Phonological Awareness, Reading and Spelling

1
Phonological Awareness, Reading and Spelling

• Sharon Walpole
• University of Delaware

2
General Questions

• Do you have adequate understanding of the role of
  phonological awareness in word recognition and
  spelling?
• Does your reading program include adequate
  attention to instruction in phonological
  awareness?
• Does your reading program include a sensible plan
  for phonological awareness assessment?
• Does your reading program include adequate
  attention to intervention in phonological
  awareness?

3
General Plan

• Definitions
• Theoretical importance
• Predictive importance
• Illustrative research
• Background knowledge
• Classroom implications

4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
Levels of Phonological Awareness

• Categorizing, matching, isolating, blending,
  segmenting individual speech sounds
• Recognizing, generating rhymes, blending
  onsets-rimes
• Segmenting, completing, identifying, deleting
  syllables

8

• As you think about instruction you are seeing in
  your schools, what strengths and weaknesses can
  you see? To what extent is instruction honoring
  the developmental levels?

9
General Plan

• Definitions
• Theoretical importance
• Predictive importance
• Illustrative research
• Background knowledge
• Classroom implications

10
Theoretical Importance
11

• How is it that skilled readers recognize words?
• How is it that novice readers acquire word
  recognition skills?

12
Dual-Route Theory (Coltheart)
WORD
WORD
Process graphemes
Process phonemes
Process orthography
Access sound and meaning
Access meaning
13

• For beginning readers, what real-life reading and
  spelling behaviors would the dual-route theory
  explain?
• How does the dual route theory (implicitly)
  influence word recognition and spelling
  instruction?
• What is the importance of phonological awareness
  in this theory?

14
Connectionist Theories (Sadoski and Paivio)
Word
Sound
Spelling
Meaning
Strengthen successful connections Weaken
unsuccessful connections
15

• For beginning readers, what real-life reading and
  spelling behaviors would connectionist theories
  explain?
• How do connectionist theories (implicitly)
  influence word recognition and spelling
  instruction?
• What is the importance of phonological awareness
  in this theory?

16
Stage Theories (Ehri)
17

• For beginning readers, what real-life reading and
  spelling behaviors would stage theories explain?
• How do stage theories (implicitly) influence word
  recognition and spelling instruction?
• What is the importance of phonological awareness
  to stage theories?

18
Self-Teaching Hypothesis (Share)
Individual Word
Decoding Process
Establishment of orthographic representation
19

• For beginning readers, what real-life reading and
  spelling behaviors would the self- teaching
  hypothesis explain?
• How does the self-teaching hypothesis
  (implicitly) influence word recognition and
  spelling instruction?
• What is the importance of phonological awareness
  to the self-teaching hypothesis?

20
Skillful Reading Q and A (Adams)
21
The Reading System (Adams)

• Reading Writing Speech

Context Processor
Meaning Processor
Phonological Processor
Orthographic Processor
22
phocks
23
phocks
This false spelling illustrates a case in which
the orthographic processor cannot help the reader
locate a meaningful match in memory. The
phonological processor, however, can make the
match.
24
Phonological Awareness Foundational to all of
these theories

• Gillon (2004)
• Phonological route in dual-route theory
• Sound and spelling representations in
  connectionist theories
• Essential knowledge in stage theories
• Essential to decoding for the self-teaching
  hypothesis
• Essential in skilled reading

25
General Plan

• Definitions
• Theoretical importance
• Predictive importance
• Illustrative research
• Background knowledge
• Classroom implications

26
Juel, 1988

• Theoretical orientation
• Simple View of Reading
• Reading Decoding X Listening Comprehension
• (a poor reader is either a poor decoder, a weak
  comprehender, or both)

27

• Subjects54 children (of 129) who remained in a
  school from first through fourth grade
• Low-SES school (but free/reduced-priced lunch
  numbers not reported)
• 31 African American
• 43 Hispanic
• 26 White

28

• Measures (generally Oct/April each year)
• Phonemic awareness
• Pseudoword decoding
• Word reading from basal series
• Word reading from standardized tests
• Listening comprehension from standardized test
• Reading comprehension from standardized test
• Spelling from standardized test
• IQ in second grade
• Writing samples
• Oral story samples

29
Do the same children remain poor readers year
after year?

• Yes.
• If a child was a poor reader at the end of first
  grade (ITBS lt 1.2 GE) probability .88 that he/she
  would be below grade level at the end of fourth
  grade

30
What skills do poor readers lack?

• They began first grade with weak phonemic
  awareness.
• They ended first grade with improved (but still
  weak) phonemic awareness.
• They had weak pseudoword decoding ability at the
  end of first grade, and it continued through the
  fourth grade.

