in both blending and segmenting skills produced significant improvements in children's ability to segment words into phonemes. In contrast, the blending-only group did not show significant improvements in segmenting, compared to the control group. It was also found that the children in the AB group were able to generalize the oral-language phonological awareness they had acquired in training to a novel task: learning to read new words.

PAGE 56

49 In contrast to the above studies wherein children were taught both blending and segmenting, a few studies concentrated on segmentation in combination with letter-sound training. Vellutino and Scanlon (1987) used segmentation and letter-sound correspondence in their training. This study will be discussed in detail in the section on older children. The other studies that involved segmentation and letter-sound training were that of Ball and Blachraan (1988, 1991). In the studies by Ball and Blachman (1988, 1991), 90 kindergarten children were randomly assigned to either a treatment group or one of two control groups. Children in the treatment group learned to segment one-, twoand three phoneme items and also learned letter-sound associations. Children in the control group engaged in a variety of language activities (e.g., listening to stories) and also learned letter-sound associations by using the same letter sound stimuli as the phoneme awareness training group. The children in the phoneme awareness treatment group and the control group met in groups of five for 20 minutes, four times a week for 7 weeks. For the treatment group, each session contained three components: (a) say-it-and-move-it activities, (b) segmentation-related activities, and (c) letter-sound training. During say-it-and-move-it, children were taught to represent the sounds in one-, two-, and three phoneme words by using manipulatives such as disks, tiles, buttons, or blocks. Children were taught to say each sound in a word and move a block or disk to represent that sound. The segmentation-related activity included teaching children to categorize words on the basis of their common sounds. In addition, children learned to segment with the help of Elkonin boxes. The children were taught to say the word slowly as they moved a disk into a corresponding square to represent each sound in the word. For letter-sound

PAGE 57

50 correspondences, children learned keywords and phrases to help them remember the sound of each letter (printed on a card). For example, the "f card was illustrated with five funny faces. Ball and Blachman (1988, 1991) found that the phoneme segmentation training group performed significantly better than the control group on tests of phoneme segmentation. The investigators concluded that it is possible to teach kindergarten children to segment phonemes. Those children who received training could generalize segmentation training to novel items not presented during training. Increased phoneme awareness also had an impact on the ability to read words. Another conclusion from this study was that increased letter-sound knowledge alone doesn't improve segmentation skills; children need intensive training in both segmentation and letter-sound correspondence. Intervention built around metalinguistic games The studies reviewed so far have demonstrated that teaching phoneme awareness and making the connections between letters and sound segments in the words have a positive influence on reading and spelling acquisition. Lundberg and his colleagues (1988) have reported a positive effect on reading by providing training in phonological awareness that did not include explicit instruction in sound-symbol associations. The researchers provided 8 months of metalinguistic instruction to nonreading kindergarten children. A wide variety of games, starting with rhyming activities followed by the segmentation of sentences into word units and the segmentation of multisyllabic words into syllables, were conducted for the first 2 months of training. Phonemes were introduced during the third month of training by helping children identify the initial phonemes in words, starting with words that begin

PAGE 58

51 with continuous sound letters. Two months later, activities progressed to two-phoneme items and then to more complex words. Whole groups of children (15 to 20) participated in these activities. The results of the study indicated that children who participated in this program had significantly greater phonological awareness than the control children, although there were no differences between the two groups on post-tests of prereading skills (letter knowledge and segmentation skills). By the end of first grade, however, the treatment children outperformed the control children in spelling, and by the end of second grade the treatment children outperformed the control children in reading and spelling. Thus Lundberg and his colleagues (1988) were able to increase phonological awareness outside the context of formal literacy instruction by using group games and whole-class instruction provided by regular classroom teachers. Once formal reading instruction began, it appears that this heightened awareness of the phonological structure of language gave children an edge that was evident in their superior scores in reading and spelling at the end of second grade. Intervention built around a broad arrav of phonological skills Instead of concentrating on one isolated phonological awareness skill, some researchers studied the effects of teaching children a broad array of phonological skills. Brady, Fowler, Stone, and Winbury (1994) studied the effects of phonological awareness training on at-risk kindergarten children. There were 24 children in the training group and 37 in the control group. Phase one of the training involved phonological awareness above the level of the phoneme. Children were trained in rhyming, segmentation, categorization, and identification. Rhyming games included listening to nursery rhymes, completing rhymes.

PAGE 59

52 and generating rhyming words. Segmentation training involved breaking up sentences, phrases, and words into progressively smaller units. Categorization involved grouping pictures on the basis of similar initial sound or rhyme. Identification was taught by having children identify a particular syllable in a series of words. This phase of the training lasted about 4 weeks. Phase two of the training lasted for about 6 weeks. In this phase, children were taught to isolate phonemes. Activities involved introducing one pair of phonemes at a time. The similarities and differences were highlighted by providing descriptive labels and by using mirrors so that children could receive feedback on mouth and tongue positions while making the sounds. Other activities such as sound categorization, phoneme deletion, and phoneme identification were also taught. After children were comfortable with isolating phonemes, they were taught in a third phase to segment words into individual phonemes. Pictures of words were presented and empty squares (Elkonin boxes) under the picture represented the word segments. The children learned to put a tile into each square to represent each phoneme. This phase of training lasted for about 8 weeks. Results of the study showed that the training program yielded significant gains in rhyming, phoneme segmentation, and phoneme deletion. Findings were encouraging because there was evidence to show that at-risk nonreaders could master phonological awareness skills and training in these skills improved the children's spelling skills (on posttest). A broad array of phonological skills was also the focus of a study carried out by Gillam and van Kleeck (1996). They trained 16 preschool children with developmental speech and language disorders on phonological awareness tasks for a period of 9 months.

PAGE 60

53 The control group included a group of older children (mean age = 6) with speech and language impairments from the same school. In the fall semester, training included rhyming activities. Children attended a rhyming center for 15 minutes twice a week. Rhyming activities involved recognizing, imitating, identifying, and generating rhymes. During the spring semester, phoneme awareness activities were introduced. The sequence of activities followed was: teaching the initial sound, identifying when words are pronounced correctly, initial position sound matching, initial sound identification, generating words, phoneme blending, and phoneme segmentation. Intervention resulted in significant improvement on measures of rhyming and phoneme awareness in the groups of preschool children with language impairments who received training. The treatment groups also significantly outperformed the control group. At the beginning of the study, children in the training groups performed poorly on the phoneme awareness tests. After training, the treatment groups were significantly better than the control group on the same tasks. Finally, the researchers found that phoneme awareness improvement correlated significantly with a measure of pre-literacy development. Phonological awareness training using specific programs Two studies in the review involved specific programs. Williams (1980) used the ABDs of Reading. This study will be discussed in the section on older children. The other study that used specific programs was that by McGuinness, McGuinness, and Donohue (1995). The researchers selected 45 first graders and assigned them to two experimental groups (one with 16 children and the other with 15 children) and a control group (with 14 children). The children had above-average verbal ability, and they also had some prior exposure to

PAGE 61

54 letter-sound correspondences, phonics, and invented spelling. The training program used was Auditory Discrimination in Depth (ADD). The classroom teachers received a total of 32 hours of training in ADD. The ADD consists of teaching children how sounds are formed by encouraging them to look closely at their mouth with help of mirrors. They are taught categorization of nasals, simple vowels, complex vowels, and multisyllable words. Multisyllable words are taught by using large colored felt pieces to represent syllables and blocks to stand for phonemes. Blending and segmenting were also taught using the blocks (to represent phonemes). The sessions were about 45 minutes in length everyday. The children in the control group engaged in their normal everyday activities. Posttests were administered to the children in both experimental groups and the control group. ADD was effective in significantly increasing children's reading scores compared to their own initial performance. Both the experimental groups significantly outperformed the control group on word identification and on the Woodcock Reading Mastery series. The researchers also found that the ADD had a larger impact on decoding than on word recognition. The letter-sound correspondences and other phonological skills (blending, segmenting) facilitated the children's ability to read and spell. The investigators may have found positive results, because the children in the sample were already familiar with letter-sound associations and were already in a phonics program. This may have helped them to improve their reading and spelling skills. From all the studies discussed thus far, it seems obvious that phonological awareness training benefits children who are at-risk for reading problems and those who have not had formal reading instruction. Previous experimental studies focusing on

PAGE 62

55 phonological awareness training have generated some conclusions that have important implications for clinicians and practitioners. The next section discusses the conclusions that have come from these studies. Conclusions from Phonological Awareness Trai ning Studies The findings of the studies on phonological awareness training indicate that a unidirectional causal model may not be appropriate for our understanding of the reading process. Evidence shows that early phonological processing skill predicts subsequent success in learning to read and that phonological processing is highly impacted by learning to read. Learning to read is facilitated if phoneme awareness is connected in a coherent way to graphemes for a child to be able to learn accurate and fluent decoding skills. The studies reviewed provide cUnicians, practitioners, and researchers valuable information regarding phonological awareness and its relation to learning to read and how instruction in phonological awareness could be carried out. Some of the conclusions common to the studies are discussed below. Children can learn phonological awareness skills even before formal reading instruction Many studies showed that preschoolers who have not had formal reading instruction could learn phonological awareness skills such as blending and segmenting phonemes (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Brady, Fowler, Stone, & Winbury, 1994; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; Marsh & Mineo, 1977). If formal reading instruction is not required to learn phonological awareness skills, clinicians and practitioners could build these skills in children early in their literacy development. These phonological skills would enhance children's reading and spelling abilities and also improve the

PAGE 63

56 reading performance of those children who may be at-risk for reading problems due to phonological deficits. rhildren with phonological awareness defici ts can be taught phonological awareness skills Children who have phonological awareness deficits tend to have problems reading an alphabetic language. Because many of these children are not able to break words into individual sound units and match sounds to their symbols, they find decoding words and spelling difficult. However, research has shown that children with phonological awareness deficits and those who are at-risk can be taught phonological awareness skills required to read an alphabetic language (e.g., Brady, Fowler, Stone, & Winbury, 1994; Hurford et al., 1994; O'Connor, Slocum, & Jenkins, 1995; O'Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993). These skills include identifying initial sound in a word, blending and segmenting at the onset rime level, and blending and segmenting at the phoneme level. This conclusion seems most important for practitioners, because it provides hope that children with phonological awareness deficits can still learn those skills that are required to read an alphabetic language. Phonological awareness skills, when taught, are enduring Despite a dearth of longitudinal studies that addressed long-term effects of trained phonological awareness skills, training studies that involved a follow-up component showed evidence that trained phonological awareness skills tend to be maintained over an extended period of time (6 to 8 months) (e.g., Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; McGuinness, McGuinness, & Donohue, 1995). More follow-up studies that involve assessing children a year or more after training may provide more information about the lasting effects of phonological awareness training. However, the fact that these skills may be sustained implies that

PAGE 64

57 phonological awareness training for those children with deficits is worthwhile and should be considered in remedial reading programs. Phonological awareness training can facilitate wor d identification skills. Experimental research on children with and without phonological deficits has provided evidence that phonological awareness skills facilitate word identification and spelling abiUties (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Hurford et al, 1994; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; McGuinness, McGuinness, & Donohue, 1995; 0€onnor, Slocum, & Jenkins, 1995). This finding implies that phonological awareness is a crucial prerequisite for reading. Hence, it makes sense to teach phonological awareness skills at an early age. Further, evidence shows that if children with phonological deficits are provided training in phonological awareness skills, their reading scores improve (e.g., Hurford et al., 1994). Thus the core problem in reading deficits may be phonological deficits, in which case it may be important to target these skills in children who are at-risk for reading problems. Phonological awareness facilitates generalization In addition to facilitating reading and spelling performance, phonological awareness training has also been shown to facilitate generalization, (i.e., children are able to read new combinations of phonemes, even those that they have not encountered in the training situation) (e.g.. Ball & Blachman, 1988; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992). Phonological awareness training involving sound-symbol associations may help children make correspondences between orthographic patterns and their pronunciations. This ability would help children read new words while they simultaneously make associations with words they encountered previously. If children are able to read new combinations of phonemes after training, it

PAGE 65

58 implies that to facilitate children's word decoding skills, phonological awareness skills should be an integral part of every emergent literacy program. Phonological awareness training is faciUtated by letter -sound correspondences. Many studies have shown that children benefit from training if a component of lettersound associations is included, along with phoneme blending and segmentation (e.g.. Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Brady, Fowler, Stone, & Winbury, 1994; GiUam & van Kleeck, 1996; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). Training in letter-sound correspondences may help children to be aware of the fact that one symbol can have different sounds. This knowledge could increase children's fluency in word recognition. Further, because English is an alphabetic language, knowledge of symbols and their respective sounds is crucial in word decoding and speUing. However, training in letter-sound correspondence alone does not seem to be adequate; it should be accompanied by training in other phonological awareness skills, such as blending and segmenting (O'Connor, Slocum, & Jenkins, 1995). Some level of phonological awareness is necessary for training to be effective Although studies have established that phonological awareness can be taught (e.g.. Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1983, 1985) and training in phonological awareness improves reading performance (Hurford et al., 1994; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; McGuinness, McGuinness, & Donohue, 1995), some studies suggest that children should already have some phonological awareness abilities for training to be effective (e.g., Layton, Deeny, Upton, & Tall, 1988; Williams, 1980). This finding suggests a reciprocal relationship between phonological awareness and reading ability (i.e., phonological awareness helps a reader benefit from instruction and facilitates

PAGE 66

59 reading performance). Research, however, is not clear as to the exact level of phonological awareness required in order to benefit from instruction. The research in phonological awareness has been tremendously informative about beginning reading. Not only has a predictive relationship between phonological awareness and reading success been demonstrated, but it has also been established that phonological awareness is an important prerequisite for learning to read. Training studies have shown that providing systematic instruction in phonological awareness to kindergarten and first grade children can have a positive impact on beginning reading and spelling acquisition, especially when the instruction includes helping children make the connections between the sound segments of the word and the letters representing those segments. For those researchers and practitioners interested in improving reading instruction and reducing reading failure, the real challenge is to ensure that all children are able to benefit from reading instruction. Research-based findings on phonological awareness training have important classroom implications, especially for those children who have reading problems and those who are at-risk. However, one limitation of these findings is that they may not be generalizable to all children who have reading problems. Almost all landmark studies on phonological awareness training have focused on only one population (i.e., elementary school students). Thus, a large gap exists in the literature with respect to training studies that target older students (middle and high school students) with phonological deficits.

PAGE 67

60 Older Students with Phonological Awareness Deficits Research on beginning reading has established that phonological awareness is a prerequisite for learning to read (Adams, 1990; Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1985). This finding implies that deficits in phonological awareness lead to reading problems, and research has established that children who have phonological deficits do have problems learning to read (Shaywitz, 1996). Although research on phonological awareness training has shown that children who have deficits can learn many of the phonological awareness skills, some studies have proved that these deficits tend to be persistent over time (Juel, 1988; MacDonald & Cornwall, 1995; Stuart & Masterson, 1992). The stability of phonological awareness deficits impUes that students in middle and high school who have deficits will also experience difficulties in word decoding and spelling skills. The purpose of this section is to present information as to why middle school students may be a viable target population for phonological awareness training. The following topics will be discussed: prevalence of reading problems among children in the middle school, the nature of instruction in middle school, and phonological awareness training for middle school students. Prevalence of Reading Problems in Middle School Gamine, Silbert, and Kameenui (1990) suggested that reading deficits are the principal cause of failure in school. Considering the general school population, 10% to 15% of students experience difficulty in reading (Harris & Sipay, 1990). In special education, a majority of all students with learning disabilities have reading problems (Williams, 1980). It has also been documented that adolescents with learning disabilities experience academic deficits (Mercer, 1997). In a study of 300 students with learning

PAGE 68

61 disabilities, Deshler, Warner, Schumaker, and Alley (1983) reported a clear trend in achievement levels from 7'' to 12'' grade. In reading and written language, the average performance of these students began at the high third grade level of l"^ graders and plateaued at the 5* grade level for upper grades. Reith and Polsgrove (1994) also have documented academic deficits of adolescents with learning disabilities. They noted that the deficits are across the areas of reading, spelling, and math. These studies provide evidence that many middle school students have deficits in basic skill areas. Many adolescents with learning disabilities fail minimum competency tests even when the tests are modified for them (Reith & Polsgrove, 1994). These deficits in basic skills and the skills measured on minimum competency tests are supported in the literature (Adams, 1990; Algozzine, O'Shea, Stoddard, & Crews, 1988). Deficits in basic skill areas (such as reading and spelling) could prevent students from progressing academically and learning higher order skills. Consequently, these students may have deficits in more than one area, because they may not be able to apply their basic skills effectively. To determine the prevalence of phonological deficits in middle school students, the author conducted a study in Alachua County, Florida. As part of this study, special education teachers were contacted from four public middle schools. The teachers were asked to identify students who demonstrated reading problems. In this manner, 64 students in special education classrooms were identified and were administered the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (LACT). The purpose of the LACT is to determine if students could identify individual sounds within words and perform phonological operations such as phoneme substitution and reversal. (A more detailed

PAGE 69

62 description of the test is presented in chapter 3). Table 2 provides descriptive information about the sample, including scores on the LACT. Table 2 Descriptive Information for Subjects bv School School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 Total Gender Male 4 5 2 27 38 Female 7 3 2 1 A 14 20 Mean Age 12.40 13.90 13.00 13.60 Grade 6 9 2 o y i\J 7 2 6 1 10 19 8 2 1 22 2j Race Caucasian 5 4 2 12 23 AfricanAmerican 6 4 2 28 40 Asian Hispanic/Latino 1 1 Other SES Free lunch 9 5 1 26 41 Reduced lunch 2 3 3 12 20 Mean IQ (WISC-R) 9L40 100.40 100.60 90.40 Mean Scores on LACT 40.74 68.81 69.90 54.90

PAGE 70

63 All of the students scored below the average score for middle school students (i.e., 93). They had difficulties with phonological skills such as phoneme addition, phoneme deletion, phoneme substitution, and phoneme reversal. These difficulties may be contributing to the reading problems they demonstrate in the classroom. The findings of this study suggest that there are middle school students who have reading deficits and that these deficits may be exacerbated by deficits in phonological awareness skills. Research has suggested that adolescents tend to have academic problems because of the many demands placed m them in the middle school level. These demands include working independently with minimal feedback, demonstrating a broad set of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, taking frequent tests, expressing information through writing, and maintaining appropriate social interactions (Schumaker & Deshler, 1984; Putnam, 1992). In addition to these demands, the academic problems of middle school students may be exacerbated by the nature of instruction in the middle school level. Nature of Instruction in Middle School Some researchers have been concerned about the reasons behind adolescents' persistent academic problems and basic skill deficits. One explanation is that the secondary school setting does not provide adequate instruction in basic skills, and the criterion for success shifts from skill acquisition to content acquisition (Mercer, 1997). Many middle school teachers may assume that students already have the prerequisite basic skills. Moreover, even if middle school students get additional instruction in basic skills, they may not be able to practice applying their skills in the classroom, because teachers may concentrate more on higher order strategies.

