Phonological Awareness, Reading and Spelling Sharon Walpole University of Delaware 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? General Plan • • • • • • Definitions Theoretical importance Predictive importance Illustrative research Background knowledge Classroom implications phonological awareness of the constituent sounds awareness of words in learning to read and spell phonology the study of speech sounds and their functions in a language or languages grapheme a written or printed representation of a phoneme, as b for /b/ and oy for /oy/ in boy . . .can be a single letter or a group of letters. a minimal sound unit of speech that, when contrasted with another phoneme, affects the meaning of words in a language /m/+/a/+/n/= man phoneme morpheme phonological processing a meaningful linguistic unit that cannot be divided into smaller meaningful elements, as the word book, or the component s in books the course of active change or psychological activity involving sound structure of words metalinguistics the study of language used to analyze language phonics teaching reading and spelling through sound-symbol relationships Levels of Phonological Awareness Phonemic Awareness Onset-rime Awareness Syllable Awareness Categorizing, matching, isolating, blending, segmenting individual speech sounds Recognizing, generating rhymes, blending onsets-rimes Segmenting, completing, identifying, deleting syllables 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? General Plan • • • • • • Definitions Theoretical importance Predictive importance Illustrative research Background knowledge Classroom implications Theoretical Importance How is it that skilled readers recognize words? How is it that novice readers acquire word recognition skills? word recognition The process of determining the pronunciation and some degree of meaning of a word in written or printed form Dual-Route Theory (Coltheart) WORD WORD Process graphemes Process phonemes Process orthography Access sound and meaning Access meaning For beginning readers, what real-life reading and spelling behaviors would the dualroute 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? Connectionist Theories (Sadoski and Paivio) Word Sound Spelling Strengthen “successful” connections; Weaken “unsuccessful” connections Meaning 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? Stage Theories (Ehri) Word Recognition Spelling Logographic Pre-alphabetic Partial alphabetic Early letter-name Full alphabetic Late letter-name Orthographic Within-word pattern 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? Self-Teaching Hypothesis (Share) Individual Word Decoding Process Establishment of orthographic representation For beginning readers, what real-life reading and spelling behaviors would the selfteaching 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? Skillful Reading: Q and A (Adams) Do skillful readers recognize words as whole shapes? Do skillful readers access meaning directly from print (bypassing sound)? Do skillful readers anticipate words so they won’t have to look at so many letters? Do skillful readers anticipate words so they can focus on interpreting meanings? The Reading System (Adams) Context Processor Meaning Processor Orthographic Processor Reading Writing Phonological Processor Speech phocks 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. 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 General Plan • • • • • • Definitions Theoretical importance Predictive importance Illustrative research Background knowledge Classroom implications 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) Subjects 54 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 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 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 < 1.2 GE) probability .88 that he/she would be below grade level at the end of fourth grade 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. 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 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. Juel’s Conclusions 1. Phonemic awareness is critical to learning to decode. 2. Success in learning to decode during first grade is critical. 3. Struggling readers need to be motivated to read and need attention to development of listening comprehension. 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 lettersounds 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 What implications do these ideas have for your reading program? General Plan • • • • • • Definitions Theoretical importance Predictive importance Intervention research Background knowledge Classroom implications 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 Group I Group II Group III Group IV Picture sorts for beginning, ending, medial sounds Same sorts, but plastic letters to show the common sound Same No training pictures, but sort into semantic categories Sorting plus letters group outperformed both controls in reading and spelling Sorting plus letters group outperformed sorting only in spelling (but not in reading) 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 Kindergarten Lessons 1. Phoneme segmentation activity Say it and move it (children hear word, isolate individual sounds while moving disks, then blend sounds to make word again) 2. Segmentation-related activity (initial consonant picture sorts) 3. Letter name and sound practice for a,m,t,I,s,r,f,b Kindergarten Results Significant differences between treatment and control for Phoneme segmentation Letter names Letter sounds Word reading Nonword reading Spelling 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 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 First Grade Results Treatment children outperformed control children in phoneme segmentation, in letter name knowledge, in letter sound knowledge, and in reading 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 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? General Plan • • • • • • Definitions Theoretical importance Predictive importance Illustrative research Background knowledge Classroom implications Phonemes: 25 consonant (Gillon) bag pie the go fir, cuff phone, had van ring yes teeth lake, wet bell measure where cat, key, sun, miss, nail, science, duck know city mat sheep dog tap jump, zoo, gem, rage, rose, bridge buzz rain, write cheese, watch 16 Vowel Phonemes (Gillon) cat sit cup wet, bread box, saw, fraud cake, rain, my, tie, day, eight fine boot, true, tree, key, so, oak, blew eat, happy ode, show car book, put boy, coin bird, fur, fern for cow found Phoneme Counting shoe spray so she squid sap fox smart tax three thrift thump thrice thought though threat 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. Phonological Awareness Activities Syllable How many How many How many segmentation syllables in syllables in syllables in teddy? elephant? anatomy? Rhyme Phoneme identity Do cat and Mat, sun, car rhyme? cat. Which doesn’t rhyme? What’s the What’s the first sound last sound in man? in mat? Tell me words that rhyme with bat. What’s the middle sound in tip? Phonological Awareness Activities Blending C-at. What word? Segmenting Cat. Say the first sound and the rest. Deletion Say cowboy without the boy D-o-g. What word? S-t-o-p. What word? How many How many sounds in sounds in sit? stop? Say part Say step without the without the /p/. /t/. General Plan • • • • • • Definitions Theoretical importance Predictive importance Illustrative research Background knowledge Classroom implications National Reading Panel Report General question: What do we know about phonemic awareness instruction with sufficient confidence to recommend for classroom use? Method Meta-analysis Statistical method for combining the results from a collection of program evaluations to reach an overall conclusion about program effects Sources • Training studies • Experimental design (with control groups) • Measured effects of training on reading 52 studies were located, 1976-1999 Coding Variables Characteristics of Training Number of skills Use letters? Group size Trainer Length of time Characteristics of Participants Type of reader Grade Language SES 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 readingdisabled students. 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. 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. So what can we do with what we know? 1. 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_review_2.php Consider program demands against local resources: people, time, money So what can we do with what we know? 2. 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 So what can we do with what we know? 3. 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 So what can we do with what we know? 4. 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.php http://www.fcrr.org/pmrn/tier3/tier3interventions.htm Consider program demands against local resources: people, time, money 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, 437447. 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.