31
What about the Simple View?

• There were 30 poor readers at the end of fourth
  grade.
• 28 were poor decoders
• 25 of these ALSO had poor listening
  comprehension
• 2 were good decoders with poor
• listening comprehension

32
What factors seemed to keep poor readers from
improving?

• Poor decoding skills! (and then less access)
• In first grade, good readers had seen over 18,000
  words in their basals poor readers had seen
  fewer than 10,000.
• In second grade, few children reported reading at
  home, but in third and fourth grades, average and
  good readers read much more.

33
Juels Conclusions

• Phonemic awareness is critical to learning to
  decode.
• Success in learning to decode during first grade
  is critical.
• Struggling readers need to be motivated to read
  and need attention to development of listening
  comprehension.

34
Other Evidence (lots of it)Torgesen, Wagner,
Rashotte (1994)

• Phonological processing skills before reading
  instruction begins predict later reading
  achievement
• Training in phonological awareness and
  letter-sounds enhances growth in word reading
• Older good and poor readers have different
  phonological processing skills
• When we measure different phonological skills, we
  find them correlated
• Phonological awareness in kindergarten is
  causally related to decoding in first grade

35

• What implications do these ideas have for your
  reading program?

36
General Plan

• Definitions
• Theoretical importance
• Predictive importance
• Intervention research
• Background knowledge
• Classroom implications

37
(No Transcript)
38
Bradley and Bryant (1983)

• Testing of over 400 4- and 5-year-olds, none of
  whom could read
• Initial sound categorization (odd man out)
  related to reading and spelling 3 years later
• Training study

39
(No Transcript)
40

• Sorting plus letters group outperformed both
  controls in reading and spelling
• Sorting plus letters group outperformed sorting
  only in spelling (but not in reading)

41
Blachman et al., 1999

• Sample
• 159 kindergarten children (84 treatment)
• Low-average PPVT (mean SS 91)
• 85 free/reduced-price lunch
• Average letter sounds 2 (Jan., K)
• Treatment
• 41 15-20 minute lessons
• Heterogeneous groups (4-5) working with teacher
  and/or paraprofessional

42
Kindergarten Lessons

• Phoneme segmentation activitySay it and move it
• (children hear word, isolate individual sounds
  while moving disks, then blend sounds to make
  word again)
• Segmentation-related activity
• (initial consonant picture sorts)
• Letter name and sound practice for
  a,m,t,I,s,r,f,b

43
Kindergarten Results

• Significant differences between treatment and
  control for
• Phoneme segmentation
• Letter names
• Letter sounds
• Word reading
• Nonword reading
• Spelling

44
First Grade Lessons

• Not all children made the same amount of progress
  in the program continue to intervene during
  first grade
• Homogeneous reading groups (6 to 9 children) used
  in the classroom for 30 minutes in place of basal
  reading group

45
First Grade Lessons

• Review of letter sounds, with cards
• Phoneme blending/analysis for regular words using
  pocket charts and letter cards
• Automaticity with phonetically regular and high
  frequency words
• 10-15 minutes of reading from phonetically
  controlled texts
• Dictation of words and sentences

46
First Grade Results

• Treatment children outperformed control children
  in phoneme segmentation, in letter name
  knowledge, in letter sound knowledge, and in
  reading

47
Second Grade

• Instruction was continued for children who
  remained in second grade again they outperformed
  the control group in measures of reading, but not
  spelling

48

• Here are two pictures that contribute to
  scientifically-based reading research. How do
  the instructional approaches here compare to the
  programs implemented in your schools?

49
General Plan

• Definitions
• Theoretical importance
• Predictive importance
• Illustrative research
• Background knowledge
• Classroom implications

50
Phonemes 25 consonant (Gillon)
51
16 Vowel Phonemes (Gillon)
52
Phoneme Counting
53

• Activities sort. There are six phonological
  awareness activities listed, with three examples
  of each (easy, moderate, difficult).
• First group the samples with the name. Then put
  them in order by difficulty.