PAGE 71

64 Two studies provided information about the nature of instruction in the middle school level (Garcia et al, 1995; Maclver, 1991). Garcia et al.'s (1995) study targeted a 7* grade public school in a Midwestern school district. The investigators conducted observations of the classrooms and interviewed nine classroom teachers, two special education teachers, and a Chapter 1 teacher. With respect to reading instruction, the teachers reported that students engaged in oral reading in round-robin fashion and instruction was mostly whole-group. According to the teachers, comprehension was an important skill to develop. However, they did not teach students comprehension strategies. Most of the teachers did not feel comfortable teaching basic skills in reading to middle school students. Students who had reading deficits were not provided with additional instruction nor were they taught how to read or learn from textbooks. None of the teachers assigned out of class reading, on the grounds that they would not be completed. Maclver's (1991) study proposed to describe the namre of remedial instruction in the middle schools. Questionnaires were sent out to 1025 schools, of which 1,008 responded. Results of the survey showed that the most common remedial activities were extra work or homework (in 56% of the schools), pull-out programs in reading (50%), afteror before-school coaching classes (46%), and peer-tutoring (45%). Although the study did not address the exact type of reading method(s) used during remedial instruction, the investigator found that the majority of the schools did not have one-onone tutoring for students. Although few studies provide information about the curriculum in the middle school level and the nature of reading instruction, the existing studies seem to suggest

PAGE 72

65 that middle school students who have reading deficits may not be getting adequate instruction in basic skills. According to Juel (1988), many secondary schools tend to provide instruction in higher order skills (e.g., comprehension). Instruction in higher order skills may not benefit students who have reading problems, because their problems may lie at a more basic level. Juel (1988) proposed that the most straightforward way to reduce reading deficits in adolescents is to concentrate on the rapid and early attainment of lower level and prerequisite skills. Phonological Awareness Instruction for Middle School Students According to some studies, some middle school students have problems in word decoding. Hence, it would make sense to determine if students in middle school can be taught phonological awareness skills and if so whether reading acquisition accelerates. Among all the studies that focused on phonological awareness training, only two studies targeted older students (Williams, 1980; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). Williams (1980) conducted a 2-year study to determine the effectiveness of an instructional program called ABDs of Reading. During the first year, the investigator selected children who were identified as having learning disabilities. The ages of the children ranged from 7 to 12. The pretests included auditory segmentation and blending of both syllables and phonemes, letter-sound correspondences, and decoding. According to Williams (1980) those children who were likely to profit from the program were selected. No cut-off scores were reported in the study. A total of 63 children formed the training group. Pretests were also administered to another group of children in comparable school districts. A total of 64 children from this group formed the control. For purposes of comparison, the pretests were also administered to a group of normally

PAGE 73

66 functioning second graders. (The scores of the second graders were substantially higher than those of the other groups). Classroom teachers were trained to use the program. They were asked to use the program everyday for 20 minutes. In the program (ABDs of Reading), children first learned the concept of analysis (segmenting) at the syllable level and then at the phoneme level. Children learned to represent phonemes using wooden squares. The next section, blending, was also taught using squares. Only CVC (consonant-vowel-consonant) units were taught. After the instruction on analysis and blending, letters were introduced, and letter-sound correspondence was taught. Again using wooden squares, which had letters on them, children learned to decode and spell combinations of CVC units. Teachers provided a meaningful context for the words by using them in a sentence. Overall, 26 weeks of instruction were completed. Posttests indicated that scores of the trained group were significantly higher than those of the comparison groups on letter-sound correspondences, saying the middle phoneme in a word, saying all three phonemes in a word, and decoding. Even 6 months after the completion of the program, the scores of the instructed group were still higher than those of the comparison group. During the second year of the study, the investigator selected classrooms from six different school districts. All classrooms were randomly assigned to treatment or a control group. There were 24 experimental classrooms and 16 control classrooms. Pretests were administered to all the children. The same instructional procedures were followed during the second year. Results from the posttest data indicated that the performance of the experimental groups improved significantly from pretest to posttest

PAGE 74

on every measure. Also, the experimental groups scored significantly higher than the control groups on every subtest of the posttest except one phoneme analysis subtest (saying initial phoneme). With respect to transfer, the experimental groups performed significantly better than did the control groups on unfamiliar items, indicating that transfer occurred and that the instructional program had succeeded in teaching strategies of decoding. Vellutino and Scanlon (1987) conducted an experimental study involving second and sixth graders. Children in this study were divided into poor and normal reader groups on the basis of oral reading ability. Poor readers were at or below the 10* percentile on the Gilmore Oral Reading Test, and normal readers were at or above the 50* percentile. Second grade normal readers were matched with sixth grade poor readers for oral reading ability and were found to be equivalent on both decoding and phoneme segmentation ability. The five treatment conditions were phonemic segmentation training (PST); response acquisition (RA); phonemic segmentation and response acquisition (PSTRA); and two control conditions. Children in the PST group received 5 or 6 consecutive days (half-hour per day) of training in phoneme analysis. The specific exercises closely paralleled those given on the phoneme segmentation tests (i.e., counting phonemes, vocalizing phonemes, and combining phonemes). The stimuli used for these exercises consisted of both real words and pseudowords, presented both auditorily and visually. Segmentation exercises were followed by a free recall task and a paired associates learning task. The free recall task involved memory for nonsense syllables and was designed to provide children with practice in segmenting auditorily presented syllables.

PAGE 75

68 The paired associates task was designed to provide subjects practice in detecting grapheme-phoneme correspondences in novel alphabetic trigraphs which were paired with consonant-vowel-consonant nonsense syllables. Children in the RA condition were taught two separate tasks. The first involved 20 trials of free recall of four nonsense syllables. These stimuli were presented auditorily and in random order on each trial. The second task involved 15 association learning trials on which the same nonsense syllables were paired with animal cartoon pictures. The free recall task assessed children's ability to store and retrieve phonetic strings devoid of meaning. The picture-syllable task served as a measure of children's ability to learn the names of objects and simulated the process whereby children learn to attach verbal labels they have heard to objects in their environment. Children in the PSTRA condition were given both phonemic segmentation training and response acquisition training. All five groups were tested 2 days after training. Results showed that poor readers in a given grade performed below the normal readers in that grade on both tests of decoding and segmentation. The second grade normal readers performed as well as the sixth grade poor readers on both tests. With respect to free recall of nonsense syllables and picture-syllable association, poor readers in both grade levels were less proficient than their normal reading peers on both free recall and picture-syllable. Findings also showed that poor readers at both grade levels performed considerably below the normal readers on tests of word identification. Despite these findings, results showed that with each reader group at both grade levels, the experimental treatments had positive effects. Furdier the scores of the children in the

PAGE 76

69 PST and PSTRA were significantly higher than the other groups, but there was no significant difference between the PST and PSTRA groups. The investigators concluded that although older children can learn decoding and phoneme segmentation skills, their phoneme awareness skills may set upper limits on their ability to identify words. Although the poor reader groups exposed to treatment performed better than the control groups, they did not come up to the level of the normal readers. The reason for this may be due to the short duration of the training program. However, the findings seem to suggest that older children can learn phonological manipulations that would help them in word decoding. Both intervention studies that have involved older students suggest that these students are capable of learning phonological awareness skills. Although older students may not reach the level of their normally developing peers with respect to phonological processing abilities, instruction in phonological awareness may lead to some improvements in reading and spelling abilities. The persistence of phonological deficits into adolescence may be due to that fact that these skills are not targeted in the middle school level. Because instruction in basic skills tend to be ignored, students' deficits may continue to grow. In order to prevent failure and to improve reading performance, it is crucial for teachers to incorporate some aspects of beginning reading into remedial programs. Implications for Research The literature reviewed in this chapter provides a theoretical and empirical basis for this study. Research on beginning reading has provided evidence that phonological awareness is an important aspect of learning to decode words. Adams' theoretical model

PAGE 77

70 (Adams, 1990) proposes that for reading comprehension to occur, the reader must have adequate phonological awareness skills. According to Adams' model, the phonological processor is responsible for breaking words into their individual units and performing phonological manipulations. If the phonological processor does not function properly, higher order functions (such as comprehension) cannot be called into play. That phonological awareness deficits lead to reading problems has also been suggested by the phonological deficit hypothesis (Shaywitz, 1996). Deficits in phonological awareness leads to difficulties in word decoding and eventually comprehension. Information based on these theoretical models imply that the reading problems experienced by older children may result from phonological awareness deficits. Because many remedial programs in the middle school level seem to ignore basic skills such as phonological awareness, deficits in phonological processing abilities tend to persist, leading to many years of reading failure. If research has shown that training in phonological awareness results in improvements in phonological awareness skills, word decoding, and spelling, it seems logical to target these skills even in older children who have deficits in decoding. By teaching older students phonological awareness skills crucial to the reading process, it is hoped that these skills would improve their word decoding abilities. This study builds on the existing research by examining the effects of phonological awareness instruction on a population that has been previously neglected middle school students. This approach is supported by Adams' model, the phonological deficit hypothesis, data on the prevalence of reading deficits in the middle school level,

PAGE 78

and successful results from the body of phonological awareness training targeting beginning readers and children with reading deficits.

PAGE 79

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction In this chapter, the methods and procedures of the study are presented. The chapter begins with the hypothesis that was tested. The second section is a description of the subjects, sampUng procedures, instructional procedures, and measures. The subsequent sections include descriptions of the design and treatment of the data. Hypotheses and Research Question The purpose of the study was to determine the effects of phonological awareness instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities who were identified as having reading problems. The primary research question of the study is: Does instruction in phonological awareness skills influence the acquisition of phonological awareness and word identification skills? To address this question, the following null hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of confidence: Hi: Students who receive phonological awareness instruction will not outperform students who do not receive instruction on measures of phonological awareness, including elision, blending words, nonword repetition, phoneme reversal, blending nonwords, segmenting words, and segmenting nonwords. H?: Students who receive phonological awareness instruction will not outperform students who do not receive instruction on a measure of word identification. 72

PAGE 80

73 Setting and Subjects This section includes a description of the instructional settings and information about the subjects. The setting description includes information about each school. The subject description includes demographic information by school and by group. An explanation of sampling and assignment procedures is also provided. Instructional settings The study required a sample of students at the middle school level who have learning disabilities and have been identified as having reading problems. Three public middle schools in Alachua County were selected. These schools have a high percentage of students in ESE classrooms, and they provided permission to include their students in the study. The socioeconomic stams of individual students was not considered as a factor in this study. However, this information is presented along with other demographic information in Table 3. Subject description Fifty middle school students were screened using the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test described later in this chapter. Of these 50 students, 40 were selected as participants in this study. Teachers were asked to identify those students who had poor attendance records or who, for any other reason, may not be able to complete the entire instructional process. These children were eliminated from the pool of participants. Parental informed consent for participation were obtained for all participants as required by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (See Appendix A). A summary of the demographic information from the 40 students is presented by school in Table 3. Table 3 also includes the group assignment of subjects from each school.

PAGE 81

Table 3 Descriptive Information for Subjects by School 74 School 1 School 2 School 3 Total Gender Mean Age Grade Race SES Group assignment Male Female 6 7 8 Caucasian AfricanAmerican Asian Hispanic/ Latino Other Free lunch Reduced lunch A B 6 7 13.50 5 8 4 7 5 8 7 6 8 7 13.70 11 4 4 11 6 9 8 7 6 6 12.45 8 4 3 9 4 8 5 7 20 20 8 20 12 11 27 15 25 20 20 Table 4 Descriptive Information for Subjects by Group Group A Group B Gender: Male Female 12 8 8 12 Mean age 12.90 12.90

PAGE 82

75 Table 4— continued. Group A Group B Grade: 6 2 6 7 8 12 8 10 1 Race: Caucasian 9 2 AfricanAmerican 10 17 Asian Hi sn ani c/Latino 1 1 Other SES: Free Lunch 1 s o Fee-reduced Lunch 15 10 Test Mean Scores Group A Group B Peabodv Picture Vocabulary Test99 98 R (10) Lindamood Auditory 49.00 49.35 Conceptualization Test Woodcock Reading Mastery Test41.35 40.45 R Word Identification Comprehensive Test of 67.35 63.75 Phonological Processing Matching was used to assign the 40 students into two groups, A and B. The variable that was used for matching was the score on the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test. Table 4 includes information on the two groups. The table also includes test data for the groups.

PAGE 83

76 Instructional Procedures The instructional procedures are described in this section. First, the duration and number of sessions for each group are outlined. The following sections include an account of various aspects of the instructional sessions. Procedures for Instructional Sessions Instruction in phonological awareness skills were provided on a one-to-one basis for students in both groups A and B. The duration of instruction for both groups was about 4 weeks. Students were instructed for 3 days per week, and they were taught 2 lessons per day. The total number of lessons for both groups was 18 (including a review). The instructional procedures for students in both groups were exactly the same, except that instruction for group B began after instruction for group A has been completed. During instruction, presentation of skills was conducted using the direct instruction procedures described by Gamine, Silbert, and Kameenui (1990). For each skill, the instructor modeled the correct response and provided feedback as the students practiced with the particular skill. When an error was noted in a student's response, the instructor modeled the correct response. Instructional Program The instructional program that was used for the study was the Great Leaps Reading program devised by Mercer and Campbell (1998). It was originally designed for children from kindergarten through second grade. For the purposes of this study, some changes were made to make lessons more age appropriate. For example, two lessons (repeating words and tapping number of words) were omitted. Following are some lessons that were added:

PAGE 84

77 1. Blending two words to make a new word 2. Segmenting a word to make two words 3. Phoneme reversal 4. Phoneme substitution Sequence of Instruction The students worked with easy tasks first and then moved to more difficult ones. The sequence of instruction was as follows: rhyming; identifying words with same beginning or final sound; blending words, syllables, and phonemes; segmenting words, syllables, and phonemes; phoneme deletion; phoneme reversal; and phoneme substitution. This sequence was suggested by previous studies (Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; Yopp, 1988). For blending and segmenting, the sequence that was followed was: words, syllables, and phonemes. This sequence was also suggested by previous research (Goswami, 1995). The lessons for each skill are presented in Table 5. Table 5 Lessons for each phonological skill Skill Lesson(s) Rhyming Selecting the odd one out (the word that doesn't rhyme) Generating rhymes Beginning or final sound Selecting words with same beginning sound Selecting words with different beginning sound Selecting words with same final sound Selecting words with different final sound Saying beginning, middle, or final sound of a word

PAGE 85

78 Table 5--continued. Blending two words to make a new word Blending Blending syllables Blending phonemes Segmenting a word into two words Segmenting Segmenting words into syllables Segmenting words into phonemes Saying a word with a part or a beginning sound missing Phoneme deletion oayinS a WOrU WllIl a Xlllal Ul llJJUUiC suuiiu iiiiooiiig, Phoneme reversal Saying a word with two sounds reversed Phoneme substitution Saying a word with one sound replaced by another sound Review All lessons Nature of Lessons Each lesson constituted only one type of task. The lesson began with specific explanations of what the student had to do. The instructor provided an example and modeled the right response. (Table 6 consists of the explanations that the instructor provided for each lesson and the type of response required by the student, and Appendix B has the lessons with all the items). To ensure understanding, two practice items were provided for each lesson. Then, the instructor scored the student's performance on 30 items for each lesson. Students practiced each lesson until they reached mastery. The mastery score was set at 25 for each lesson. The mode of presentation for all the tasks was auditory, and students' responses for all tasks was verbal. If students offered an incorrect response or stated that they did

PAGE 86

79 not know the right response, the instructor provided the correct response verbally. For every task, correct responses was documented on a chart for each student. When the student made an incorrect response on a particular item, the item was scored as an error, but the instructor immediately provided the right response. Number of correct responses was noted on a progress chart so that students could monitor their own progress on each lesson until mastery was reached. Table 6 Description of individual lessons Selecting the odd one out Purpose To determine if students can pick the odd one out; i.e. select the word that does not rhyme. Explanation provided by I am going to say three words. I want you to tell me the one instructor word does not rhyme. For example, if I say, "cat, sat, milk," you would say "milk." Response required by Saying the word that does not rhyme student Generating rhymes Purpose To determine if students can produce rhyming words given a target word. Explanation provided by I am going to say a word. I want you to tell me a word that instructor rhymes with the word that I say. For example, if I say, 'book," you would say "look" or "cook." Response required by Saying a word that rhymes with the target word, student Selecting words with same beginning sound Purpose To determine if students can compare beginning sounds of words and select two words (from a list of three) that have the same beginning sound. Explanation provided by I am going to say three words. I want you to tell me which instructor two words have the same beginning sound. For example, if I say "tent, race, tall," you would say "tent, tall." Response required by Saying the two words that have the beginning sound, student

PAGE 87

80 Table 6— continued. Purpose Selecting a word with different beginning sound To determine if students can pick the odd one out; i.e., from a list of three words, selecting a word that has a different beginning sound. Explanation provided by instructor I am going to say three words. I want you to tell me which word has a different beginning sound. For example, if I say, "mine, beach, bat," you would say "mine." Response required by student Saying the word that has the different beginning sound. Selecting words with the same final sound Purpose To determine if students can pick out two words (from a list of three) that have the same final sounds. Explanation provided by I am going to say three words. I want you to tell me which instructor two words have the same final sound. For example, if I say, "boat, seed, hat," you would say "boat." Response required by student Saying the two words that have the same final sound Selecting words with different final sound Purpose To determine if students can pick out a word (from a list of three words) that has a different final sound Explanation provided by I am going to say three words. I want you to tell me which instructor word has a different final sound. For example, if I say, "bat, time, coat," you would say "time." Response required by student Saying the word that has a different sound. Saying beginning, middle, or final sound of a word To determine if students can identify the beginning, middle, or final sounds in a given word Purpose Explanation provided by instructor a. b. c. I am going to say a word. You need to tell me the beginning sound. For example, if I say, "mouse," you would say /m/ I am going to say a word. You need to tell me the middle sound. For example, if I say, "cot," you would say lol I am going to say a word. You need to tell me the final sound. For example, if I say, "leaf," you would say /f/ Response required by student Saying the beginning, middle, or final sounds of a word according to specific instructions Blending two words to make a new word Purpose Explanation provided by instructor To determine if students can put two words together to make a new word I am going to say two words. I want you to put them together to make one word. For example if I say, "butter, fly," I want you to say "butterfly"

PAGE 88

81 Table 6— continued. Response required by Saying the two words as one whole word student Blending syllables Purpose To determine if students can blend syllables to make a word Explanation provided by I am going to say two parts of a word. I want you to put instructor them together to make a whole word. For example, if I say. "sum mer," you would say "summer." Response required by Saying the syllables as one whole word. student Blending phonemes Purpose To determine if students can blend individual sounds to make a word Explanation provided by I am going to say some sounds. I want you to put the sounds instructor together to make a word. For example, if I say, "/p/ /a/ /n/," you would say "pan." Response required by Saying the whole word student Segmenting a word into two words Purpose To determine if students can segment a word into two words Explanation provided by I am going to say a word. I want you to break the word into instructor two words. For example, if I say "buttermilk," you would say "butter, milk." Response required by Segmenting the word and saying the two words student Segmenting words into syllables Purpose To determine if students can segment a word into syllables Explanation provided by I am going to say a word. I want you to break the word into instructor smaller parts. For example, if I say "summer," you would say, "sum, mer." Response required by Segmenting the word and saying the syllables. student Segmenting words into phonemes Purpose To determine if students can break a word into its individual sounds. Explanation provided by I am going to say a word. I want you to tell me each sound instructor in the word. For example, if I say, "jot," you would say "/j/ /o//t/" Response required by Saying the individual letter sounds in the target word student Saying a word with a part or beginning sound missing Purpose To determine if students can delete the beginning part of a word to make a new word

PAGE 89

82 Table 6--continued. Explanation provided by instructor I am going to ask you to say a word without saymg a certam part of the word. For example, if I say, "Say 'cat' without saying Id" you would say 'at.' Response required by student Deleting the beginning part of a word and saymg the new word, according to instructions. Savins a word with a final or middle sound missing Purpose To determine if student can delete the final or middle sound from a word to make a new word Explanation provided by instructor I am going to say a word without saying the ending sound or middle sound of the word. For example, if I say, "Say lost' without saying lil" you would say los.' Response required by student Deleting the final or middle sound in a word and saying the new word. Phoneme reversal Purpose To determine if students can reverse the order of two phonemes in a word to make a new word Explanation provided by instructor I am going to say a word. I want you to reverse the order of two sounds and say the new word. For example, for the word "top," I want you to switch places for III and /p/. So you would tell me "pot." Response required by student Reversing the order of two phonemes and saying the new word. Phoneme substitution Purpose To determine if students can say a word if a sound is replaced by another sound Explanation provided by instructor I am going to say a word. I want you to remove one sound from that word and replace it with another sound and then say the new word. For example, if I say, "Say 'pit;' now remove the /p/ sound and put in a /!/ sound, you would say, lit.' Response required by student Saying the new word with the replaced sound Reinforcement To encourage student participation and effort during instructional sessions, a progress chart (See Appendix C) was maintained in a folder for each student. Students had opportunities to see their charts and evaluate their performance. Students were also provided verbal reinforcers (praise) during instruction.

PAGE 90

83 Research Instrumentation The research instruments that were used in this study included the screening measure, the pretest measures, and the posttest measures. Screening Measure The nature of the instruction suggested that the students for this study should be those students who had low levels of phonological awareness. Therefore, a screening instrument was administered to identify potential subjects. The screening instrument was the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test (LAC Test) (Lindamood & Lindamood, 1971, 1979). This test was chosen because it had norms for older students (ages 1 1 and above), while other tests of phonological awareness do not. Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test The LAC test is an individualized test designed to measure auditory perception and conceptualization of speech sounds. (A copy of test items is included in Appendix C.) In this test, students use colored blocks to represent phonemes in either consonant sequences (e.g., /p/ /p/ /ml) or nonsense words in a series or chain (e.g., "Show me /a/"; "if that says /a/, show me Zap/"). The test contains a structured training process that involves left-to-right sequencing of the blocks and using one color to represent each different sound. Reliability of the test was determined by pre/post-testing with alternate forms of the LAC test, on a sample of 52 students (four at each grade level, K-12). The test-retest reliability between Form A and Form B was +.96. With respect to validity, correlations of the LAC total test with the Wide Range Achievement Test combined Reading and Spelling were found to range from +.66 to +.81 at different grade levels, with an average of +.73.

PAGE 91

84 The LAC test is scored using the following scoring procedure. One point was allotted for each correct response. (For category I-A and category I-B, students had to use the blocks to represent phonemes in consonant sequences and for category II, students had to make nonsense words with the blocks.) A total raw score was converted to a standard score to allow comparisons across grade levels. According to the norms of the test, for middle school students, the minimum performance score is 93. Those students who scored below 93 were selected for the study. Pretest Measures Pretest measures assessed word identification and phonological awareness skills. The Woodcock Reading Mastery Revised (Woodcock, 1987) and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999) were used for the pretest measures. Word identification The word identification test was administered to determine if students could read words without a context. The test also provided information about students' word reading levels. To assess word identification, the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised (WRMT-R) was administered. The word identification subtest of the WRMT-R required students to pronounce words in isolation. This subtest measured students' ability to read words on sight. Further, students could not rely on background information, because there was no context for the words (i.e., the words are not embedded in a sentence). For this subtest, raw scores were calculated and used for analyses. Reliabilitv and validity of the WRMT-R. The author provided data on the internal-consistency reliability of the WRMT-R. These data were provided separately for

PAGE 92

85 grades 1, 3, 5, 8, and 1 1 and for college and adult groups. Reliabilities ranged from .8 to .9 for total test scores. Reliabilities were also calculated using the split-half procedure. Split-half reliability coefficients for the word identification subtest was .98. Concurrent validity data are provided for the total reading score of WRMT-R and total reading scores of 4 other batteries (Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Iowa Test of Educational Development, PIAT, and Woodcock-Johnson Reading Achievement). These correlations range from .78 to .92 for samples of 48 to 86 examinees. Correlations among the total score of WRMT-R and the total score of Woodcock-Johnson Reading Test were reported for grades 1 through 8. These correlations ranged from .60 to .91. Phonological Awareness To assess phonological awareness, the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP) was administered. The purpose of this test was to identify individuals who have deficits in phonological awareness skills. The CTOPP has the following subtests: elision, blending words, nonword repetition, phoneme reversal, blending nonwords, segmenting words, segmenting nonwords, sound matching, memory for digits, rapid color naming, rapid object naming, rapid digit naming, and rapid letter naming. The sound matching subtest was omitted, because it is used with 5 and 6 year olds. Five other subtests (memory for digits, rapid color naming, rapid object naming, rapid digit naming, and rapid letter naming) were omitted, because the intervention does not address those specific skills. The following subtests were administered: Elision, blending words, nonword repetition, phoneme reversal, blending nonwords, segmenting words, and segmenting nonwords. These subtests are described below.

PAGE 93

86 1. Elision The elision subtest measures the extent to which an individual can say a word, then say what is left after dropping out designated sounds. For example, the student is instructed, "Say bold." After repeating "bold," the student is told, "Now say bold without saying /b/." This subtest has 20 items. 2. Blending words This 20-item subtest measures an individual's ability to combine sounds to form words. For example, the student is asked, "What word do these sounds make: "/t/-/oi/?" The correct response is the word "toy." 3. Nonword repetition This subtest has 18 items, and measures an individual's ability to repeat nonwords that range in length from 3 to 15 sounds. For example, the student would repeat the word, "nigong." 4. Blending nonwords This subtest (consisting of 18 items) measures an individual's ability to combine speech sounds to make nonwords. For example, the student is asked, "What made-up word do these sounds make: "/nim/ /by/?" The correct response is "nimby." 5. Segmenting words This subtest measures the ability to say the separate phonemes that make up a word. The student is told to repeat a word, then to say it one sound at a time. For example, if the examiner tells the student to say "beast" and then say it one sound at a time, the student would say, "/b/ Id h/ Ixl" The total number of items for this subtest is 20. 6. Segmenting nonwords This subtest (20 items) measures an individual's ability to say the separate phonemes that make up a nonword. For example, if the student listens to the nonword, "ren," he / she would say "/r/ Id InJ."

PAGE 94

87 7. Phoneme reversal This 18-item subtest measures the extent to which an individual can reorder speech sounds to form words. For example, after listening to the sounds, "ood," the student is instructed to repeat "ood" and then to say "ood" backwards. The correct response is "do." Raw scores were obtained for each subtest and then summed to obtain a total raw score. This score will be used for analyses. Reliabilitv and validitv of the CTOPP The authors of the CTOPP reported testretest reliabilities for each of the subtests. These reliabilities are shown in Table 7. The authors also reported concurrent validity for the CTOPP. The subtests of the CTOPP were correlated with the word identification and word analysis subtests of the WRMT-R. Some of the subtests of the CTOPP were also correlated with the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test to further establish the validity. Information about validity is summarized in table 8.. Table 7 Test retest reliabilities for the CTOPP subtests Subtest Reliability Elision .79 Blending words .72 Nonword repetition .75 Rapid letter naming .72 Phoneme reversal .79 Blending nonwords .77 Segmenting words .79 Segmenting nonwords ^

PAGE 95

88 Table 8 Concurrent validity for the CTQPP WRMT-R Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test CTOPP subtests Word Identification Word Analysis Elision Blending words Memory for .53 .16 .46 .74 .32 .36 .75 .58 .48 digits Rapid digit .57 .70 .51 naming Nonword .22 .40 .41 repetition Rapid letter naming .52 .65 .49 Mid-test and Pnsttest Measures A mid-test (test 2) was administered to both groups after instruction was completed for group A. The word identification and the phonological awareness tests were used for the mid-test. A posttest (test 3) was administered to both groups after group B completed instruction. The posttest comprised the same measures as the midtest. Rx peri mental Design A within group repeated measures design was used for this study. At the outset, all students were given the pretest. Then the sample was split into two equivalent groups, A and B, based on scores on the Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test. Instruction began for group A alone. After instruction for group A was completed, both

PAGE 96

groups were given the mid-test (test 2). At this point, instruction began for group B. After group B completed instruction, both groups were given the posttest (test 3). Treatment of the Data The data were analyzed to determine if any significant differences existed between the two groups on any of the measures. Baseline data, including the mean for each group on each of the pretest measures were collected at the outset of the study. The pretest means were compared to determine if there were any significant differences between the groups. ANOVAs were conducted to compare group means on the word identification subtest of the Woodcock and CTOPP separately. These comparisons told us if instruction had an effect on performance scores. Table 9 contains an illustration of the comparisons to be made during the analysis for each hypothesis. Dependent t-tests were also conducted to examine more closely the differences between cell means (for the CTOPP). Table 9 Design for Testing the Null Hypotheses Dependent Measures Group A Group B Midtest (Test 2) Midtest (Test 2) CTOPP Hi: There will be no statistically significant difference between the groups on measures of phonological awareness. Word Identification (Woodcock) H2: There will be no statistically significant difference between the groups on a measure of word identification.

PAGE 97

CHAPTER IV RESULTS Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of phonological awareness instruction for middle school students who have been identified as having phonological awareness deficits. Two hypotheses were formulated and tested. The general question of the study was as follows: Does phonological awareness instruction influence the acquisition of phonological awareness and word identification? To investigate this question, 40 middle school students with phonological awareness deficits were split into two groups, A and B. At the outset, both groups were given the pretest. Then, group A began intervention. After intervention was completed for group A, both groups were given a second test (test 2). At this point, group B was provided instruction. After group B completed intervention, both groups were given test 3. The effects of the instruction on phonological awareness skills and word identification skills of the students in both groups were measured and compared. This chapter contains the results of the statistical analyses of the data from this study. First, the reliability of instructional procedures is explained. Second, the statistical model used to analyze the data is presented, and the results of the data analyses are discussed. Finally, the hypotheses are examined in light of the statistical results. 90

PAGE 98

91 Reliability of Instructional Procedures Procedures were implemented to ensure the reliability of instructional procedures throughout the duration of the study. Because two groups were used, it was necessary to ensure that instructional procedures for both groups were consistent. Procedural Reliability The researcher conducted the instruction for both groups at all times. In some situations, having the researcher as the instructor for two treatment groups may introduce a bias, because the researcher is not blind to the treatment conditions and outcomes for the groups. However, in this study, the design itself controlled for such a bias. The research design required both treatment groups to receive exactly the same instructional program and to make similar gains after instruction. Further, the two groups were not instructed at the same time. Group B began intervention only after group A completed intervention. Thus, the chances are less that a bias on the instructor's part could have facilitated one group to perform higher than the other group. With respect to the instructional program, scripted lessons were used for both groups. Consequently, everyone listened to the same explanations, introductions, and examples. The instructor also made sure that all students in both groups completed the same number of lessons. To further ensure fidelity of treatment, the researcher had planned to be formally observed by a masters student. The purpose of these observations was to ensure the consistent implementation of the instructional program. However, due to circumstances beyond the researcher's control, these observations were not conducted.

PAGE 99

92 Statistical Analysis of the Data Statistical analyses were conducted to ensure the initial equivalence of the two groups. This section presents data on the ages, gender, and race of the participants of the study. In addition, results of the statistical analyses are examined to compare the effects of training on the phonological awareness and word identification skills of the students. Equivalence of the Intervention Groups Several analyses were completed to determine if there were any preexisting differences between group A and group B. The mean age for both groups was the same (12.9). A chi-square (x^) test was used to compare the two groups by gender. The revealed no differences (at the 0.05 level) between the groups for gender iX = 1 -6, p = 0.20). Table 10 provides a summary of the distribution of subjects into groups by gender, race, and age. Table 10 Distribution of Subjects by Gender, Race, and Age Group Gender Race Mean Age Female Male Caucasian African American Hispanic A 8 12 9 10 1 12.90 B 12 8 2 17 I 12.90 The means of the pretest scores for the two groups were calculated. Using t-tests, the pretest scores of the groups were compared to determine if any differences between the groups existed. No significant differences between the two groups' pretest means were found. Table 1 1 includes the means and standard deviations of the Lindamood

PAGE 100

93 Auditory Conceptualization Test (LACT) for both groups. This test was administered at the beginning of the study to select the students. It was also used to match the students before assigning them to the two treatment groups. Table 11 Means and Standard Deviations for the LACT Dependent Measure Group A Group B t df E (n=20) (n=20) Mean Mean (SD) (SD) Lindamood Auditory 49.00 49.35 0.09 19 .9302 Conceptualization Test (13.69) (13.45) Descriptive Summary of Pretest to Posttest Data Table 12 and 13 present the means and standard deviations of the data collected in the study by group. (Average scores for each of the subtests of the CTOPP for the pretest, midtest, and posttest are presented in Appendix D. The number of administrations for each lesson is presented in Appendix E and the student's scores on each lesson is presented in Appendix F). Table 12 presents the means and standard deviations for the two groups on the word identification subtest of the Woodcock, and Table 13 presents the means and standard deviations for the groups on the CTOPP.

PAGE 101

Table 12 Means and Standard Deviations of Groups A and B on the Woodcock Group Pretest Midtest (Test 2) Posttest (Test 3) Total Mean Mean Mean Mean (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) A 41.35 43.20 44.95 43.17 (6.55) (7.05) (6.78) (6.84) B 40.45 41.4 42.7 41.42 (7.05) (7.21) (6.57) (6.89) Total Mean 40.9 42.3 43.83 (SD) (6.73) (7.09) (6.69) Table 13 Means and Standard Deviations of Groups A and B on the CTOPP Group Pretest Midtest (Test 2) Posttest (Test 3) Total Mean Mean Mean Mean (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) A 67.35 94.65 94.7 85.57 (13.79) (7.11) (7.68) (16.29) B 63.75 67.85 96.65 76.08 (10.45) (7.18) (5.53) (16.72) Total Mean 65.55 81.25 95.68 (SD) (12.21) (15.3) (6.68)

PAGE 102

95 Inferential Analysis of the Data Several statistical analyses of dependent measures were conducted to compare the effects of instruction on the phonological awareness skills and word identification skills of the middle school students. First, a two-within factors ANOVA was conducted to compare the two groups in terms of phonological awareness and word identification skills. (The within-factors ANOVA approach was used because the two groups were matched on a variable, making the groups dependent on each other). Two ANOVAs were conducted for the word identification subtest and for the CTOPP separately. With respect to the word identification subtest, the ANOVA did not reveal a significant interaction effect. However, there was significant main effect for occasion. Hence, the marginal means for occasion (pretest, midtest, and posttest means) were compared using dependent t-tests. (Dependent t-tests were used for the follow-up tests, because the two groups were dependent on each other). With respect to the CTOPP, the ANOVA results revealed a significant interaction effect. Hence, the cell means were examined by conducting follow-up t-tests. The follow-up tests included tests for group within occasion and occasion within group. The following section describes the results of the ANOVA for the word identification and for the CTOPP and the results of the follow-up t-tests. Results of the ANOVA Two ANOVAs were conducted for the word identification subtest and for the CTOPP. This section first describes the results of the ANOVA for the word identification and then the results of the ANOVA for the CTOPP. Table 14 presents the ANOVA source table for the word identification subtest of the Woodcock.