54
Phonological Awareness Activities
55
Phonological Awareness Activities
56
General Plan

• Definitions
• Theoretical importance
• Predictive importance
• Illustrative research
• Background knowledge
• Classroom implications

57
National Reading Panel Report

• General question
• What do we know about phonemic awareness
  instruction with sufficient confidence to
  recommend for classroom use?

58
Method
59
Sources

• Training studies
• Experimental design (with control groups)
• Measured effects of training on reading
• 52 studies were located, 1976-1999

60
Coding Variables
61
Findings

• PA training improves phonemic awareness.
• PA training improves decoding.
• PA training improves spelling.
• PA training improves comprehension.
• PA training works for prek, K, 1 and older
  disabled readers.
• PA training works with high- and low-SES
  children.
• PA training does not improve spelling for
  reading-disabled students.

62

• PA training works in English and in other
  language.
• Many different activities can be used in the
  trainings a focus on one or two skills appears
  more effective than more.
• Blending and segmenting are most powerful.
• Using letters in training is better than not
  using them.
• Overlearning letter names, shapes, and sounds
  should be emphasized along with PA training.

63

• Between 5 and 18 hours yielded the strongest
  effects. Longer programs were less effective.
  (But the panel cautioned against making rules
  about time.)
• Regular classroom teachers can effectively
  implement the training.
• Small groups were more effective than whole class
  or tutoring.
• PA training does not improve spelling for
  reading-disabled students.

64
So what can we do with what we know?

• Choose and use instructional programs and
  approaches that develop phonological awareness
  and alphabet knowledge in kindergarten and first
  grade
• Research program reviews
• http//reading.uoregon.edu/curricula/or_rfc_revie
  w_2.php
• Consider program demands against local
  resources people, time, money

65
So what can we do with what we know?

• Choose and use assessments to monitor progress of
  all children in phonemic awareness and alphabet
  knowledge
• Consider curriculum-embedded assessments, used
  to inform instruction and pacing, and outside
  assessments, used to provide normative
  information

66
So what can we do with what we know?

• Choose and use assessments to screen
  kindergarteners and first graders for risk in
  phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge
• http//idea.uoregon.edu/assessment/index.html

67
So what can we do with what we know?

• Choose and use intervention programs for those
  children who are at-risk in the area of
  phonological awareness or alphabet knowledge
• Research program reviews
• http//oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/SIreport.ph
  p
• http//www.fcrr.org/pmrn/tier3/tier3interventions
  .htm
• Consider program demands against local
  resources people, time, money

68

• Adams, M. J. (1994). Modeling the connections
  between word recognition and reading. In In R.B.
  Ruddell N.J. Unrau, (Eds.), Theoretical models
  and processes of reading (54h ed.) (pp. 838-863).
  Newark, DE International Reading Association.
• Blachman, B.A., Tangel, D.M., Ball, E.W., Black,
  R., McGraw, C. (1999). Developing phonological
  awareness and word recognition skills a two-year
  intervention with low-income, inner-city
  children. Reading and Writing An
  Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 239-273.
• Bradley, L., Bryant, P.E. (1983). Categorizing
  sounds and learning to read A causal connection.
  Nature, 301, 419-421.
• Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple
  reading tasks. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Strategies
  of information processing (pp. 151-216). London
  Academic Press.
• Ehri, L.C., McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of
  word learning Implications for instruction with
  delayed and disabled readers. Reading and Writing
  Quarterly Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 14,
  135-163.
• Gillon, G. T., (2004). Phonological awareness
  From research to practice. New York Guilford
  Press.
• 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.

69

• National Institute of Child Health and Human
  Development. (2000). Report of the National
  Reading Panel. Teaching children to read an
  evidence-based assessment of the scientific
  research literature on reading and its
  implications for reading instruction Reports of
  the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754).
  Washington, DC U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Ruddell, R.B., Unrau, N.J. (2004). Theoretical
  models and processes of reading (5th ed.).
  Newark, DE International Reading Association.
• Sadoski, M., Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding
  theoretical model of reading. In R.B. Ruddell
  N.J. Unrau, (Eds.), Theoretical models and
  processes of reading (5th ed.) (pp. 1329-1362).
  Newark, DE International Reading Association.
• Share, D.L. (1998). Phonological recoding and
  orthographic learning A direct test of the
  self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental
  Child Psychology, 72, 95-129
• Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A.
  (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological
  processing and reading. Journal of Learning
  Disabilities, 27, 276-286.