PAGE 103

96 Table 14 Comparison of the Word Identification Subtest (Woodcock) by Group Source df SS MS f n Group (G) 1 81.68 81.68 0.61 0.4429 Error (SG) 19 2526.83 132.99 Occasion (0) 2 171.22 85.61 27.01 0.0001* Error (SO) 38 120.45 3.17 Interaction (G X 0) 2 9.45 4.73 1.88 0.1666 Error (SGO) 38 95.55 2.51 significant at the 2 < 0.05 level. The results of the ANOVA revealed that there was no interaction effect and no significant difference between the two groups in terms of word identification, as measured by the Woodcock. However, the main effect for occasion was significant. To determine exactly where the differences were, dependent t-tests were conducted for the marginal means for occasion (i.e., pretest, midtest, and posttest means). The following formula was used to calculate the observed t value: t observed = D / Sd In the above formula, t observed is the observed t value; D is the mean of differences between the raw scores, and Sd is the standard error of differences. This formula was used for all the follow-up t-tests. The Bonferroni procedure was used to set the significance level for the follow-up t-tests to control for Type 1 error. The a level (.05) was divided by 3, because there were three follow-up tests. Table 15 presents the comparison between the pretest and midtest scores on the word identification subtest of Woodcock; Table 16 shows the comparison between

PAGE 104

97 pretest scores and posttest scores; and Table 17 presents the comparison between the midtest and posttest scores. Results of the ttests indicated that the means of the posttest and midtest scores were significantly higher than the pretest mean, and the posttest mean was significantly greater than the midtest mean. These results imply that the groups improved their word identification skills over time. However, these results do not seem to have practical significance because the students' grade levels for word identification at the posttest were the same as their grade levels at the pretest (i.e., the grade levels remained below the fourth grade). Table 15 Comparing Pretest and Midtest Marginal Means on Woodcock Dependent Pretest Midtest (Test 2) df t Prob >|t| Measure Woodcock 40.90 42.30 38 4.33 0.0004* significant at the p < .05/3 (0.016) level Table 16 Comparing Pretest and Posttest Marginal Means on Woodcock Dependent Measure Pretest Posttest (Test 3) df t Prob >|t| Woodcock 40.90 43.83 38 6.81 0.0001* significant at the p < .05/3 (0.016) level

PAGE 105

98 Table 17 Comparing Midtest and Posttest Marginal Means on Woodcock Dependent Midtest (Test 2) Posttest (Test 3) df t Prob >|t| Measure Woodcock 42.30 43.83 38 3.54 0.0022* significant at the e < -05/3 (0.016) level A two-within-factors ANOVA was also used to compare the groups' performance on the CTOPP. Table 18 presents the ANOVA source table for the CTOPP. Results of the ANOVA indicated (1) an interaction effect, (2) significant main effect for groups, and (3) significant main effect for occasion (i.e., the two groups made significant gains over time). Follow-up t-tests revealed further information about group differences and gains from pretests to posttests. Table 18 Comparison of Phonological Awareness Skills (CTOPP) by Group Source df SS MS f S Group (G) 1 2698.0 2698.0 41.96 0.0001* Error (SG) 19 1221.83 64.31 Occasion (0) 2 18161.15 9080.58 217.45 0.0001* Error (SO) 38 1586.85 41.76 Interaction (G X 0) 2 4652.02 2326.0 140.15 0.0001* Error (SGO) 38 630.65 16.60 significant at the p < 0.05 level. The within-subjects ANOVA was useful in determining if there were overall group effects and interaction effects for the word identification subtest and the CTOPP.

PAGE 106

99 In order to look more closely at group differences, simple effects were calculated to examine group within occasion and occasion within group. The formula described on page 96 was used for the follow-up t-tests. With respect to the significance level, the Bonferroni procedure was used to control for Type 1 error. The significance level for the follow-up tests was set at .05/9 (.0056). The a level (.05) was divided by 9, because there were nine follow-up tests. The following t-tests were conducted to examine the effects of group with occasion: 1. A V. B on the pretest 2. A V. B on the midtest 3. A V. B on the posttest To examine the effects of occasion within groups, the following t-tests were conducted: 1. Pretest v. midtest scores of group A 2. Pretest v. posttest scores of group A 3. Midtest v. posttest scores of group A 4. Pretest v. midtest scores of group B 5. Pretest v. posttest scores of group B 6. Midtest v. posttest scores of group B The results of each of the t-tests are described. First, both groups are compared in terms of the pretest, midtest (test 2), and posttests on the CTOPP. Then, each group is individually examined for gains from occasion to occasion. Groups within occasion Table 19 provides a summary of the comparison of the two groups on the pretest, midtest, and posttest. When comparing the pretest scores of groups, A and B on the CTOPP, results indicated that there was no significant difference

PAGE 107

100 between the groups.. On the midtest, group A significantly outperformed group B and on the posttest, there was no significant difference between the scores of group A and group B. Table 19 Comparing Groups Within Occasion for CTOPP Dependent Measure Mean of Group A Mean of Group B t Prob >|t| CTOPP Pretest 67.35 63.75 19 1.73 0.1002 CTOPP Midtest 94.65 67.85 19 14.93 0.0001* CTOPP Posttest 94.70 96.65 19 -1.32 0.2030 significant at the p < 0.05/9 (0.006) level. Occasion within group for group A The pretest scores were compared to the midtest (test 2) and posttest scores of group A to determine if scores on CTOPP increased after intervention. Table 20 presents the t-test results comparing the pretest and midtest, pretest and posttest, and midtest and posttest scores of group A. These tests indicate that group A had significantly higher scores on both the midtest and the posttest compared to the pretest. Comparing midtest and posttest, there was no significant difference. Table 20 Comparing Occasion Within Group for Group A Dependent Pretest Midtest (Test 2) df t Prob >|t| Measure CTOPP 67.35 94.65 19 -11.60 0.0001* significant at the p < 0.05/9 (0.006) level.

PAGE 108

101 Table 20-continued. Dependent Measure Pretest Posttest df t Prob >|t| CTOPP 67.35 94.70 19 -10.84 0.0001* Dependent Measure Midtest Posttest df t Prob >|t| CTOPP 94.65 94.70 19 0.05 0.9576 significant at the p < 0.05/9 (0.006) level. Occasion within group for group B The pretest and midtest scores on the CTOPP were compared for group B. The scores were not expected to be different, because intervention began for group B only after the midtest. The pretest and posttest scores were compared to determine if there were overall gains in phonological awareness skills. Results indicated that the midtest score was significantly higher than the pretest score and posttest score was significantly higher than the pretest. The midtest and posttest scores of group B were compared to determine if intervention had an effect, and if posttest scores were significantly higher than the midtest scores. Results indicated that on the CTOPP, group B scored significantly higher on the posttest than on the midtest Table 21 Comparing Occasion Within Group for Group B Dependent Pretest Midtest (Test 2) df t Prob >|t| Measure CTOPP 63.75 67.85 19 -3.44 0.0027* significant at the p < 0.05/9 (0.006) level.

PAGE 109

102 Table 21 --continued. Dependent Measure Pretest Posttest df t Prob >|t| CTOPP 63.75 96.65 19 -13.24 0.0001* Dependent Measure Midtest (Test 2) Posttest df t Prob >|t| CTOPP 67.85 96.65 19 -33.97 0.0001* significant at the 2 < 0.05/9 (0.006) level. In addition to the follow-up t-tests, effect sizes were calculated by comparing (a) pretest and midtest scores of group B and (b) midtest and posttest scores of group B. The effect sizes were calculated in an attempt to explain an unexpected result. The statistical results indicated that both groups had significantly higher midtest scores than pretest scores. For group A, it was expected that the midtest score would be higher than the pretest score, because group A had begun intervention after the pretest. However, group B was not expected to have higher a midtest score compared to the pretest score, because group B had not begun intervention. Because group B had a significantly higher midtest score compared to the pretest score, it may be difficult to conclude that the treatment was having an effect on group B. By comparing the magnitude of effects of (a) pretest and midtest and (b) midtest and posttest, it may be possible to conclude that the treatment led to the significantly higher posttest score. The following formula was used to calculate the effect sizes: Effect Size = Y,

PAGE 110

103 In the formula, Yi and Y2 are the means to be compared, and Sp is the pooled standard deviation. Table 22 presents the effect size comparing the pretest and midtest means of group B and Table 23 presents the effect size comparing the midtest and posttest means of group B. Table 22 Effect Size of Pretest and Midtest Score Comparison of group B Group B Pretest Midtest Effect Size Mean Mean (SD) (SD) 63.75 67.85 0.46 (10.45) (7.18) Table 23 Effect Size of Midtest and Posttest score comparison of group B Group B Midtest Posttest Effect Size Mean Mean (SD) (SD) 67.85 96.65 4.49 (7.18) (5.53) According to the results, for group B, the effect size comparing pretest and midtest scores was .46 and the effect size comparing the midtest and posttest scores was 4.49. These effect sizes have important significance to the results of this study. A detailed discussion of the effect sizes is provided in Chapter V.

PAGE 111

104 To summarize, results of the ANOVA for the word identification subtest did not reveal a significant interaction effect. A significant main effect was found only for occasion within groups. Follow-up t-tests were used to compare the marginal means for occasion (i.e., the pretest, midtest, and posttest means). The t-test results revealed that for both groups, the mean midtest score was significantly higher than the mean pretest score, and the mean posttest score was significantly higher than the mean pretest and midtest scores. For the CTOPP, the ANOVA results revealed a significant interaction effect. Hence, follow-up t-tests were conducted to examine differences between the cell means. The two groups did not differ significantly on the pretest and posttest. However, group A had significantly higher midtest scores than group B on the CTOPP. Group A also had a significantly higher CTOPP midtest score compared to the pretest. Both groups had significantly higher posttest scores compared to their pretest scores. One finding that tends to confound the results was that group B had significantly higher midtest scores than the pretest scores. Finally, there was no significant difference between the midtest and posttest scores of group A, indicating that this group was able to maintain gains on the phonological awareness measure. In the following section, these statistical results are examined in light of the hypotheses. Summary Of The Hypotheses And Results Two hypotheses were constructed to test the effects of group on the phonological awareness and word recognition skills of the participants. The results of the statistical analyses designed to test each hypothesis are discussed in this section.

PAGE 112

The research design allowed the midtest to be a direct test of the hypotheses. According to the design, the treatment effects were expected to be demonstrated at the midtest. While group A began intervention after the pretest, group B did not begin intervention until after the midtest. Hence, group A was expected to have higher midtest scores than group B on both measures. Hypothesis 1 Students who receive phonological awareness instruction will not outperform students who do not receive instruction on measures of phonological awareness, including elision, blending words, nonword repetition, phoneme reversal, blending nonwords, segmenting words, and segmenting nonwords. The ANOVA for the CTOPP measure revealed a significant group and occasion interaction effect. Hence, follow-up t-tests were conducted to examine simple effects of groups within occasion and occasion within groups. The t-test revealed that group A had significantly higher midtest scores than group B on the CTOPP. Thus, for phonological awareness, statistical analyses resulted in the rejection of the null hypothesis. Hypothesis 2 Students who receive phonological awareness instruction will not outperform students who do not receive instruction on a measure of word identification. The ANOVA for word identification indicated that there was no significant interaction effect. Also, results did not indicate a significant group main effect. This impHed that there was no significant difference between groups A and B on word identification. The lack of a statistically significant difference resulted in a failure to reject the null hypothesis.

PAGE 113

The results of the statistical analyses of the data from this study have been presented in this chapter. Methods used to ensure the reliability of instructional procedures were described and demographic data presented to demonstrate initial equivalence of the two groups. The statistical model used to analyze the data was explained, the results of the data analysis were presented, and these results were examined in light of the hypotheses. The following chapter provides a detailed discussion of the results.

PAGE 114

CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Over the last two decades, reading research has confirmed the importance of phonological awareness in the acquisition of reading skills (Shankweiler & Liberman, 1988; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Longitudinal studies and experimental intervention have concluded that phonological awareness reliably predicts reading skills several years later, and that instruction could improve phonological awareness skills (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Juel, 1988; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). Consequently, many researchers seem to suggest a phonological model of beginning reading (e.g, Adams, 1990; Shaywitz, 1996; Snowling, 1995). The phonological model of reading supports the idea that for reading to occur, phonological awareness skills have to be called into play. Because research has established that phonological awareness is crucial to reading success, much attention has been devoted to the training of phonological awareness in children with and without deficits in phonological awareness. Researchers have explored a variety of intervention procedures for phonological awareness training (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1983; O'Connor, Slocum, & Jenkins, 1995; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992). A huge body of experimental research has involved elementary school children, and findings have concluded that children who were trained in phonological awareness showed improvements in phonological awareness skills and word recognition and spelling. Further, those training studies that had a follow-up 107

PAGE 115

• 108 component showed evidence that phonological awareness skills tend to be maintained over an extended period of time (e.g., Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988). The present study aimed to build on existing research by extending research findings to older children who have deficits in phonological awareness. Previous research has pointed out that older students also have reading deficits (Deshler, Warner, Schumaker, & Alley, 1983; Reith & Polsgrove, 1994). If the phonological model is valid, many of the reading deficits that older children have may be explained by phonological awareness deficits. Consequently, targeting phonological awareness skills during intervention should improve word recognition skills. The purpose of the present study was to determine if older students (at the middle school level) who were identified as having phonological awareness deficits could improve their phonological awareness skills after instruction, and if these skills could impact their word recognition. The objectives of the study were as follows: 1. To determine if instruction in phonological awareness would improve phonological awareness skills in middle school students who have reading problems. 2. To determine if instruction in phonological awareness would improve word recognition skills in middle school students who have reading problems. The study was conducted using a within-group repeated measures design. Forty students were split into two groups, A and B. Group A first received instruction, and after instruction was completed, instruction began for group B. Instructional procedures were the same for both groups. Two hypotheses were constructed and tested. Dependent measures were statistically examined to compare the effects of group on phonological awareness and word recognition. Results of the study indicated that group A

PAGE 116

109 significantly outperformed group B on the phonological awareness measure (CTOPP). However, the groups did not differ significantly on the word identification measure. This finding led the researcher to conclude that the intervention did impact phonological awareness skills. However, it was difficult to make conclusions about the impact of the intervention on word identification skills. In the following sections, conclusions of the study are presented and results are compared to previous research findings. Limitations of the study are acknowledged, imphcations for practice are discussed, and suggestions for future research are proposed. Discussion of Findings In this section, conclusions based on the results of the study are presented. The results of this study are then compared with the findings of prior research in phonological awareness. Areas of consistency and inconsistency between the results of this study and previous research are reported, including tentative explanations for the inconsistencies. Conclusions Based On Statistical Results Several statistical analyses of dependent measures were conducted to compare the effects of instruction on the phonological awareness skills and word identification skills of the participants in the study. First, a twowithin factors ANOVA was conducted to compare the two groups in terms of phonological awareness and word identification skills. For the CTOPP measure, the ANOVA revealed a significant interaction. Hence, follow-up t-tests were conducted to examine the cell means. The ANOVA and t-tests led to the following results: (a) group A had significantly higher midtest scores on the CTOPP compared to group B, (b) group A showed maintenance with respect to phonological awareness, and (c) both groups had significantly higher posttest scores

PAGE 117

110 compared to pretest scores for both measures, and (d) absence of group effect for word identification. These results along with their conclusions will be further examined. Group effect on the midtest for the CTOPP The ANOVA (described in Chapter rV) revealed a significant interaction for the CTOPP measure. Hence, follow-up t-tests were conducted to examine the cell means. When the midtest scores on the CTOPP for both groups were compared, results revealed that group A had significantly higher scores than group B. This result led to a rejection of Hypothesis 1 (students who receive phonological awareness instruction will not outperform students who do not receive instruction on measures of phonological awareness). The significant group effect implies that the intervention led to an improvement of the students' phonological awareness skills (including elision, blending words, nonword repetition, phoneme reversal, blending nonwords, segmenting words, and segmenting nonwords). Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that phonological awareness intervention impacts the phonological awareness skills of middle school students who have deficits in phonological awareness. Maintenance of skills Group A was given a second posttest (approximately 4 weeks after the midtest). The purpose of this second posttest was to determine if score gains would be maintained on this posttest. Results indicated that for group A there was no significant difference between posttest and midtest on phonological awareness. This implies that the students in group A retained the skills that they were taught during the intervention. The short duration of this study may make it impossible to conclude maintenance of skills beyond 4 weeks. However, results are promising, considering that the students in this study were far below grade level on phonological awareness skills at the beginning of the study.

PAGE 118

Ill Significant gains from pretest to posttest For the word identification measure, the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for occasion. Follow-up t-tests for the marginal means for occasion revealed that together both groups had significantly higher posttest and midtest scores compared to the pretest, and significantly higher posttest scores compared to the midtest scores. These results indicate that over time, both groups seemed to improve their word identification skills. The pretest scores indicated that the students in the study were approximately at the third grade level with respect to word identification. The posttest scores on the Woodcock indicated that their reading levels did not change. However, both groups had significantly higher scores compared to the pretest. Similarly, posttest scores on phonological awareness were significantly higher than pretest scores for both groups. For group B, the posttest score was significantly higher than the midtest, indicating that after instruction the phonological awareness skills of this group improved significantly. The CTOPP pretest scores for both groups indicated that the grade levels of the students ranged from second grade to fourth grade on the subtests (except for blending nonwords which indicated grade level 9). However, on the posttest, grade levels ranged from 3 to 9 on the individual subtests for both groups. The most dramatic score increases were noticed for segmenting words, segmenting nonwords, and phoneme reversal. For segmenting words and segmenting nonwords, pretest scores indicated third grade level for both groups. The posttest scores indicated ninth-grade level for segmenting words and sixth-grade level for segmenting nonwords. For phoneme reversal, pretest scores indicated a fourth grade level for the two groups. However, posttest score indicated ninth-grade level.

PAGE 119

112 Absence of group effect for word identification In this study, the students did not seem to transfer phonological awareness skills to word identification. Failure to transfer phonological awareness skills to word identification was indicated by lack of statistical significance between the groups. In this study, a lack of transfer may have been the result of several factors including the severity of reading problems of the participants, age of the participants, nature of the instructional program, and nature of the word identification measure. These factors are examined more closely. 1 Severity of reading problems The sample in this study consisted of middle school students who were identified as having learning disabilities. In addition, nearly all the participants were reading below the fourth grade level. Students with severe reading problems may differ from typical learners in their ability to transfer phonological skills across tasks. Research suggests that students with learning disabilities have problems transferring their learning (e.g.. Alley, Deshler, Clark, Schumaker, & Warner, 1983). This difficulty in transfer of learning may have prevented many of the participants in this study from transferring phonological awareness skills to word identification. 2. Age of students The students in this study were at the middle school level, with an average age of 12.9. These students seemed to have experienced many years of reading problems. The severity of the students' reading problems combined with their age may have led to difficulties in transferring phonological awareness skills to word identification. Hence, older students with reading problems may require more intensive and longer instructional programs than younger children with reading problems. Research also suggests that children with learning disabilities acquire skills more slowly than typical learners (Sugden, 1989). Hence, longer intervention programs may

PAGE 120

113 be required to ensure that students have attained mastery and transfer. Although the instructional program impacted phonological awareness skills, the duration may not have been sufficient to influence word identification. Sugden (1989) further asserts that children with learning disabilities find it difficult to transfer their learning to new situations. Thus, it is important to design an appropriate instructional program that enables students with disabilities to transfer their learning to another context (Brown & Campione, 1986; Pressley, et al., 1987). 3. Nature of the instructional program The instructional program used in this study (Mercer & Campbell, 1998) was designed specifically to develop phonological awareness skills. Students in the study used only their auditory skills to learn the various phonological awareness skills with no opportunity to apply these skills to the reading of words. Though some research has demonstrated that phonological awareness instruction alone improves reading and spelling skills (e.g., Hurford et al., 1994), older students with reading problems may need more explicit instruction involving instruction in word identification strategies. Previous research seems to suggest that children show transfer from phonological awareness to word identification if a component of letter-sound correspondences is included, along with instruction in phonological awareness skills (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988; Brady, Fowler, Stone, & Winbury, 1994; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). 4. Nature of the word identification measure The word identification subtest of the Woodcock requires students to identify isolated words. Though some of the words can be sounded out (e.g., "red"), a majority of the words are not conducive to sounding out (e.g., "garage.") (Woodcock, 1987). Hence, the students may have found it difficult

PAGE 121

114 to apply their phonological awareness skills to sound out many of the words. Because the words in the test were not conducive to sounding out, it may appear that students did not make the transfer from phonological awareness skills to word identification. In this study, the word identification subtest of the Woodcock was chosen primarily because previous studies used this test as a dependent measure. Further, the test has norms and grade levels for older students. A more sensitive measure of word identification that includes phonetically regular words may help to determine if instruction in phonological awareness skills leads to improvement in word identification. To summarize, it seems that transfer of learning may have occurred if students were provided training in letter-sound correspondences and word identification along with training in phonological awareness skills. Further, the participants in this study had severe reading problems and may have experienced years of reading failure. Thus, intervention may have been more effective if students were provided exphcit training (for a longer period of time) rather than expecting them to transfer skills on their own. Finally, selecting a more sensitive dependent measure for word identification may have provided more information about the impact of phonological awareness instruction for word identification. In addition to the above findings, results revealed two unexpected outcomes. One outcome was that group B had a significantly higher CTOPP midtest score compared to the pretest score. This was surprising, because group B began intervention only after the midtest. The second outcome was that for both groups the word identification score increased significantly over time. At the beginning of the study, it was expected that only

PAGE 122

115 group A would show gains from pretest to midtest, but results revealed that group B also made significant gains from pretest to midtest. One possible explanation for the above findings is that the participants in this study were already receiving instruction in word recognition and word attack skills in their classrooms. Though reading instruction varied across schools and classrooms, most students received instruction in phonics, word recognition, word attack, and comprehension skills. This ongoing classroom instruction could explain the significant gains over time for word identification and the significantly higher midtest score for group B. Another explanation could be familiarity with the test. Students in group B may have become familiar with the test items during the pretest and midtest. Thus, practice with the test may have led to the score increase in the midtest. In order to determine if treatment had an effect on group B, the effect size comparing midtest and posttest (4.49) was compared to the effect size comparing pretest and midtest (.46). These effect sizes indicate that for group B, the posttest scores were higher by 4.49 standard deviations compared to the midtest (nearly 10 times higher). However, the midtest scores seemed to improve only about a half standard deviation compared to the pretest scores. If the treatment did not have an effect, group B may not have had such a dramatic score increase at the posttest. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that the significandy higher posttest scores of group B, compared to the midtest scores was as a result of the treatment. The effect sizes do not explain the significantly higher midtest score for group B (compared to the pretest). However, by comparing the index of performance of group B

PAGE 123

116 at the posttest and at the midtest level, it is reasonable to conclude that the significant score increase at the posttest level for group B was due to the treatment. Despite some of the ambiguous results, some of the major conclusions of this study are similar to those made by previous research studies. The following section describes some of the areas of consistency with prior research. Areas of Consistency With Previous Research Previous research strongly suggests the importance of phonological awareness instruction and its impact on improving many of the subskills of phonological awareness (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1988; Hurford et al., 1994; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992; Williams, 1980). In the review of literature (described in Chapter 11), a majority of the studies included participants in kindergarten and first grade. However, the findings of those studies are similar to the findings of this study. Some of the areas of similarity are: (a) it is possible to teach phonological awareness skills to older students with severe phonological awareness deficits, (b) phonological awareness instruction can lead to significant improvement of phonological awareness skills, and (c) phonological awareness skills are maintained over time. Each of these areas is discussed further. Teaching older students with phonological awareness deficits The review of literature revealed two studies that involved older students. Both studies concluded that older students with phonological awareness deficits can improve their phonological awareness skills after instruction (e.g., Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Williams, 1980). The findings of this study are in agreement with previous research. The participants in this study had severe phonological awareness deficits. However, these students were able to learn the phonological awareness skills presented in the intervention, despite their

PAGE 124

117 deficits. This is an important conclusion because it provides hope for practitioners that older students with deficits can significantly improve their phonological awareness skills and ultimately impact reading achievement in a positive way. Significant improvement in phonological awareness Results of this study provided evidence that group A had significantly higher midtest scores than group B on the CTOPP. Hence, intervention was effective in improving phonological awareness skills (including elision, blending words, nonword repetition, phoneme reversal, blending nonwords, segmenting words, and segmenting nonwords). This result is consistent with results of previous intervention studies (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Hurford et al., 1994; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992; Vellutino & Scanlon 1987; Williams, 1980). In addition to group effect, both groups showed significant gains from pretest to posttest (i.e., posttest scores were significantly higher than pretest scores). This finding is similar to results of previous research, indicating that students tend to improve in phonological awareness skills after instruction (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; OXHonnor, Jenkins, Leicester, & Slocum, 1993; Torgesen, Morgan, & Davis, 1992; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Williams, 1980). Because posttest scores were significantly higher than pretest scores on phonological awareness, it may be reasonable to conclude that the intervention did impact students' phonological awareness skills. Maintenance of skills In this study, results indicated that group A showed maintenance of phonological awareness skills over time. These results are similar to previous findings that phonological awareness skills, once learned, tend to be maintained over a period of time (e.g., Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; McGuinness,

PAGE 125

118 McGuinness, & Donohue, 1995). More longitudinal studies involving older students may make this finding more conclusive. It is encouraging to note similar research findings to those of previous studies. These findings could lead one to conclude that phonological awareness instruction is instrumental in improving phonological awareness skills in older students. However, this study did not result in some of the findings that were revealed in previous research studies. The following section describes some of the areas of contrast with prior research. Areas Of Contrast With Previous Research Previous research on phonological awareness intervention indicated that phonological awareness skills enabled word identification and spelling (e.g.. Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Bradley & Bryant, 1985; McGuinness, McGuinness, & Donohue, 1995; O'Connor, Slocum, & Jenkins, 1995; WiUiams, 1980). However, results of this study revealed that there was no significant difference between the two groups on the word identification subtest. This implies that training in phonological awareness may not have had an impact on word identification. This result tends to go against what previous studies have found about the effects of phonological skills on word identification. An important difference between this study and some of the previous studies may explain the differences in research findings. Many earlier studies included letter-sound correspondences and decoding training in their intervention. Students were trained to identify the sounds associated with each letter and to read new combinations of sounds. This word identification training along with phonological awareness training may have helped students in their word recognition skills. This study, however, focused only on

PAGE 126

119 training phonological awareness skills. The intervention did not have a component of lettersound correspondences of word identification training. With training only in phonological awareness, the participants in this study may have found it difficult to transfer these phonological awareness skills to word reading. In summary, it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding the effects of phonological awareness instruction. Consistent with expectations based on previous research, instruction in phonological awareness resulted in significantly higher increases in phonological awareness skills (elision, blending words, nonword repetition, phoneme reversal, blending nonwords, segmenting words, and segmenting nonwords). However, in contrast to the results of previous research, group A did not significantly outperform group B on word identification. Thus, intervention may not have had an impact on word identification skills. Some of the results of this study may have been influenced by many factors difficult to control. These factors may have confounded the results of the study. In the following section, the limitations of the present study are discussed. These limitations could serve future researchers in their plans to study phonological awareness instruction for older students. Limitations of the Study This study had several limitations. The most significant limitation was time. The short duration of the study may not have been sufficient to facilitate transfer from phonological awareness skills to word identification skills. The students in the study were identified as having reading problems and phonological awareness deficits. Hence, these students may have needed some more time to acquire and transfer skills. Although

PAGE 127

120 the instructional program impacted phonological awareness skills, it did not seem to influence word identification. Additional instructional sessions may have enabled transfer. Further, the instructional program did not include letter-sound correspondences or word recognition training. Word recognition training may have produced statistical significance between the groups. Another limitation of this study is generalizability. The results of the study may not be generalizable to younger students who have phonological awareness deficits. The participants in this study had already received instruction in phonics and were continuing to receive instruction in word recognition skills even during the study. It was not possible to isolate the effects of classroom reading instruction. Hence, classroom instruction may have confounded the results of the study. All of the one-on-one instructional sessions in this study were conducted by the researcher, and they took place outside of the regular classroom. The study may have had ecological validity if instruction occurred in small groups within the regular classroom, or if it was delivered by the students' regular teacher. Finally, selection of setting and subjects may have influenced the results. Only those middle schools that agreed to participate were included in the study. Also, only those teachers that were willing to participate, and those students that brought back parent-permission forms were included in the study. A larger sample size with random selection of subjects may have contributed to stronger conclusions about statistical results.

PAGE 128

121 Implications for Practice The findings of this study have practical implications for teachers and other practitioners that are responsible for designing curriculum and delivering instruction to middle school students who have reading problems. The results of this study indicated that the middle school students v^'ho participated in this study were able to benefit from phonological awareness instruction. There was also evidence to show that the students were able to retain their phonological awareness skills over a period of time. The above findings are promising, considering the fact that at the beginning of the study, the students in this sample were far below grade level with respect to phonological awareness skills. The fact that the students were able to demonstrate dramatic improvement shows us that it is worthwhile to incorporate phonological awareness instruction into a regular reading curriculum. It is crucial for reading teachers at the secondary level to realize the importance of basic skills instruction (e.g., phonological skills instruction) in addition to instruction in comprehension and other higher order skills. To help students make the transfer from phonological awareness skills to word identification, it may be necessary to incorporate letter-sound correspondences as part of the instruction. Teachers may need to invest a lot of time to provide basic skills instruction to every student that has word identification deficits. However, the time would be worth the effort because the instruction would help students to read independently. Consequently, these smdents would also show improvement in other content areas. The findings of this study also have implications for preservice teachers and teacher education programs. Those preservice teachers who aspire to teach at the

PAGE 129

122 secondary school level may encounter students with learning disabilities who have severe reading deficits. It is important that teacher education programs sufficiently prepare these teachers to evaluate reading deficits and to design curriculum for students who may have problems in word identification. Teacher educators may need to explain the theoretical basis for including basic skills (e.g., phonological awareness) in a reading program for students with reading deficits. Further, preservice teachers may need intensive training to teach the different phonological awareness skills and to make such training age-appropriate for older students. In addition to implications for teachers and practitioners, this study also has implications for researchers. Because there are students in the secondary school level that have reading deficits, it is crucial to evaluate and modify remedial instruction. The following section provides directions for future research. Suggestions for Future Research Two decades of research has confirmed that phonological awareness plays a critical role in learning to read. Consequently, phonological awareness is becoming a recognized part of beginning instruction. A majority of studies seem to concentrate on elementary school children, probably due to the increased focus on early intervention. Research in education and neurophysiology has asserted that ages between 4 and 7 are crucial for initial reading instruction (e.g., Epstein, 1978). Epstein also proposed that learning during this critical period is more effective than an equivalent amount of learning at some other time. Although early intervention is important, it is also necessary to focus our efforts on those children who may have experienced many years of reading difficulties. However, there is a dearth of research focusing on older students who have

PAGE 130

123 reading difficulties, particularly those who have phonological awareness problems. The purpose of the present study was to contribute to the small body of existing research on older students and to determine if phonological awareness is a viable target for intervention. Though the results of this study are promising, more research is needed before conclusions that link phonological awareness with improved word identification skills in older students can be drawn. At present, it is clear that phonological awareness consists of many skills, and that they vary in terms of difficulty. Research also suggests that phonological awareness contributes to reading success. However, it is important to investigate how best to achieve the transfer from phonological awareness skills to word recognition for older students. The review of literature indicated that there were only two experimental studies that involved older students (i.e., Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; WiUiams, 1980). Although research suggests that students at the middle school level experience reading difficulties (e.g., Deshler, Warner, Schumaker, & Alley, 1983; Harris & Sipay, 1990), not many studies have attempted to research the effectiveness of phonological awareness to improve word recognition. We need more research involving older students because previous research and the present study suggest that many middle school students who have reading problems also have phonological awareness deficits. The persistence of reading problems well into the middle school level indicates that many students may need intensive intervention that they may not be getting in the classroom. More research involving older students may point to the most appropriate intervention techniques for this age group.

PAGE 131

124 Longitudinal studies involving older students should receive more attention in the future. Though longitudinal studies demand time and resources, this type of research is the only way to evaluate maintenance of skills and transfer of learning. Future research involving older students with reading problems could also be designed to investigate the effectiveness of phonological awareness intervention combined with letter-sound correspondences and word recognition training. Further, the specific skills necessary to bring students with deficits to the level of their high performing peers must be examined. Future research could examine if older students use the same skills as young children do for successful word recognition. Research could also examine if older students with reading problems may perhaps need a different sequence of instruction compared to younger children with reading problems. Evaluating the specific skills that older students use for reading automatically would lead us to examine the theoretical model of reading. Theoretical Model of Reading The present study was based on the Adams' (1990) theoretical model of reading. According to the Adams' model (explained in detail in Chapter II), four processors are interrelated during the process of reading: the orthographic processor, the phonological processor, the meaning processor, and the context processor. The model suggests that the orthographic processor takes in visual information from print and the phonological processor is responsible for translating the visual information into sounds. Only after words are correctly identified does comprehension occur. The Adams' model is in agreement with the phonological model explained by Shaywitz (1996) and Snowling (1995). The phonological model also suggests that for words to be recognized, phonological awareness skills must be called into play.

PAGE 132

125 Both models described above are well established and explain the process of reading and the prerequisite skills involved. So far the research that has been done with elementary school children seems to be in agreement with the widely accepted theoretical models of reading. However, we need more research to conclude that the theoretical models can be applied to older students as well. The following questions merit further study: (a) Do older students follow the same reading process as younger children do?, (b) Is the nature of reading deficits in older students the same as it is for younger children?, (c) Can instruction that is designed for young children with reading problems be used for older students with reading problems?, and (d) Would strengthening phonological awareness skills in older students also strengthen word identification skills? With the existing research on older students, we know that those students who have word recognition problems also have phonological awareness problems. However, we cannot say for sure that the deficits in phonological awareness cause the deficits in word recognition. We need more research in education and other fields (like neurobiology) to establish that older students with reading deficits have the same needs as younger children with deficits do, and that we can safely apply the existing theoretical models to older students. With more research focusing on older students, we may be able to say conclusively that phonological awareness is the answer for reading success.

PAGE 133

APPENDIX A INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR PARENTS Dear parents: My name is Preetha Bhat, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Florida. As part of my doctoral dissertation, I plan to study phonological awareness (an ability that enables students to break words into individual units) intervention with middle school students. The purpose of this study is to facihtate phonological awareness abilities that would enhance word recognition skills. I plan to use a phonological awareness reading program that involves basic skills in phonological awareness. These skills would benefit your child in his/her reading. I will provide instruction to your child for a total of 6 weeks. I will meet your child 3 days a week for about 10 minutes on each day. Your child will miss about 10 minutes of language arts. In addition to the instruction, I will need to assess your child using the following assessments: (a) Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised and (b) Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes I will also need to review your child's cumulative folders for relevant information on reading skills. This information will be used to supplement information from assessment results. There are no risks associated with participation in the study. I will be working under the supervision of Dr. Cynthia C. Griffin and Dr. Paul T. Sindelar from the College of Education, University of Florida. Your child's identity will remain confidential to the extent provided by law. That is, I will not use your child's name in any way. A copy of the results of this study will be available upon request. Participation or nonparticipation in this study will not affect your child's grade or standings in the classroom. However, we do need your permission for your child to participate in this project. If you should decide to grant permission, please be aware that you, or your child, may withdraw that permission at any time. No compensation will be given for participation. If you have any questions or concerns about this study, you may contact me at 392-0701, ext. 262 or Dr. Griffin at 392-0701, ext. 253. Questions or concerns about research participant's rights may be directed to the UFIRB office. Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; phone: (352) 392-0433. Sincerely, Ms. Preetha Bhat 126

PAGE 134

127 Please return this section to me as soon as possible. I have read the procedures described above and I give permission for my son/daughter, to participate in the research study conducted by Preetha Bhat and her supervisors, Dr. Cynthia C. Griffin and Dr. Paul T. Sindelar at the University of Florida. I have received a copy of the description. I have also discussed this project with my child and explained that a person from the University of Florida will be working with him/her. parent/guardian date second parent/witness date

PAGE 135

APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONAL LESSONS Lesson 1 Selecting the odd one out Instruction : I am going to say 3 words. I want you to tell me the one word that does not rhyme. For example, if I say, "cat, sat, milk," you would say, "milk," because "milk" does not rhyme with "cat" or "sat." Practice : Tell me the word that does not rhyme: ball, call dog (dog) Practice : sale, tea, male (tea) No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1,0) 1 Cap, lap, tall Tall 2 Dish, wish, nice Nice 3 Find, hand, sand Find 4 Sing, draw, ring Draw 5 Fast, ride, hide Fast 6 Sail, copy, mail Copy 7 Hat, balloon, fat Balloon 8 Can, late, mate Can 9 Chair, fait, table Table 10 Sea, tea, water Water 11 Glove, handy, candy Glove 12 Fall, bone, tone Fall 13 Tree, dog, free Dog 14 Pop, hop, cat Cat 15 Ball, arm, tall Arm 16 Sip, lip, pal Pal 17 Draw, book, look Draw 18 Fall, day, call Day 19 Sing, rug, bug Sing 20 Find, kind, sad Sad 21 Hair, money, fair Money 22 Big, fast, last Big 23 Bake, make, game Game 24 Dress, sun, mess Sun 25 Blow, flow, girl Girl 26 Face, ten, pen Face 27 Puppy, game, lame Puppy 28 Rain, main, big Big 29 Tom. food, horn Food 30 Kind, find, help help 128

PAGE 136

129 Lesson 2 Generating Rhymes Instruction : I am going to say a word. I want you to tell me a word that rhymes with the word that 1 say. For example, if I say, "book," you could say, "look," or "cook." Practice : Tell me a word that rhymes with this word: fm (pin, tin, win) Practice : Bake (lake, make) No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1,0) I Mall Tall, call, fall 2 Can Pan, ran, fan 3 Bean Lean, mean, wean 4 Bee See, me, knee 5 Lamp Damp, camp, ramp 6 Dish Wish, fish, swish 7 Brown Town, clown, down 8 Gain Rain, pain, main 9 Bunny Runny, funny, sunny 10 Candy Handy, sandy, dandy 11 Peach Teach, beach, reach 12 Told Fold, mold, old 13 Name Tame, same, game 14 Bell Sell, tell, fell 15 Cool Fool, tool, pool 16 Get Bet, pet, yet 17 Pie Die, he, tie 18 Time Lime, dime, rhyme 19 Table Fable, cable, label 20 Try Dry, cry, pry 21 Crazy Hazy, lazy, daisy 22 Hatch Batch, latch, match 23 Cash Rash, mash, hash 24 Belt Felt, melt, pelt 25 Night Fight, might, light 26 Round Bound, found, sound 27 Drain Train, brain, grain 28 Lunch Bunch, hunch, crunch 29 Tone Bone, zone, cone 30 Bump Lump, slump, hump Lesson 3 Selecting Words With The Same Beginning Sound Instruction : I am going to say 3 words. I want you to tell me which 2 words have the same beginning sound. For example, if I say, "tent, race, tall," you would say, "tent, tall." Practice : Tell me the 2 words that have the same beginning sound: nine, save, note (nine, note) Practice : game, gown, daze (game, gown) No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1, 0) 1 Blue, yellow, black Blue, black 2 Uncle, son, sister Son, sister

PAGE 137

130 INU. Correct response Score (1,0) 7. J i^nn morn iVialV.C, Coil, lilUJll Makp mom A vv aLwi Wu/^v.'iif iiiiiA Water, wa,p;on Riimn ipt inmn Jet, jump D Rike balloon 7 Font fpf*t arm 1 l^WLf CUlil Foot feet Q o Mirf* niirnlf* nartv Purple, party q TCittpn Icppn mnusp Kitten, keep If) 7innf*r 7nn hiittnn Zipper, zoo 1 1 1 1 Onat hfiflt pan Coat, cap Ten two F)no fow Had Dog, dad 14 C\c\ (yf*f mow Go, get 15 Smilp hat hannv Hat, happy 16 T pp lunch elhow Leg, lunch 17 Nipp flnnr npck Nice, neck 18 1 O A hni 1 1 oka V onpn Okay, open IQ Rich nick racp Rich, race Oiiit miipt ki Quit nuiet 91 Oar par pat Far eat Rikp hakp fioht JJiA.^^ L'Cl^t^f ll^lIL Rike hake 9'^ TIolv nnifklv ii
PAGE 138

131 Tncttnir't'nr cpvc CoTTPrt rp<;nnn let ^^Tvn 1 1 nH AT" rwjf^r \j\jcii^ unuci, UVCi T TnHAr 1 C I J udy, Ddu, Durii ID rur, iciit-c, idiu 1 7 1 / nUllUay, WoIIIl, IlailUj W/jiTm TV OJ. Ill 1 o Pa/ An iiT"r\i 1 nH 5ihr\i 1 1 JZ
PAGE 139

132 No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1,0) 24 Water, brag, snug Brag, snug 25 Blast, rush, fiash Rush, flash 26 Jazz, fizz, trick Jazz, fizz 27 Soda, see, beta Soda, beta 28 Back, pick, board Back, pick 29 Latch, weather, church Latch, church 30 Window, first, last First, last Lesson 6 Selecting a word with a different final sound Instruction: I am going to sav 3 words. I want you to tell me which word has a different final sound. For example, if I say, "bat, time, coat," you would say, "time." Practice: Tell me the word that has a different final sound: trip, fan, moan (trip) Practice: cut, bit. tab (tab) No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1, 0) 1 Rib, sub, milk Milk 2 Plant, cat, seed Seed 3 Map, sun, soon Map 4 Pop, foot, tap Foot 5 Bunch, school, lunch School 6 Pull, wish, hash Pull 7 Trust, first, third Third 8 Bam, beam, farm Bam 9 Knee, water, bee Water 10 Sod, pad, lip Lip 11 Bag, rub, dig Rub 12 Shoe, path, mouth Shoe 13 Truck, pack, kind Kind 14 Bingo, music, radio Music 15 Game, fin, pan Game 16 Bad, wrap, said Wrap 17 Beef, cuff, treat Treat 18 Collar, grow, follow Collar 19 Fuss, play, pass Play 20 Crib, slam, broom Crib 21 Leak, book, laugh Laugh 22 Leap, bean, trap Bean 23 Poster, after, ready Ready 24 Plan, nook, been Nook 25 Color, hang, ring Color 26 Rich, gray, patch Gray 27 Bake, mouth, cloth Bake 28 Jab, slab, trip Trip 29 Finally, faster, quickly Faster 30 Today, tango, halo today

PAGE 140

133 Lesson 7 Selecting Beginning, Middle, Or Ending Sound Of A Word Instruction : I am going to say a word. I want you to tell me the beginning, middle, or ending sound of the word. For example, if I say, "Tell me the beginning sound of "jump," you would say /j/" Practice : Tell me the beginning sound of "down" (/d/) Practice : middle sound in "beet" {led) Practice : ending sound in "look" (/k/) No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1,0) 1 Beginning sound in time Ixl 2 Beginning sound in hair M 3 Beginning sound in gate 1^1 4 Beginning sound in sun Isl 5 Beginning sound in chart /ch/ 6 Middle sound in coat lol 7 Middle sound in that IdJ 8 Middle sound in dot lol 9 Middle sound in time IM 10 Middle sound in run lul 11 Ending sound in bump /p/ 12 Ending sound in hide /d/ 13 Ending sound in tree led 14 Ending sound in bag 1^1 15 Ending sound in tell rj 16 Beginning sound in jet /)/ 17 Beginning sound in kite Ikl 18 Beginning sound in eat led 19 Beginning sound in beach Ibl 20 Beginning sound in thick /th/ 21 Middle sound in rap /a/ 22 Middle sound in pet Id 23 Middle sound in sick hi 24 Middle sound in fit hi 25 Middle sound in but Id 26 Ending sound in hello lol 27 Ending sound in quit IM 28 Ending sound in puff HI 29 Ending sound in biker 1x1 30 Ending sound in kiss /s/ Lesson 8 Blending Two Words To Make A New Word Instruction : I am going to say 2 words. I want you to put them together to make one word. For example, if I say, "butter, fly," you would say, "butterfly." Practice : I want you to put these words together: sea, weed (sea-weed) Practice : witch, craft (witch-craft)

PAGE 141

134 No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1,0) 1 Play, house iLl — — — — Play-house 2 Butter, milk Butter-milk 3 Cheese, cake Cheese-cake 4 After, noon Afternoon 5 Horse, play Horse-play 6 Nursing, home Nursing-home 7 School, day School-day 8 Week, end Weekend 9 Hand, some Handsome 10 Rain, coat Rain-coat 11 Week, day Week-day 12 Shoe, string Shoe-string 13 Ear, ring Ear-ring 14 Snow, man Snow-man 15 Table, top Table-top 16 Ear, muff Ear-muff 17 Shoe, lace Shoe-lace 18 Micro, wave Microwave 19 Sun, day Sunday 20 Snow, storm Snow-storm 21 Kit, kat Kit-kat 22 Sand, wich Sandwich 23 Whole, some Wholesome 24 Rail, road Rail-road 25 Police, man Policeman 26 High, way Highway 27 Man, hole Manhole 28 Tap, dance Tap-dance 29 Day, time Daytime 30 Light, bulb Light-bulb Lesson 9 Blending Syllables Instruction: I am going to say 2 parts of a word. I want you to put them together to make a whole word. For example, if I say, "sum-mer," you would say, "summer." Practice: Put together these 2 word parts: Practice: ta ble (table) sis ter (sister) No. Instioictor says: Correct response Score (1,0) 1 Hap-py Happy 2 Cir-cus Circus 3 Fun-ny Funny 4 Feel-ing Feeling 5 Bod-y Body 6 Mo-tor Motor 7 Un-der Under 8 Pa-per Paper 9 Win-dow Window 10 Ti-ger tiger 11 Buth-day Birthday

PAGE 142

135 No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1,0) 12 Par-ty Party 13 Sil-ly Silly 14 Wa-ter Water 15 Yel-low Yellow 16 Pur-ple Purple 17 Lit-tle Little 18 Rock-et Rocket 19 In-to Into 20 Be-hind Behind 21 Ap-ple Apple £1122 Ev-er Ever 23 Fin-ger Finger 24 Dad-dy Daddy 25 Bas-ket Basket 26 Han-dy Handy 27 Kit-chen Kitchen 28 Mon-key Monkey 29 Neigh-bor Neighbor 30 Pic-nic Picnic Lesson 10 Blending Phonemes (sounds) Instruction: I am going to say some sounds. I want you to put them together to make { example, if I say, "/p/ /a/ Inl" you would say, "pan." Practice: Id IsJ /p/ (cap) No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1,0) 1 /h/ /a/ /t/ Hat 2 /mJ/y/dJ mid 3 Iml I2J Inl Man 4 IMIollpl Top 5 /m//iJ/p/ Map 6 Ipir-dlV Pill 7 IglldlxJ Get 8 lilldlAI Red 9 IHIollxl Dot 10 IkJrillxl Kit 11 l?Jlollxl Got 12 Ikllollnl Cone 13 /sh//y/p/ Ship 14 /g//o//n/ Gone 15 /f//a//t/ Fat 16 /a//t/ At 17 /i//t/ It 18 /o//f/ Of 19 /a//m/ Am 20 /i//n/ In 21 /l//o//t/ Lot 22 /m//a//p/ Map

PAGE 143

136 TnctTiiPtnr <;avQ* Porrecf resnonse Score (1, 0) /"jh/ /o/ Inl 1 511/ / \Ji 1 \jI Shop 94 111 Inl hi Fob 9S Ifl lal Inl I L/ 1 CU 1 11/ Fan 26 m PJIaJ IXl Flat 27 n/la/lmJIpl Lamp 28 IXil Izl Inl IM Pant 29 lyiollsllxl Lost 30 IdNldJIxal Clam Lesson 1 1 Segmenting Words Instruction: I am going to say a word. I want you to break the word into 2 words. For example, if I say, "buttermilk," you would say, "better, milk." Practice: Break this word into 2 parts: homeroom (home, room) Practice: toothpick (tooth, pick) No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1, 0) 1 Bus-stop Bus, stop 2 Silver-ware Silver, ware 3 Tea-pot Tea, pot 4 Cook-book Cook, book 5 Grape-juice Grape, juice 6 Pineapple Pine, apple 7 Storybook Story, book 8 Book-shelf Book, shelf 9 Back-door Back, door 10 Ice-cream Ice, cream 11 Swim-suit Swim, suit 12 Key-board Key, board 13 Back-yard Back, yard 14 Bear-hug Bear, hug 15 Table-top Table, top 16 Ear-muff Ear, muff 17 Shoe-lace Show, lace 18 Microwave Micro, wave 19 Sunday Sun, day 20 Snow-storm Snow, storm 21 Kitkat Kit, kat 22 Sandwich Sand, wich 23 Wholesome Whole, some 24 Rail-road Rail, road 25 Policeman Police, man 26 Highway High, way 27 Manhole Man, hole 28 Tap-dance Tap, dance 29 Daytime Day, time 30 Light-bulb Light, bulb

PAGE 144

137 Lesson 12 Segmenting Words into Syllables Instruction : I am going to say a word. I want you to break the word into smaller parts. For example, if I say, "summer," you would say, "sum, mer." Practice : Break this word into smaller parts: butter (but, ter) Practice : hospital (hos, pi, tal) No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1,0) 1 Apple Ap, pie 2 Master Mas, ter 3 Foreign For, eign 4 Chicken Chick, en 5 Table Tab, le 6 Regal Re, gal 7 Classic Class, ic 8 Termite Ter, mite 9 Kitchen Kit, chen 10 Sweater Sweat, er 11 Sandal San, dal 12 Pencil Pen, cil 13 Building Build, ing 14 Stereo Ste, reo 15 Basket Bas, ket 16 Multiply Mul, ti, ply 17 Library Lib, ra, ry 18 Division Di, vi, sion 19 Classical Classi, cal 20 Computer Com, pu, ter 21 Formica For, mi, ca 22 Aerobics Ae, ro, bics 23 Cinema Ci, ne, ma 24 Instructor In, struc, tor 25 Provided Pro, vi, ded 26 Simplify Sim, pli, fy 27 Charity Cha, ri, ty 28 Halloween Hall, 0, ween 29 Africa Af, ri, ca 30 Conversation Con, ver, sa, tion Lesson 13 Segmenting Words into Phonemes Instruction : I am going to say a word. I want you to tell me each sound in the word. For example, if I say, "jot," you would say, "/j/ lol l\J." Practice : Tell me all the sounds in the word, "bike." {Ibl III IkJ) Practice : "name" (Inl lal Iml)

PAGE 145

138 INO. Instructor says: ^orreci icoponac ^rnrp("1 fl^ OOUIC \l^\j) 1 1 Dirt Kip Irl /;/ /n/ nl IV ip/ Z Joke /i/ /n/ /t/ /|/ /O/ /K/ J Man Iml IttI Inl /my /a/ /n/ A tset Ivl IQl lu c J Mte IV 1 l\l lil IKJ iv lu 0 Sun ISI Iw IW / Oat ret ItsI lal lil l\)l ICl IV Q O Jam I'll lol Iml l]l I3J Iml Q y DOu Ihl /nl IV\I Ivl 101 Ivl Am /„/ /~/ /a/ /m/ 1 1 1 1 Tt 11 /;/ hi lu l\J 1 9 Tune hi htl /n/ lu IW IW 1 '? i J At 1^1 hi taJ IxJ Me lvc\J Iq&I 1 c 1 J nop till 101 ipi 1 A 10 Eve Icci IVI 1 / KJl lr.1 Ifl 101 III 1 o Roth Dam // /aa/ /tn/ 1 Q ly Leg ni i~i i„i III iti 1^1 ZU wag /,,,/ /„/ /„; Iwl lal 1^1 71 Z 1 w iiy huhl I'll /wnl lu zz Seem Is/ /ee/ /m/ Hiich Ihl hil IchI liu IW lain iiUic Inl Inl hi IW lOI lU zj Tin up /ii/ IrtI lUI ipi 26 Chin IchI III Inl 27 Crime Icrl I'll Iml 28 Doll Idl lol ly 29 Truck /tr/ /u/ IkJ 30 drape lAvl&llpl Lesson 14 Saying A Word With A Part Or Beginning Sound Missing Instruction: I am going to ask vou to sav a word without saying a certain part of the word. For e.xamplR, if I say, "Say 'cat' without saying Id" you would say, "at." Practice: Sav "grandmother" without saving "grand" Practice: "jam" without saving /j/ Cam) (mother) No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1,0) 1 Seashell without shell Sea 2 Baseball without ball Base 3 Toothpaste without tooth Paste 4 Fit without Ifl It 5 Bookshelf without book Shelf 6 Landslide without slide Land 7 Skyline without line Sky 8 Boardwalk without walk Board 9 Mad without Iml Ad 10 Sand without /s/ And

PAGE 146

139 INO. insiructui aaya. ("'nrrprt rf snonse Score (1, 0) 1 1 1 1 \Jixp wiinoul /c/ Ud 1 0 IZ T^/-x rw 11 ri if" Inl uog wiinoui /u/ Os Id Niall WlinOUl /III/ All 1 A 14 £>un wimuui /u/ Un ID V die WlllIOUL / V/ Ale 1 f, 10 E(VCI YUllIIJi wlUIUUl CVCIj Thinp 1 7 1 / A rt^>mr\/^n \i7itni^iit noon After 1 Q 15 jDULicriiy wiiiiuui uuiici Flv riy 1 Q /^r\lHfich M/itHr\iit 'ficVi vJUlUllMi WlLUUUl llall Gold ZU ounsninc wiliiuul diiiiic Sun Zl l_^UlSltlC WlUlUUl UUL Side O? ZZ pirciiioii wiuivjui iiic Man Zj r IIIK WILIIUUL f\j/ Ink Z4 C~l(^t ii/itViniit /cr/ UCL WILIIUUL /f^/ Et ZJ OiiAPn \x/ithniit /nii/ V^UCCII WllIlUUl /LjU/ Een 26 Zip without /z/ Ip 27 Smile without /s/ Mile 28 Jump without /j/ Ump 29 Open without /o/ Pen 30 Make without /mJ ake Lesson 15 Saying A Word With A Final Or Middle Sound Missing Instruction: I am going to ask you to say a word without saying the ending sound or middle sound of a word. For example, if I say, "Say lost' without saying /t/," you would say, "los." Practice: Say "left" without saying /t/ (lef) Practice: "next" without /id (net) No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1,0) 1 Cart without saying /t/ Car 2 Mood without /d/ Moo 3 Hawk without /kJ Haw 4 Pizza without /a/ Pizz 5 Summer without /er/ Summ 6 Pants without /s/ Pant 7 Slant without /t/ Slan 8 Winter without /t/ Winner 9 Driver without /v/ Drier 10 Fast without /s/ Fat 11 Monkey without /k/ Money 12 Bobcat without /c/ Bobat 13 Bowling without fU Bowing 14 Jump without /m/ Jup 15 Gently without /t/ Genly 16 Ranch without /ch/ Ran 17 Hand without /d/ Han 18 Lamp without /I/ Amp 19 Beef without /f/ Bee 20 Slump without /p/ Slum

PAGE 147

140 No Correct response Score (1,0) Qi^iiTn \i/ifhr\iit /tn/ oCaiii WIIIIUUL /111/ Sea 99 Pinnr\ u/ithniit ir\i 1 laXlU WlLllL'Ul. Pian Z.D T^Act \x/ithniit /c/ JJCdL WlLllUUL /O/ Bet Id Aftpr u/ithnnf /t/ Afer 25 Stamp without /m/ Stap i. 26 Black without IM Back 27 Past without /s/ Pat 28 Grass without /r/ Gass 29 Left without /f/ Let 30 Snap without /n/ sap Lesson 16 Phoneme Reversal Instruction : I am going to say a word. I want you to reverse the order of two sounds and say the new word. For example, for the word, "top" I want you to switch places for /t/ and /p/. So you would tell me, "pot." Practice : For "pat" switch places for /p/ and N (tap) Practice : For "tim" switch places for /m/ and 1x1 (mit) No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1,0) 1 For "kit" switch places for /k/ and Ixl Tik 2 For "leaf' switch places for N and HI Feel 3 For "bus" switch places for Pol and /s/ Sub 4 For "tip" switch places for N and /p/ Pit 5 For "nod" switch places for /n/ and /d/ Don 6 For "nip" switch places for /n/ and /p/ Pin 7 For "loot" switch places for N and Ixl Tool 8 For "doom" switch places for /d/ and /m/ Mood 9 For "teem" switch places for Ixl and /m/ Meet 10 For "sot" switch places for /s/ and 1x1 Tos 11 For "tin" switch places for 1x1 and /n/ Nit 12 For "neet" switch places for lx\l and 1x1 Teen 13 For "tub" switch places for IXl and /b/ But 14 For "tab" switch places for 1x1 and /b/ Bat 15 For "dab" switch places for IdJ and Pol Bad 16 For "bid" switch places for Pol and /d/ Dib 17 For "dim" switch places for /d/ and /m/ mid 18 For "tag" switch places for Ixl and Igl Gat 19 For "mole" switch places for /m/ and /I/ Lome 20 For "bin" switch places for Pol and /n/ Nib 21 For "pots" switch places for /p/ and 1x1 Tops 22 For "ten" switch places for 1x1 and /n/ Net 23 For "nog" switch places for /n/ and /g/ Gon 24 For "mil" switch places for Ixal and /I/ Lim 25 For "file" switch places for HI and /I/ Life 26 For "tame" switch places for IXl and /m/ Mate 27 For "late" switch places for l\l and 1x1 Tale 28 For "fits" switch places for III and /t/ Tifs 29 For "mad" switch places for /m/ and /d/ Dam 30 For "mope" switch places for /m/ and /p/ pome

PAGE 148

141 Lesson 17 Phoneme Substitution Instmction : I am going to say a word. I want you to remove one sound from that word and replace it with another sound and then say the new word. For example, if I say, "Say ^it;' now remove the /p/ sound and put in /I/, you would say, lit'." Practice : Say "mite." Now instead of Iml say IkJ and say the new word, (kite) Practice : Say "fat." Instead of the /f/ sound say /s/. (sat) No. Instructor says: Correct response Score (1,0) 1 Say 'mouse.' Instead of Iml say Ihl House 2 Say "bend.' Instead of Ibl say /I/ Lend 3 Say 'meet.' Instead of Iml say Ihl Beet 4 Say 'sub.' Instead of /s/ say /t/ Tub 5 Say 'caps.' Instead of Dd say l\l Laps 6 Say 'crib.' Instead of I'll say /a/ Crab 7 Say Tib.' Instead of I'll say /a/ Fab 8 Say log.' Instead of lol say Id Leg 9 Say lift.' Instead of I'll say lol Loft 10 Say 'nose.' Instead of hi say l\J Note 11 Say 'dog.' Instead of Igl say Ixl Dot 12 Say lip.' Instead of /p/ say Ixl Lit 13 Say 'rat.' Instead of lit say /p/ Rap 14 Say 'pam.' Instead of ItoI say Idl Pad 15 Say 'cot.' Instead of Ixl say /p/ Cop 16 Say 'bone.' Instead of Pol say l\l Lone 17 Say 'sing.' Instead of Isl say /p/ Ping 18 Say "tall.' Instead of /t/ say Ibl Ball 19 Say 'nest.' Instead of Inl say /p/ Pest 20 Say Tun.' Instead of /f/ say Igl Gun 21 Say 'pent.' Instead of Id say /s/ Pest 22 Say list.' Instead of /s/ say /n/ Lint 23 Say 'gate.' Instead of IxJ say /p/ Gape 24 Say 'mite.' Instead of IxJ say /I/ Mile 25 Say 'soda.' Instead of /d/ say /f/ Sofa 26 Say liit.' Instead of IxJ say /m/ Him 27 Say 'sup.' Instead of /p/ say /n/ Sun 28 Say Tig.' Instead of /g/ say Ixl Fit 29 Say 'pit.' Instead of Ixl say /n/ Pin 30 Say flat.' Instead of IxJ say /p/ flap Review Selecting The Odd One Out Instruction: I am going to say 3 words. I want you to tell me the one word that does not rhyme. Instructor says: Correct response Score Fast, peel, last Men, pen, hat Leg, gone, peg Peel Hat Gone

PAGE 149

142 Instructor says: Correct response Score Egg, book, look Egg Sweet, mice, lice Sweet Generating Rhymes Instruction: I am going to say a word. I want you to tell me a word that rhymes with the word that I say. Instructor savs Correct response Score Can Man, pan, tan Hand Land, sand Made Fade, paid Red Fed, bed phone Moan, lone, tone Selecting Words With The Same Beginning Sound Instruction: I am going to say 3 words. I want you to tell me which 2 words have the same beginning sound. Instructor says Correct response Score Hand, house, let Hand, house Care, fake, carrot Care, carrot Lime, dog, lake Lime, lake Sun, pen, sweet Sun, sweet Take, give, tin Take, tin Selecting A Word With Different Beginning Sound Instruction: I am going to say 3 words. I want you to tell me which word has a different beginning sound. Instructor says Correct response Score Mine, kite, make Kite Shoe, lake, ship Lake Fin, gone, fat Gone Night, road, never Road Chair, door, chin Door Selecting Words With The Same Final Sound Instruction: I am going to say 3 words. I want you to tell me which 2 words have the same final sound. Instructor savs Correct response Score Drum, horn, slam Drum, slam Sun, fight, fun Sun, fun Hello, greet, radio Hello, radio Glass, point, moss Glass, moss Cola, broad, soda Cola, soda Selecting A Word With A Different Final Sound Instruction: I am going to say 3 words. I want you to tell me which word has a different final sound. Instructor says Correct response Score Jello, gift, radio Gift Fuss, play, grass Play Finally, week, quickly Week Bag, kind, leg Kind Seed, rabbit, deed Rabbit Selecting The Beginning Sound Of A Word Instruction: I am going to say a word. I want you to tell me the beginning sound of the word. Instructor says Correct response Score Feather HI Cassette Id

PAGE 150

143 Instructor says: Correct response Score Chair /ch/ Twister /t/ Penguin /p/ Selecting The Middle Sound Of A Word Instruction: I am going to say a word. I want you to tell me the middle sound of the word. Instructor savs Correct response Score Fun Id bag Tide IdJ Led Id mite JU Selecting The Ending Sound Of A Word Instruction: I am going to say a word. I want you to tell me the ending sound of the word. Instructor says Correct response Score Grass Isl Door Irl Hand Idl Gun InJ fresh /sh/ Blending Two Words To Make One Word Instruction: I am going to say 2 words. 1 want you to put them together to make one word. Instructor savs Correct response Score Bus, stop Bus-stop Week, end Weekend Shoe, string Shoe-string Key, board Key-board Ear, ring Ear-ring Blending Syllables Instruction: I am going to say 2 parts of a word. I want you to put them together to make a whole word. Instructor says Correct response Score Don-key Donkey Or-ange Orange Bas-ket Basket Pub-lic Public Walk-ing Walking Blending Phonemes Instruction: 1 am going to say some sounds. I want you to put the sounds together to make a word. Instructor says Correct response Score /b//a//g/ Bag /t//i//p/ Tip lyiollxJ Lot IsliyiaJIral Slam Fan Segmenting Words Instruction: I am going to say a word. I want you to break the word into 2 words. Instructor says Correct response Score Policeman Police, man Bubble-gum Bubble, gum

PAGE 151

144 Instructor says: Correct response Score Milk-shake Milk, shake Ice-cream Ice, cream Light-bulb Light, bulb Segmenting Words Into Syllables Instruction: I am going to say a word. I want you to break the word into smaller parts. Instructor says Correct response Score Multiply Mul, ti, ply Ceramic Ce, ra, mic Future Fu, ture Department De, part, ment Gator Ga, tor Segmenting Words Into Phonemes Instruction: I am going to say a word. I want you to tell me each sound in the word. Instructor savs Correct response Score Frog /f//r//o//g/ Sup /s//u//p/ Nog /n//o//g/ Fan /f//ay/n/ Pest /p//e//s//t/ Saying A Word With A Part Of Beguining Sound Missing Instruction: I am going to ask you to say a word without saying a certain part of the word. Instructor savs Correct response Score Say lit without /I/ It Keel without fkJ Eel Pant without /p/ Ant Glass without /g/ Lass Fade without /f/ Ade Selecting A Word With A Final Or Middle Sound Missing Instruction: I am going to ask you to say a word without saying the ending sound or middle sound Instructor says Correct response Score Load without /If Oad Leaf without Iff Lee Wind without /d/ Win Fast without /s/ Fat Dent without /n/ Det Phoneme Reversal Instruction: I am gomg to say a word. I want you to reverse the order of 2 sounds and sav the new word Instructor says Correct response Score For lip switch places for /I/ and /p/ Pil For nib switch places for /n/ and fb/ Bin For pat switch places for /p/ and /t/ Tap For mit switch places for /m/ and /t/ Tim For mid switch places for /ml and /d/ mid Phoneme Substitution Instruction: I am gomg to say a word. I want you to remove one sound from that word and replace it with another sound and say the new word. Instructor says Correct response Score Say 'pam.' Instead of /p/ say /s/ Sam

PAGE 152

145 Instructor says: Correct response Score Say feather.' Instead of HI say Ihl Say leg.' Instead of /g/ say Ixl Say "hit.' Instead of /i/ say lol Say flat." Instead of /a/ say lil Heather Let Hot Flit

PAGE 153

APPENDIX C LESSON SCORE SHEET Name: Group: School: Grade: Item Lesson # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 o 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 146

PAGE 154

APPENDIX D MEAN SCORES ON THE CTOPP SUBTESTS Group CTOPP Subtests Pretest Midtest Posttest A Elision 9.7 14.4 14.55 Blending words 10.55 14.05 13.9 Nonword repetition 11.65 13 13.05 Blending nonwords 10.45 13.8 13.9 Segmenting words 9.65 13.85 13.6 Segmenting nonwords 7.8 13.25 12.9 Phoneme reversal 7.56 12.3 12.3 Group B CTOPP Subtests Pretest Midtest Posttest Elision 9.55 9.9 14.8 Blending words 10.8 10.85 14.5 Nonword repetition 11.1 11 14.95 Blending nonwords 9.55 9.85 13.15 Segmenting words 8.65 9.05 13.8 Segmenting nonwords 7.45 8.8 12.85 Phoneme reversal 6.65 8.4 12.6 147

PAGE 155

APPENDIX E NUMBER OF ADMINISTRATIONS FOR EACH LESSON FOR GROUPS A AND B 148

PAGE 156

149 B Lessons 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 19 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 3 3 20 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 3

PAGE 157

APPENDIX F SCORES ON EACH LESSON FOR GROUPS A AND B Lessons 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 27 27 21 25 20 25 26 23 25 27 29 27 24 25 27 28 17 19 25 27 17 20 25 14 19 25 I 0 19 25 2 25 27 26 22 26 23 25 24 26 27 29 28 24 27 26 28 24 25 26 16 19 25 17 21 26 10 18 25 3 26 29 25 25 24 26 23 24 26 24 27 27 28 26 26 27 23 26 24 25 24 26 19 22 26 15 19 26 4 24 25 28 20 25 25 22 24 25 24 24 26 25 28 25 18 22 25 25 19 25 19 25 24 26 19 25 16 19 25 21 25 5 28 27 21 26 26 25 24 25 24 27 25 26 21 25 28 25 20 22 25 27 20 22 25 20 21 25 10 19 25 6 25 23 25 27 21 25 24 25 23 26 24 29 24 28 26 19 25 27 21 26 21 22 25 28 21 21 25 20 22 26 9 19 25 7 26 25 24 26 22 27 26 22 24 26 26 26 25 22 25 25 26 22 23 25 21 26 22 24 26 20 20 25 1 J 21 25 8 25 29 26 25 22 25 21 25 27 29 25 26 26 19 21 26 21 25 20 21 25 17 19 25 13 20 25 9 27 29 23 26 24 26 24 25 24 26 25 27 27 20 25 28 26 22 26 23 27 91 22 26 25 1 A 19 25 10 25 24 27 25 24 25 23 26 24 27 22 25 28 26 19 25 19 25 22 25 22 25 24 27 21 24 27 17 25 15 18 25 11 26 27 25 26 23 23 25 23 25 24 28 28 25 22 26 26 27 23 26 28 19 25 20 23 26 17 25 12 28 28 21 25 27 23 25 23 26 26 25 28 19 23 25 27 25 19 21 25 27 20 25 14 20 25 20 23 26 13 28 29 27 25 27 24 26 19 25 25 29 21 25 25 25 24 27 27 19 22 25 11 20 25 18 19 25 14 28 22 26 22 25 23 26 23 24 26 23 24 26 20 25 26 28 21 23 25 27 21 26 24 26 21 25 20 24 25 19 25 17 20 25 15 25 28 25 24 27 24 25 22 26 22 26 27 26 20 25 24 27 26 24 27 22 26 21 26 19 23 25 14 20 25 16 26 27 26 27 26 19 21 25 25 26 27 20 25 26 25 18 20 25 22 27 21 24 26 17 19 25 10 21 25 150

PAGE 158

151 A Lessons 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 29 28 20 24 24 20 19 25 28 21 28 27 21 26 23 10 9 25 25 26 21 25 26 25 22 19 19 25 25 25 25 18 25 27 26 24 23 22 24 29 27 17 25 27 24 26 22 20 19 27 25 26 28 20 26 26 22 21 25 26 25 19 26 29 21 27 26 24 23 27 26 21 26 27 23 23 20 18 17 26 25 25 25 25 26 21 21 20 25 25 25 20 27 29 28 22 24 19 22 26 26 24 26 21 19 24 23 19 18 26 27 25 26 27 25 25 26 23 23 26 25 26 D D Lessons 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 25 26 28 25 25 28 25 26 27 18 25 26 23 22 18 10 11 25 27 25 25 19 19 25 25 2 26 26 26 25 26 25 26 27 27 22 26 25 24 23 20 12 14 27 25 27 26 20 19 26 25 3 25 28 26 27 27 26 26 25 25 25 26 25 24 22 21 20 18 27 25 25 22 22 25 26 4 27 27 27 26 22 26 28 25 26 21 27 27 17 24 15 19 17 25 25 20 25 20 24 24 25 26 25 25 5 26 25 25 22 28 18 21 28 26 21 27 21 20 16 14 17 10 25 25 26 26 25 26 20 21 20 20 26 25 25 25 6 25 21 26 26 27 21 28 26 28 24 28 26 23 24 17 20 11 26 27 26 26 27 19 25 22 25 26 7 28 25 28 26 27 26 22 25 26 26 25 27 24 21 20 19 12 25 27 25 21 17 21 25 25 25 Q o 29 26 28 28 28 27 23 28 25 25 26 27 21 19 20 20 15 26 25 25 22 21 23 26 25 25 25 25 23 27 27 27 27 25 25 21 26 23 22 23 13 19 16 27 22 26 27 26 20 20 19 25 25 25 25 10 26 27 26 27 26 23 28 25 26 24 27 26 23 23 21 20 17 27 28 26 25 26 22 19 26 25 11 20 27 25 23 23 28 24 26 27 23 27 27 22 25 23 17 19 25 28 27 25 25 28 25 20 21 26 25 12 27 26 26 29 26 27 24 29 29 25 25 28 21 24 24 10 20 27 25 26 25 19 22 25 26 13 25 25 27 26 29 24 27 26 28 24 28 28 19 24 15 11 21 25 27 26 28 20 19 22 26 26 25

PAGE 159

152 Lessons 1 X id x 4 7 / fi o 0 in 1 1 11 19 IZ 1"* \.j 14 l*! 13 i<: ID 1 7 1 / 91 98 9^; 9n 9'^ Zj 91 Zi 99 Zz ZD 7 1 Zl 7n ZU X X 1 Q yy 1 7 IZ 25 95 9S ZJ 9'^ ZJ 98 Zo 9S ZJ 1 Q X7 9^ Zj 7n zu Oft ZD Oft ZD 26 22 22 95 91 96 94 9<; ZJ 9(^ zo 9n zu 9*; ZJ 94 ZH1 8 lo 1 < X J 1 ft XO 1 Q Vy 1 4 X4 27 26 26 ZW 98 ZO 9'i ZJ 9*; ZJ 99 ZZ 1 0 91 Z X 9"? Zj 1 0 xy 9ft zO 9^ Zj 7^ ZJ 7ft zO 7ft ZD 16 28 28 27 25 95 97 97 97 z / 97 z / 99 zz 9"? ZJ 9*; ZJ 94 1 ft ID 7 1 ZX 1 J 1 7 1 / 96 zu 9'; ZJ 90 ZU 77 Z / 91 ZX 1 Q Vy 7S ZJ 7^ ZJ 7<: ZJ 17 97 77 zH 10 9R Zo 98 Zo 99 zZ 9ft ZD 9ft ZO 1 8 lo 7ri zU 7ri zU 7n zU 1 ft 10 97 95 98 zo 91 ZX 77 ZZ 77 ZZ 7^ Zj 7 1 zX 7^ ZJ 7ft ZD ZJ Oft zO 18 XO 20 95 97 97 98 zo 94 90 9*^ Zj 9 1 Zl Oft ZD Z / 7n zU 70 ZZ ZZ 1 T 1 / Is 25 98 ZO 9"^ ZJ 71 ZX 74 ZH 74 Z4 1 0 Vy 7 1 Zi 25 Z^ 26 Zw 95 96 96 zu 19 27 19 26 28 22 24 28 29 25 24 25 28 23 21 19 19 20 25 28 28 29 28 23 25 20 24 25 26 25 20 26 25 24 19 28 27 21 27 26 24 28 24 22 21 20 21 13 25 26 25 27 27 23 22 24 22 21 27 25 25 25 25

PAGE 160

REFERENCES Adams, A. (1990). The oral reading errors of readers with learning disabilities: variations produced within the instructional and frustrational ranges. Remedial and Special Education. 12 (1). 48-55. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Algozzine, B., O'Shea, D. J., Stoddard, K., & Crews, W. B. (1988). Reading and writing competencies of adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Leaming DisabiHties. 21 154-160. Alley, G. R., Deshler, D. D., Clark, F. L., Schumaker, J. B., & Warner, M. M. (1983). Leaming disabiHties in adolescent and adult populations: Research implications (Part II). Focus on Exceptional Children. 15(9) 1-14. Ball, E. W. (1997). Phonological awareness: implications for whole language and emergent literacy programs. Topics in Language Disorders. 17 (3). 14-26. Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1988). Phoneme segmentation training: effect on reading readiness. Annals of Dyslexia. 38 208-225. Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Ouarterlv. 26 49-66. Blachman, B. A. (1991). Early intervention for children's reading problems: Clinical applications of the research in phonological awareness. Topics in Language Disorders. 12 (1). 51-65. Bowers, P. G., Steffy, R., & Tate, E. (1988). Comparison of the effects of IQ control methods on memory and naming speed predictors of reading disability. Reading Research Ouarterlv. 23 304-319. Bradley, L. (1988). Rhyme recognition and reading and spelling in young children. In R. L. Masland & M. W. Masland (Eds.), Preschool Prevention of Reading Failure (pp. 143-162). Parkton, MD: York Press. 153

PAGE 161

154 Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: a causal connection. Nature, 30 419-421. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Brady, S., Fowler, A., Stone, B., & Winbury, N. (1994). Training in phonological awareness: A study with inner-city kindergarten children. Annals of Dyslexia. 44 26-58. Brady, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1991). Phonological processes in Uteracy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1986). Psychological theory and the study of learning disabilities. American Psychologist. 41 (10). 1059-1068. Busink, R. (1997). Reading and phonological awareness: what we have learned and how we can use it. Reading Research and Instruction. 36 (3). 199-215. Byrne, B., & Fielding-Bamsley, R. (1989). Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in the child's acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Journal of Educational Psychology. 81 313-321. Gamine, D., Silbert, J., & Kameenui, E. J. (1990). Direct instruction reading Second edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Cassidy, K. W., & Kelly, M. H. (1991). Phonological information for grammatical category assignments. Journal of Memory and Language. 30 348-369. Catts, H. W (1993). The relationship between speech-language impairments and reading disabiUties. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 36 948-958. Catts, H. W. (1996). Defining dyslexia as a developmental disorder: An expanded view. Topics in Language Disorders. 16 (2). 14-29. Cornwall, A. (1992). The relationship of phonological awareness, rapid naming, and verbal memory to severe reading and spelling disabihty. Journal of Learning Disabihties. 25 C8). 532-538. Crowder, R. G., & Wagner, R. K. (1991). The psychology of reading: An introduction New York: Oxford University Press. Cunningham, A. E. (1990). Explicit v. implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 50 429-444. Denckla, M. B. (1979). Childhood LD. In K. M. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology (pp. 535-537). New York: Oxford University Press.

PAGE 162

155 Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. (1976). Rapid automatized naming (R.A.N.): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsvchologia. 14 471-479. Deshler, D. D., Warner, M. M., Schumaker, J. B., & Alley, G. R. (1983). The learning strategies intervention model: key components and current stams. In J. D. McKinney & L. Feagans (Eds.), Current topics in learning disabilities (Vol 1, pp. 245283). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Epstein, H. T. (1978). Growth spurts during brain development: Implications for educational policy and practice. In Jeanne S. Chall and Allan F. Mirsky, eds.. Education and the brain 77' Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education). Felton, R. H., & Wood, F. B. (1989). Cognitive deficits in reading disability and attention deficit disorder. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 22 3-13. Frith, U. (1981). Experimental approaches to developmental dyslexia: an introduction. Psychological Research. 43 97-109. Garcia, G., Stephens, D. L., Koenke, K. R., Pearson, P. D., Jimenez, R. T., & Janisch, C. (1995). Reading instruction and educational opportunity at the middle school level. Technical Report No. 622. Microfiche ED392014 Gillam, R. B. & van Kleeck, A. (1996). Phonological awareness training and short-term memory: clinical implications. Topics in Language Disorders. 17 (1). 72-81. Goswami, U. (1995). Phonological development and reading by analogy: what is analogy and what is it not? Journal of Research in Reading. 18 (2). 139-145. Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. E. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education. 7 6-10. Harris, A. J., & Sipay, E. R. (1990). How to increase reading abilitv: A guide to developmental and remedial methods Ninth edition. New York: Longman. Hoover, W., & Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2 127-160. Hulme, C, & Snowling, M. (1992). Deficits in output phonology: an explanation of reading failure? Cognitive Neuropsychology. 9 47-72.

PAGE 163

156 Hurford, D. P., Johnston, M., Nepote, P., Hampton, S., Moore, S., Neal, J., Mueller, A., McGeorge, K., Huff, L., Awad, A., Tatro, C, Juliano, C, & Huffman, D. (1994). Early identification and remediation of phonological-processing deficits in firstgrade children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27 (10). 647-659. Jenkins, R., & Bowen, L. (1994). Facilitating development of preliterate children's phonological abihties. Topics in Language Disorders, 14 (2). 26-39. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: a longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology. 80 437-447. Juel, C. (1991). Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, and P. Mosenthal (Eds.). Handbook of reading research New York, NY: Longman. Juel, C, Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of hteracy: a longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology. 78 243-255. Katz, R. (1986). Phonological deficiencies in children with reading disability: Evidence from an object-naming task. Cognition. 22 225-257. Kamhi, A., & Catts, H. (Eds). (1989). Reading disabilities: A developmental language perspective Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Layton, L., Deeny, K., Tall, G., & Upton, G. (1996). Researching and promoting phonological awareness in the nursery class. Journal of Research in Reading. 19 (1). 113. Lenchner, O., Gerber, M. M., & Routh, D. K. (1990). Phonological awareness tasks as predictors of decoding ability: Beyong segmentation. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 23 (4). 240-247. Liberman, I. Y.; & Liberman, A. M. (1990). Whole language vs. code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their implications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia. 40 51-76. Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1985). Phonology and problems of learning to read and write. Remedial and Special Education. 6 8-17. Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, A. M. (1989). The alphabetic principle and learning to read. In D. Shankweiler & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: So lving the reading puzzle (pp. 1-3). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Lindamood, C. H.; & Lindamood, P. C. (1979). Lindamood Auditorv Conceptualization Test Pro-Ed, 8700 Shoal Creek Boulevard. Austin, Texas 78757.

PAGE 164

157 Lundberg, I. (1988). Preschool prevention of reading failure: Does training in phonological awareness work? In R. L. Masland & M. W. Masland (Eds.), Preschool prevention of reading failure (pp. 163-176). Parkton, MD: York Press. Lundberg, L, Frost, J., & Peterson, O. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly. 23, 263-284. Maclver, D. J. (1991). Helping students who fall behind: remedial activities in the middle grades. Report No. 22. Mirofiche ED 339545 Mann, V. A. (1993). Phoneme awareness and future reading ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities 26(4), 259-269. Mann, V. A., & Brady, S. (1988). Reading disability: The role of language deficiencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 56 (6). 811-816. MacDonald, G. W., & Cornwall, A. (1995). The relationship between phonological awareness and reading and spelling achievement eleven years later. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 28 (8). 523-527. Marsh, G., & Mineo, J. R. (1977). Training preschool children to recognize phonemes in words. Journal of Educational Psychology. 69 (6). 748-753. McBride-Chang, M. (1995). What is phonological awareness? Journal of Educational Psychology. 87 (2). 179-192. McGuinness, D., McGuinness, C, & Donohue, J. (1995). Phonological training and the alphabet principle: evidence for reciprocal causality. Reading Research Quarterly. 30 (4). 830-852. Mercer, C. D. (1997). Students with learning disabilities. (5* ed.). Prentice-Hall, Inc. Mercer, C. D. ; & Campbell, K. U. (1998). Great Leaps Reading Program. K-2 Diarmuid Inc. P.O. Box 138 Micanopy, FL. Morals, J., Gary, L., Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P. (1979). Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition. 7 323-331. Nittrouer, S., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1987). The role of co-articulatory effects in the perception of fricatives by children and adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 30 .319-329.

PAGE 165

158 O'Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. R., Leicester, N., & Slocum, T. A. (1993). Teaching phonological awareness to young children with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children. 59 (6). 532-546. O'Connor, R. E., Slocum, T. A., & Jenkins, J. R. (1995). Transfer among phonological tasks in kindergarten: essential instructional content. Journal of Educational Psychology. 87 (2). 202-217. Oloffson, A., & Lundberg, I. (1983). Can phonemic awareness be trained in kindergarten? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 24 35-44. Oloffson, A., & Lundberg, I. (1985). Evaluation of long term effects of phonemic awareness training in kindergarten: illustrations of some methodological problems in evaluation research. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 26 21-34. Perfetti, C, & Bell, L. (1991). Phoneme activation during the first 40 ms of word identification: Evidence from backward masking and priming. Journal of Memory and Language. 30 473-485. Putnam, M. L. (1992). Characteristics of questions on tests administered by mainstream secondary classroom teachers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 7, 129-136. Reith, H. J., & Polsgrove, L. (1994). Curriculum and instructional issues in teaching secondary students with learning disabihties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 9 (2). 118-126. Satz, P., Fletcher, J. M., Clark, W., & Morris, R. (1981). Lag, deficit, rate, and delay constructs in specific LD. In A. ansara, N. Geschwind, A. Galaburda, M. Albert, & N. Cartell (Eds.), Sex differences in dyslexia (pp. 129-150). Towson, MD: The Orton Dyslexia Society. Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Predicting the future achievement of second graders with reading disabilities: contributions of phonemic awareness, verbal memory, rapid naming, and IQ. Annals of Dyslexia. 48 115-136. Schumaker, J. B.; & Deshler, D. D. (1984). Setting demand variables: A major factor in program planning for the LD adolescent. Topics in Language Disorders. 4 ^21. 22-40. Shankweiler, D.; & Liberman, I. Y. (1989). Phonology and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Shaywitz, S. E. (1996). Dyslexia. Scientific American. 275 r5'). 98-104.

PAGE 166

159 Slocum, T. A., O'Connor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1993). Transfer among phonological manipulation skills. Journal of Educational Psychology. 85 (4), 618-630. Smith, S. B., Simmons, D. C, & Kameenui, E. J. (1995). Synthesis of research on phonological awareness: Principles and implications for reading acquisition. Technical report no. 21. Microfiche ED3 86868 Snowling, M. J. (1995). Phonological processing and developmental dyslexia. Journal of Research and Reading. 18 (2). 132-138. Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (1994). The development of phonological skills. Transactions of the Royal Society B. 346 21-28. Spector, J. (1995). Phonemic awareness training: Application of principles of direct instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly. 11 37-51. Stanovich, K. E. (1985). Explaining the variance in reading ability in terms of psychological processes: What have we learned? Annals of Dyslexia. 35 67-96. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). "Matthew effects" in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly. 21 360-407. Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Joumal of Learning Disabilities. 21 590-612. Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: a regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Joumal of Education Psychology, 86 (1). 24-53. Stuart, M., & Masterson, J. (1992). Patterns of reading and spelling in 10-year-old children related to prereading phonological abilities. Joumal of Experimental Child Psychology. 54 168-187. Sugden, D. A. (1989). Cognitive approaches in special education London: The Palmer Press. Swank, L. K. (1994). Phonological coding abilities: Identification of impairments related to phonologically based reading problems. Topics in Language Disorders. U (2\ 56-71. Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Memory processes in reading disordered children. Joumal of Learning Disabilities. 18 350-357.

PAGE 167

160 Torgesen, J. K. (1993). Variations on theory in learning disabilities. In G. R. Lyon, D. B. Gray, J. F. Kavanagh, & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Better understanding of learning disabilities: New views from research and their implications for education and public policies (pp. 153-170). Baltimore: Brookes. Torgesen, J. K., Kistner, J. A., & Morgan, S. (1987). Component processes in working memory. In J. Borkowski & J. D. Day (Eds.), Memory and cognition in special children: Perspectives on retardation, learning disabilities, and giftedness (pp. 49-86). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Torgesen, J. K., Morgan, S., & Davis, C. (1992). Effects of two types of phonological awareness training on word learning in kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3). 364-370. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27 (5), 276-286. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing Pro-Ed, 8700 Shoal Creek Boulevard. Austin, Texas 78757. Treiman, R. (1988). The internal structure of the syllable. In G. Carlson and M. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic Structure in Language Processing (pp. 27-52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluger. Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23 134-158. Vellutino, F. R., & Denckla, M. B. (1991). Cognitive and neuropsychological foundations of word identification in poor and normally developing readers. In R. T. O'Connell (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (Vol II). New York, NY: Longman Publishing Group. Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness and reading ability: evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarteriv. 33 321-363. Wagner, R. K. (1988). Causal relations between the development of phonological processing abilities and the acquisition of reading skills: A meta-analysis. Merrill-Palmer Quarteriv. 34 (3). 261-279. Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin. 101 (2), 192-212.

PAGE 168

161 Webster, P. E., & Plante, A. S. (1992). Effects of phonological impairment on word, syllable, and phoneme segmentation and reading. Language. Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23 176-182. Williams, J. P. (1980). Teaching decoding with an emphasis on phoneme analysis and phoneme blending. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 (1). 1-15. Woodcock, R. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests Revised Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Yopp, H. K. (1988). The validity and reliabihty of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly. 23 (2). 159-177.

PAGE 169

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Preetha Bhat was bom in Kerala, India, and grew up in Madras, India. Her undergraduate and master's degree were in psychology. After completing her master's degree, Preetha taught in a special school in Madras, India. This school was specially designed for children with disabilities. Preetha's responsibilities included providing instruction and conducting assessments (including IQ, achievement tests, and personality tests). Working with children who had learning problems led Preetha to pursue her doctoral degree in the field of special education. Consequently, she applied to various universities in the U.S. and was accepted in the University of Florida. In the future, Preetha plans to continue research on learning disabilities with a special emphasis on reading and reading problems. Her other areas of interest include legal issues with respect to children with reading problems, learning strategies, neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities, and classroom management. She also plans to teach undergraduate classes at Moorhead State University, Miimesota. 162

PAGE 170

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Paul T. Sindelar, Chair Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Cynthia C. Griffin, Ce-Chair ^ssociate Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Cecil D. ivlercer Professor of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. M. David Miller Professor of Educational Psychology

PAGE 171

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Zhihui Fang Assistant Professor of Teaching And Learning This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August 2000 ( Dean, College of EducatiMt-Dean, Graduate School


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E518OYJIU_NPWVAV INGEST_TIME 2014-12-18T22:54:01Z PACKAGE AA00026495_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES