- Email: [email protected]
An evaluation of two approaches for teaching phonemic awareness to children in Head Start
Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
An evaluation of two approaches for teaching phonemic awareness to children in Head Start Stuart S. Yeh College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, 330 Wulling Hall, 86 Pleasant Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
Abstract Several research studies linking early phonemic awareness to the prevention of later reading difficulties strongly suggest that phoneme segmentation and blending, rather than rhyming and alliteration abilities, are the key aspects of phonemic awareness that are related to the prevention of difficulties. Yet there is a persistent belief among many educators that instruction in rhyming and alliteration are adequate to develop phonemic awareness and developmentally more appropriate than segmentation and blending activities. Using quasi-experimental methods, I evaluated two approaches for teaching phonemic awareness to 4- and 5-year-old children in four Head Start classrooms. The first approach focused on rhymes, alliteration, and story activities. The second approach focused on phoneme segmentation and blending in the context of sounding out actual words. Results showed that children taught using the second approach produced significantly greater gains in phonemic awareness and letter–sound knowledge, compared to children using the first approach. Both approaches were more effective when teachers had previously taught attention skills to their children. © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Phonological awareness is defined by Snow, Burns, & Griffin (1998) as the general ability to attend to the sounds of language—for example, that /cat/ and /hat/ begin with different sounds. There is now a substantial body of evidence indicating that phonological awareness is a critical skill in the acquisition of reading (Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Blachman, Ball, Black, & Tangel, 1994; Bus & Ijzendoorn, 1999; Iversen & Tunmer, 1993; Juel, 1988; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Lonigan, Burgess, Anthony, & Barker, 1998; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985). A measurement model suggests that a remarkable 50% of individual differences in reading outcomes at the end of second grade for former Head Start children can be accounted for by measures of phonological awareness obtained during participation in Head Start (Whitehurst, 1999). E-mail address: [email protected] (S.S. Yeh). 0885-2006/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2003.09.009
514
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
Phonemic awareness, an advanced stage of phonological awareness, is defined as the ability to recognize that a spoken word consists of a sequence of phonemes (e.g., that ‘cat’ involves blending of three phonemes, /k/, /a/, /t/; Snow et al., 1998). Phonemic awareness is a metalinguistic skill important to the successful acquisition of reading. In controlled studies, young children demonstrated improved reading ability in second grade after receiving phonemic awareness instruction in kindergarten (Lundberg et al., 1988; Schneider, Kuspert, Roth, & Vise, 1997). In a longitudinal study, Juel (1988) found that children who became poor readers entered first grade with little phonemic awareness. Children who were poor readers at the end of first grade had an 88% probability of remaining a poor reader at the end of fourth grade (Juel, 1988). Juel concluded, “More phonemic awareness training should occur in preschools and kindergarten, and, if needed, even in first grade” (p. 446). What aspects of phonemic awareness are most important? Several key research studies linking early phonemic awareness to the prevention of later reading difficulties strongly suggest that phoneme segmentation and blending, rather than rhyming and alliteration abilities, are the key aspects of phonemic awareness that are related to the prevention of difficulties. In a quasi-experimental study, Lundberg et al. (1988) measured the effect of instruction designed to teach phoneme segmentation and blending. The influence of rhyming ability in preventing reading difficulties was examined separately from the influence of segmentation and blending ability. They concluded that, “the effects on rhyming and on word and syllable awareness were comparatively modest, whereas the effect on ability to perform phonemic tasks was quite dramatic” (p. 282). Why? “Rhyming seems to require less conscious and deliberate manipulation of segments” (p. 282). As a result, “With their superior skill in phonemic segmentation, it seemed reasonable to expect the experimental children to have a clear advantage in learning to read and spell in school. This turned out to be the case” (p. 283). In a quasi-experimental study, Schneider et al. (1997) replicated Lundberg et al.’s (1988) results, again suggesting the importance of phoneme segmentation and blending, rather than rhyming and alliteration. Furthermore, the replication was achieved with younger children: “the idea that the success of the original Danish study is related to the relatively old age and advanced cognitive level of the Danish kindergarten children was not confirmed (see Kozminsky & Kozminsky, 1995 for similar findings)” (p. 334). Similarly, Juel (1988) measured phonemic awareness through tests of phoneme segmentation, blending, deletion, and substitution—not rhyming and alliteration—and showed that measures of awareness at the beginning of first grade strongly predict reading ability in fourth grade: “In my study, poor entering phonemic awareness appeared to contribute to a very slow start in learning spelling-sound correspondences . . . . In my research the poor decoder appeared doomed” (p. 444). These studies form much of the basis for the growing consensus regarding the importance of teaching phonemic awareness. They support the teaching of phoneme segmentation and blending, not rhyming and alliteration. Yet there is a persistent belief among many educators that instruction in rhyming and alliteration is adequate to develop phonemic awareness and is developmentally more appropriate than segmentation and blending activities. However, it appears that the effort required by the latter activities may pay greater dividends, as long as they are implemented in a way that is appropriate for young children. Why teach phonemic awareness in preschool, rather than kindergarten? A typical developmental sequence is that preschoolers learn to rhyme, break words into syllables, and distinguish
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
515
first sounds, but do not independently learn to segment and blend phonemes until kindergarten or later. However, systematic instruction in segmentation and blending has greater impact in preschool versus kindergarten: effect sizes for preschoolers in acquiring phonemic awareness were very large, more than double the effect for kindergarten children (National Reading Panel Subgroups, 2000, Chapter 2 p. 24). Furthermore, preschoolers showed a much larger effect size for reading outcomes, demonstrating transfer of phonemic awareness training to reading, compared to children receiving such training in kindergarten (National Reading Panel Subgroups, 2000, pp. 2–24). Together, this evidence contradicts assertions that phonemic awareness instruction should be delayed until kindergarten, out of concern that it may be “developmentally inappropriate.” Children living in poverty, including those enrolled in Head Start, are at greater risk of becoming poor readers. Phonemic awareness instruction can be delivered through Head Start to the children who need it the most, at a critical point in the development of their language abilities. While important, phonemic awareness is not a sufficient prerequisite to growth in reading skill (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1993; Juel et al., 1986; McGuinness, McGuinness, & Donohue, 1995; Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985). Adams (1990) reviewed the evidence and concluded that phonemic awareness and letter–sound knowledge are the most powerful predictors of early single word reading skill. Phonemic awareness and letter–sound knowledge are needed in combination to promote the acquisition of reading skill (Bus & Ijzendoorn, 1999; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1993; Juel et al., 1986; McGuinness et al., 1995; Schneider, Roth, & Ennemoser, 2000; Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985). The effects of phonemic awareness instruction improved when combined with reading instruction (Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994; Iversen & Tunmer, 1993) and spelling activities (O’Connor & Jenkins, 1995; Uhry & Shepherd, 1993). A factor that is frequently ignored in reading research is the role of children’s attention skills. However, longitudinal research suggests that the level of children’s attention skills at early ages predicts academic performance in later years (Agostin & Bain, 1997; Griffin, 1997; McKinney & Speece, 1986). Foulks & Morrow (1989) found agreement among early childhood educators, including Head Start preschool teachers, that two skills are highly or critically important for successful adjustment of preschool children to kindergarten: (a) “Child listens carefully to teacher instructions and directions for assignments,” and (b) “Child complies with teacher demands” (p. 161). These findings are significant in view of the research linking early academic achievement with later academic success (Entwisle & Hayduk, 1988; Reynolds, 1992) and resilience, especially among Black urban youth (Reynolds, 1998). Cooney (1998) found a significant positive relationship between parents’ self-reported use of rules, limits and disciplinary practices directed at their children at home, and their children’s work-related social skills, as well as literacy outcomes. The relationship with literacy outcomes disappeared when the effects of work-related social skills were removed, suggesting that parental control only influences literacy outcomes through its effects on work-related social skills. Cooney’s (1998) findings suggest that, for many children, work-related social skills are instilled at home by parents through rules, limits and disciplinary practices. The findings suggest how preschool teachers might develop the work-related social skills that are related to academic achievement. A curriculum focusing on these critical learning and social skills was evaluated in 10 preschool classrooms, involving 145 4–5-year-old children (Brigman, Lane, Switzer, Lane, & Lawrence, 1999). The evaluation found that the intervention significantly
516
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
increased children’s attending skills, social behavior, and listening comprehension, compared to children not receiving the intervention (Brigman et al., 1999). Instruction or socialization regarding attention skills is likely to be even more critical for children in Head Start, who are likely to have multiple risk factors. Using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), Foster (2002) investigated the presence of four key disadvantages for Head Start-eligible families: poverty, welfare receipt, female head of household, and parental joblessness. He found that the level of disadvantage was high among enrolled families, particularly among African-American families. The presence of these economic disadvantages has been associated with problems in children’s cognitive and emotional development, as well as with problem behaviors (Huston, McLoyd, & Garcia, 1997; McLoyd, 1998; Vandivere, Moore, & Brown, 2000). For many children, Head Start provides their first introduction to structured group activities where they are asked to sit-down and pay attention to the teacher, so they may be expected to benefit from specific and sustained attention to behavior. This focus on appropriate behavior is an important element of Head Start. Cooney’s (1998) findings suggest that strategies for achieving a blend of child-centered and teacher-directed learning environments may be key to developing the readiness of many young children for academic success.
1. The current study The current study tested the hypothesis that there is a significant difference in the effectiveness of two research-based approaches for teaching phonemic awareness to 4–5-year-old children in Head Start: (a) activities emphasizing rhyming and alliteration, and (b) activities emphasizing phoneme segmentation, blending and substitution to sound out words. Teachers in both approaches used the same basic set of phonemes and letter–sound relationships. Both approaches involved shared, teacher-led, small group activities twice per week over a period of 9 weeks. The primary research question asked: Which approach is more effective in teaching four specific aspects of phonemic awareness—phoneme blending, phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, and phoneme substitution—as well as letter–sound knowledge and oral reading? These aspects were selected based on the research showing that they are related to second-grade reading outcomes (Lundberg et al., 1988; Schneider et al., 1997). A secondary research question asked: Are the effects of each approach influenced by prior training in attention skills? The two teaching approaches were selected because they represent two distinct perspectives on how phonemic awareness may be taught to young children. In one view, activities involving rhyming and alliteration, but not phoneme blending, segmentation, deletion and substitution, are appropriate for young children in Head Start. In the second view, the Lundberg et al. (1988), Schneider et al. (1997) and Juel (1988) studies suggest the importance of phoneme blending, segmentation, deletion, and substitution knowledge. Since the curriculum used by Lundberg et al. and Schneider et al. (see the translation by Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler, 1998) begins with rhyming and alliteration activities and transitions to phoneme manipulation, the current study may be conceptualized as a test of instruction that emphasizes the first half
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
517
of the curriculum, compared to instruction that emphasizes the last half. The study aims to disaggregate the combined effects of the two approaches.
2. Methods 2.1. Participants Forty-four children participated in the study, aged 4 years, 7 months to 5 years, 6 months (M = 5 years, 1 month), in four classrooms from two Head Start centers in the Boston area. All children aged 4–5 years old in the four classrooms participated (there were no refusals—some children were younger than 4 years and were excluded). Forty-one percent of the children were Hispanic, 41% were African-American, 7% Asian, and 11% were Caucasian. All of the children were from low-income families, consistent with Head Start eligibility criteria. All of the children were nonreaders with low levels of phonemic awareness as measured at pre-test. Centers were selected for inclusion in the study based on willingness to participate. Classrooms were selected where teachers were willing to be randomly assigned to treatments. Matched pairs of classrooms were created based on student achievement levels, according to review of teacher-administered assessments and teacher judgments and confirmed by pre-test results. Prior to the research study, the Head Start curriculum programs included shared story-reading but not phonemic awareness or sound/symbol relationships. 2.2. Measures The research by Juel (1988), Juel et al. (1986), Lundberg et al. (1988), Schneider et al. (1997) and the National Reading Panel’s (2000) meta-analysis established the validity of, and provided the basis for, using measures of phoneme segmentation, blending, deletion, and substitution, as predictors of later reading ability. The Phonological Awareness Test (Robertson & Salter, 1995) is designed to measure these aspects of phonemic awareness with children ages five and older. However, the researcher judged many of the items, involving more than five phonemes or low-frequency phonemes, to be too difficult for children in Head Start. Therefore, similar measures were adapted from an assessment with more appropriate items designed for children aged four and above, although validity and reliability data are not available (McGuinness & McGuinness, 1998). 2.2.1. Phoneme blending On this 14-word subtest, children heard, and were asked to blend, spoken phonemes, for example, /p/ /i/ /g/ into ‘pig.’ Each child’s score was the total number of words correctly blended. 2.2.2. Phoneme segmentation On this 12-word subtest, children heard and were asked to segment words into phonemes. For example, “What is the first sound in the word ‘dog’? What is the second sound? What is the last sound?” Each child’s score was the total number of correct phonemes (each phoneme
518
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
within each word was scored). No credit was given for letter names (children were prompted by saying, “That’s the name of the letter—what’s the sound?”). 2.2.3. Phoneme deletion On this 10-word subtest, children heard a word and were asked to delete a phoneme. For example, “Say ‘sip.’ Now say it without the /s/.” Each child’s score was the total number of words where the phoneme was correctly deleted. 2.2.4. Phoneme substitution On this 14-item subtest, children were asked, for example, “What sound is needed to change ‘cat’ into ‘mat’?” Each child’s score was the total number correct. 2.2.5. Letter–sound matching Children were shown letters, one at a time, and asked, “What sound does this make?” This subtest included 25 letters, excluding the letter ‘q.’ In cases where a letter represents more than one sound, children were prompted as follows: “What other sound does this make?” Each child’s score was the total number correct, including alternative sounds (maximum score 35). 2.2.6. Oral reading On this researcher-designed, 46-word test, children were asked to read simple sentences containing mostly consonant–vowel–consonant words, such as “Fat cat sat on mat.” Each child’s score was the total number of words correctly decoded. 2.2.7. Teacher interviews To assess the fidelity of treatment implementation and children’s prior training in attention skills, teachers were interviewed before, during, and after the intervention phase of the research study regarding their teaching and classroom management practices and philosophy. Teachers were asked to describe and explain their instructional practices, as well as their beliefs about the appropriateness of teaching attention skills and strategies for teaching attention. These descriptions were matched against the intended treatments, as specified by the training consultants. 2.2.8. Teacher observations All teachers and students participating in the study were observed every day of instruction for one hour (instruction was staggered across days and time periods to facilitate research observations), plus random noninstructional days, to assess fidelity of treatment implementation as well as teaching and classroom management practices, which were recorded descriptively. Lessons were videotaped for review. Fidelity was defined as the degree to which the teacher included students in the research sample in the specified instructional activities, and implemented specified small group instructional activities 20–25 minutes twice per week. 2.2.9. Student observations During the 9-week period of instruction, the researcher observed each group of four children as they received group instruction for 20–25 minutes twice per week. Observations focused
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
519
on children’s emotional and cognitive responses to the phonemic awareness activities. The researcher took field notes, recording observations of student responses that provided evidence regarding the developmental appropriateness of each instructional approach. 2.3. Design The research design used mixed-methods, involving a non-equivalent (pre- and post-test) control group design integrated with case studies of teaching, learning, and classroom management practices in each classroom. The two treatments were crossed with two Head Start centers so that the treatments would not be confounded with centers and the characteristics unique to particular centers. 2.4. Instruction 2.4.1. Rhyming Group Children in this group were exposed to instruction in rhyming and alliteration activities. Specific rhyming and alliteration activities were selected from a commercially-available curriculum (Adams et al., 1998) for teaching phonemic awareness. Teachers followed a pre-planned set of curriculum activities. For example, children in the Rhyming/Alliteration groups were asked to rhyme, “A cat wearing a (hat),” or “tell me a word that sounds like man.” Children in this group were also asked to provide words with the same initial consonant, e.g., in response to pictures of a fox, a foot, some feathers, and a fish, or in response to: “I went for a walk and I saw a /p/ as in ,” where the desired response involved a word beginning with /p/. The phonemic activities were taught in conjunction with bookmaking, a popular literacy activity in Head Start designed to teach letter–sound relationships in a way that is consistent with emergent literacy perspectives. Children pasted pictures into blank booklets, then dictated stories to accompany the pictures. After completing a book, each child ‘read’ it to the teacher. 2.4.2. Segmentation Group The instruction provided to children in the Segmentation Group focused on phoneme segmentation, blending and substitution in the context of spelling three-letter words using phonemes, manipulating the spelling of those words to create new words, and reading short sentences based on those words, using pre-planned curriculum activities adapted from the Phono-GraphixTM program (McGuinness & McGuinness, 1999), a commercially-available program that emphasizes phonemic spelling and oral reading of real words using letter manipulatives. The Segmentation approach emphasized phonemic activities in the context of spelling and reading actual words, with the aim of supplementing the existing curriculum, which emphasized story-reading. The Segmentation approach did not attempt to provide a comprehensive curriculum that would replace the Head Start literacy curriculum; instead, it aimed to provide focused attention in an area that is frequently not addressed. Instruction was scaffolded, with teachers supplying, modeling, and exaggerating phonemes, eliciting and reinforcing correct responses, and gradually withdrawing support as children learned to match sounds and graphemes and sound out short words. For example, one teacher scaffolded a child’s learning, first to articulate /p/, and then to match /p/ and the symbol p:
520
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
Teacher: “What’s the first sound in pat? The first sound is /p/” [The teacher held her hand in front of her mouth as she said /p/, then held the child’s hand up to her mouth and repeated the sound, demonstrating how the articulation of /p/ creates a puff of air.] “Now, you do it. Say, /p/” [Again, the teacher held her hand in front of her mouth to demonstrate the articulation of /p/]. Child: /p/ [The child held his hand in front of his mouth and felt the puff of air released by the articulation of /p/]. Teacher: [The teacher held up a card with the letter p] “This is the picture for /p/. What picture is this?” Child: /p/. Teacher: [The teacher hid the card for half a second, presented the card again, and asked once more] “What picture is this?” Child: /p/.
Using small group instruction, the teacher repeated this approach with each child, giving the rest of the children the opportunity to observe. Over the next several weeks, children were taught six letter–sound correspondences for m, a, t, p, o, and c, building the three-letter words ‘mat,’ ‘mop,’ and ‘cat.’ For example, the teacher asked the children, “what’s the first sound in the word ‘mat?’ ” She supplied the sound: /m/. She asked, “What’s the picture for that sound?” and drew an ‘m.’ She repeated this process until the word was spelled out, then sounded it out with the children: /m/ /a/ /t/. She repeated this cycle with the words ‘mop’ and ‘cat.’ Instruction quickly graduated to phoneme substitution activities. For example, after prompting the children to spell and sound out ‘cat,’ the teacher asked: “What sound do we need to change ‘cat’ into ‘mat’? What sound do we need to change ‘mat’ into ‘pat’?” Having sounded out ‘cat,’ it was relatively easy for children to sound out ‘mat’ and ‘pat.’ The Segmentation approach exposed Head Start children to challenging activities that they ordinarily would not be expected to achieve independently. While some educators1 are concerned that this type of activity may not reflect current conceptions of developmentally appropriate practice, the purpose of the study was to explore specific strategies for scaffolding instruction, helping children to achieve beyond their expected level of development, and doing so in the context of meaningful literacy contexts, i.e., learning to read actual words. Developmental appropriateness was defined for each child individually and activities were modified and scaffolded to match the level of support needed for each child’s developmental level. 2.4.3. Attention Skills Instruction The researcher conducted 50 minute interviews with each teacher regarding her instructional and classroom management practices prior to the research intervention. Each teacher was asked to “describe any literacy-related instruction between the beginning of the Head Start year and the beginning of the research study,” and “describe how you manage your classroom, the rules you teach to your children, and how you teach them, from the beginning of the Head Start year.” One teacher in the Rhyming Group and one teacher in the Segmentation Group reported
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
521
that they provided systematic instruction in attention skills to their children, starting at the beginning of the Head Start year (prior to, and independent of, the instructional treatments). Since one teacher in each group did not provide Attention Skills Instruction, this instruction was crossed with the research intervention. Teachers who taught persistence and attention skills reported that they did so out of a belief that these skills were important for learning. They devoted the beginning of the school year to classroom rules and routines designed to teach children to keep their hands and feet to themselves, to pay attention to the teacher, and participate in learning activities. While all four preschool teachers discussed behavioral rules, the teachers who taught attention skills reported that they emphasized consistent application of those rules, in comparison with the teachers who did not teach attention skills. The teachers reported that this was difficult at first but, after the first month, the children learned to follow the routines. By the time the research study began, the teachers in these classes reported that they had relatively little difficulty getting their children to sit attentively for 15–30 minutes of focused group learning activities. This was confirmed by the researcher through biweekly classroom observations during the 3-week period prior to the research intervention. The teachers were asked whether the children were well-behaved when they were enrolled. The teachers reported, “no,” that numerous children had been disruptive and lacked attention skills when they were first enrolled into the classroom. These children were aggressive and did not obey rules or participate in circle activities. The teachers reported that, despite these challenges, they were able to teach the children the attention skills needed to participate in learning activities. The teachers reported that the children did not possess attention skills at the time of enrollment into the class. The teachers who did not emphasize attention skills reported that they did not believe that it was developmentally appropriate to ask children to persist in pre-literacy activities. Furthermore, they were “not supposed to” emphasize attention skills. Instead, the Head Start Curriculum guidelines for each center recommended that teachers always stop activities before children lose attention (ABCD Head Start, 1997). 2.5. Procedure At pre-test, two classes were matched on phoneme segmentation (M = 1.15 and 2.50) and letter–sound knowledge (M = 2.23 and 2.75). The children in each of the other two matched classes averaged zero on both measures. Each relatively “moderate” achieving class was paired with a “low” achieving class. Since each moderate achieving class had received Attention Skills Instruction, this arrangement served to cross attention instruction with treatment. Classroom pairs were then randomly assigned to two treatments. Children were individually pre-tested regarding measures of phoneme blending, segmentation, deletion, substitution, as well as knowledge of letter–sound relationships, oral reading ability, and motivation to read. At pre-test, children generally performed at low levels (Table 1). Children were instructed in small groups of 3–5 children for 20–25 minutes twice per week, with a second teacher supervising the rest of the children. For the first 3 weeks, teachers received in-class modeling and coaching regarding the assigned instructional approach. Each day of instruction, a consultant-trainer taught one group of
522
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
Table 1 Means and standard deviations for raw outcome measures and the combined, transformed measure of phonemic awareness, by Treatment Group Measure
Phoneme blending Phoneme segmentation Phoneme deletion Phoneme substitution Combined phoneme awareness Letter–sound knowledge Oral reading ∗
Segmentation Group (n = 23)
Rhyming Group (n = 21)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
0.21 (0.51) 0.63 (1.97) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) −0.53 (0.62) 1.21 (3.45) 0.00 (0.00)
2.52 (3.10) 9.91∗ (11.93) 1.04 (2.79) 4.00 (5.67) 0.73 (3.68) 7.04∗ (7.41) 1.87 (2.77)
1.67 (2.78) 0.95 (4.36) 0.05 (0.22) 0.00 (0.00) 0.60 (2.63) 1.05 (3.15) 0.00 (0.00)
3.24 (3.71) 3.67 (8.95) 0.43 (0.87) 0.00 (0.00) −0.80 (2.00) 2.00 (4.64) 0.24 (0.77)
p < .002.
children, then provided coaching for the teacher as she taught a second group of children. After the initial 3 weeks, teachers continued the same schedule of instruction without assistance from the consultants, until the end of the school year. Instruction totaled 9 weeks. Teachers were observed twice per week on instructional days to ensure treatment fidelity. In addition, random observations on noninstructional days were conducted to assess classroom management and other literacy activities conducted by the teachers that might influence the study’s findings. Children were individually post-tested using the same measures administered at pre-test. 2.6. Data sources and analysis Over a period of 9 weeks, bi-weekly classroom observational data and interview data were collected and analyzed to assess treatment implementation. Each classroom observation lasted 60 minutes, followed by a 15-minute debriefing with the teacher. The researcher recorded field notes with detailed information about the dialogue among, and actions of, the teacher, instructional consultant (when present), and children. Children were defined as “attentive” during each instructional period if the researcher judged that they responded appropriately to their teacher’s instructions during the entire period. Otherwise, children were defined as “not attentive.” These judgments were triangulated through the debriefings with teachers conducted after every instructional period. Teachers were asked to review their perceptions of each child’s level of interest, attentiveness and academic progress. Twice weekly, the researcher ranked the pairs of classrooms in each treatment according to the number of children who were observed to be attentive. Each record was analyzed for examples and evidence regarding the children’s level of engagement, learning outcomes, teacher efficacy and other factors influencing those outcomes. These examples were analyzed for disconfirming, as well as confirming evidence. Teachers were asked to clarify their instructional and classroom management strategies and philosophy, their interpretation of their centers’ instructional and administrative policies, and to describe their children’s behavior prior to the initiation of the research study. The researcher reviewed the instructional and administrative policies of each Head Start center participating in the study and interviewed each center director regarding those policies in order to understand
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
523
whether explicit instruction in attention skills was encouraged or discouraged. Directors were also interviewed regarding their observations of each Head Start classroom and teacher (directors conducted formal observations of each classroom on a periodic basis in accord with the governing agency’s administrative procedures). Quantitative data included pre- and post-intervention measures of phoneme blending, segmentation, deletion and substitution, as well as letter–sound knowledge and oral reading. Pre-test scores were subtracted from post-test scores to create gain scores. Gain scores were analyzed for statistical significance. Gain score analysis was selected over alternative analytical techniques including analysis of covariance and repeated measures analysis of variance because it is arguably the best way to estimate actual gains without introducing statistical biases (Rogosa, 1988) and it addresses differences at pre-test. Covariance analysis was rejected since the assumption of homogeneity of covariance was not satisfied. The measures of phonemic segmentation, blending, deletion and substitution were standardized by subtracting the appropriate mean and dividing by the appropriate standard deviation. The standardized measures were added to create a single measure of phonemic awareness for each student. These transformations reduced the probability of Type I errors and addressed departures from normality. Where possible, initial MANOVAs were performed using the total measure of phonemic awareness, followed by analyses of the disaggregated measures. Children were used as the unit of analysis. While using classroom as the unit of analysis may be preferred by some researchers, it was not practical in this study. However, since the possibility of systematic classroom effects was anticipated, analyses of variance were conducted that accounted for classroom effects by including both Treatment Group and Classrooms nested within Treatment Group as factors, estimating the effect of treatment while controlling for the effect of classrooms.
3. Results At pre-test, there were no significant differences between Treatment Groups on phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, phoneme substitution, letter–sound knowledge, and oral reading ability. There was a significant difference between Treatment Groups on phoneme blending [t(43) = −2.37, p < .027]. Table 1 presents the raw (untransformed) pre- and post-test means for each outcome measure, as well as the combined, transformed measure of phonemic awareness, by Treatment Group. The first analysis addressed whether the Segmentation treatment is more effective than the Rhyming treatment, controlling for Classrooms (i.e., teacher) and using the combined measure of phonemic awareness. MANOVA could not be used to analyze the effects of Treatment Group and Classroom because there were certain cells with no variance and MANOVA cannot be calculated in that situation. Using a Bonferroni-adjusted .017 alpha level (adjusted for three significance tests), univariate ANOVAs with Treatment Group and Classroom as factors showed that gains by the Segmentation Group were significantly greater than the gains by the Rhyming Group regarding phonemic awareness [F(1, 40) = 7.33, p < .01, d = 0.92] and letter–sound knowledge [F(1, 40) = 9.55, p < .01, d = 1.13]. On average, children in the Segmentation Group showed significantly greater gains in phonemic awareness and letter–sound relationships
524
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
than children in the Rhyming Group. By including classrooms as well as Treatment Group as factors, these analyses of variance show that the effect of treatment is significant with regard to phonemic awareness and letter–sound knowledge even when systematic classroom (or teacher) effects are controlled. A secondary analysis sought to pinpoint the specific measure of phonemic awareness that was most strongly related to differences in Treatment Group. Lack of variance in one of the cells precluded the inclusion of the Classroom factor. To control for correlations among the dependent variables and Type I error, a one-way MANOVA was first conducted to determine the effect of Treatment Group on six dependent variables: gains in phoneme blending, phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, phoneme substitution, letter–sound knowledge, and oral reading ability. MANOVA results indicate that Treatment Group [Pillai’s Trace = .291, F(6, 37) = 2.53, p < .038, η2 = .291] significantly affects the combined dependent variable of gains in phoneme blending, phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, phoneme substitution, letter–sound knowledge, and oral reading ability. Univariate ANOVAs were conducted as follow-up tests. Using a Bonferroni-adjusted .008 alpha level, ANOVA results indicate that gains in phoneme substitution differ significantly by Treatment Group [F(1, 42) = 10.45, p < .002, η2 = .199] and gains in letter–sound knowledge differ significantly by Treatment Group [F(1, 42) = 11.195, p < .002, η2 = .210]. This result suggests that phoneme substitution is the aspect of phoneme awareness that is most strongly related to differences in Treatment Group. 3.1. Attention skills An analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis that attention skills were associated with learning outcomes, controlling for treatment and using the combined measure of phonemic awareness to reduce Type I error. Classroom could not be included as a factor due to lack of variance in one of the cells. Classrooms were grouped according to whether teachers explicitly taught students attention skills prior to instruction in phonemic awareness. A two-way MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of Treatment Group, training in attention skills, and the interaction between Treatment Group and training in attention skills, on three dependent variables: phonemic awareness, letter–sound knowledge, and oral reading ability. MANOVA results indicate that Treatment Group [Pillai’s Trace = .231, F(3, 38) = 3.80, p < .018, η2 = .231] and Attention Skills Instruction [Pillai’s Trace = .211, F(3, 38) = 3.38, p < .028, η2 = .211], but not the interaction, significantly affect the combined dependent variable of gains in phonemic awareness, letter–sound knowledge, and oral reading ability. In other words, children who received Attention Skills Instruction performed better on the combined measure of phonemic awareness, letter–sound knowledge and oral reading ability, but the added effect was roughly the same whether children were in the Segmentation or Rhyming Group. Univariate ANOVAs were conducted as follow-up tests. Using a Bonferroni-adjusted .017 alpha level, ANOVA results indicate that gains in phonemic awareness differ significantly by Treatment Group [F(1, 40) = 7.33, p < .010, η2 = .155] and Attention Skills Instruction [F(1, 40) = 10.49, p < .002, η2 = .208]. Gains in letter–sound knowledge differ significantly by Treatment Group [F(1, 40) = 7.14, p < .011, η2 = .151].
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
525
3.2. Qualitative results Were the treatments well-implemented? Based on classroom observations, the researcher judged the fidelity of treatment implementation to be good, with the teachers regularly implementing the specified instructional activities twice per week, according to the consultants’ directions. Were children in the high performing classrooms more attentive? In each Treatment Group, one classroom of children had been taught attention skills while a second class had not. In classes where children had not been taught attention skills, the researcher observed that children disrupted instructional activities and interfered with the learning of the rest of the children. During bi-weekly classroom observations over a period of 9 weeks, the researcher ranked each pair of classrooms in each treatment according to the number of children judged to be attentive. The researcher’s judgments of the numbers of attentive and nonattentive children in each classroom were verified by each teacher’s independent assessment of her children. In every ranking (n = 18), students in the classroom receiving Attention Skills Instruction ranked higher than the corresponding classroom that did not receive attention skills. This conclusion was triangulated through interviews with each center director, who independently assessed the attentiveness of the children through periodic classroom observations, in accord with Head Start agency procedures. This conclusion is consistent with the quantitative results and suggests that Attention Skills Instruction may improve children’s ability to profit from phonemic awareness instruction and may help to explain variation in the effectiveness of the Segmentation and the Rhyming approaches across classrooms.
4. Discussion The results of this study must be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size. However, they suggest that phoneme segmentation and blending activities in the context of sounding out three-letter words were more effective than rhyming and alliteration activities in teaching phonemic awareness to 4–5-year-old children in Head Start. The effect sizes for phonemic awareness (SD = 0.92) and letter–sound knowledge (SD = 1.13) were greater than 0.80—Cohen’s (1988) definition of a large effect. Translated into percentiles, d = 0.80 indicates that the treatment has moved the average child to the 79th percentile. A remarkable indicator of progress is the researcher’s observation that four children were able to read an unfamiliar 25-word story aloud by the fourth week of instruction. The children were approached individually by the teacher, so they did not benefit from hearing previous readings. They insisted on reading the story repeatedly until their teacher pulled them outside to play with the other children. This suggests that similar children may be developmentally ready to learn letter–sound associations. Both approaches were more effective when teachers had previously taught attention skills to their children. The results of this study suggest that children who appear to be unready may not have been taught the requisite attention skills. During interviews, the teachers who taught those skills articulated specific routines that they used to gradually increase the persistence of their children in learning activities. These teachers exerted more effort to encourage children to
526
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
persist and were less easily distracted by other children. The teachers and their assistant teachers worked together in a coordinated way, using routines to settle the children and engage them in learning activities, suggesting that they were more skillful regarding classroom management. In comparison, the teachers who had difficulty settling their children and engaging them in group learning activities did not have effective classroom routines. It may be necessary to make sure that children are taught the prerequisite attention skills, rather than waiting for further cognitive development, to create the conditions where young children may profit from phonemic awareness instruction. The review of Head Start administrative policies suggests that explicit instruction in attention skills may be discouraged. For example, the Head Start Curriculum Manual for each center stated that instructional activities should always be stopped “before the children begin to tire or become inattentive” (ABCD Head Start, 1997). The difficulty is that training in attention skills often requires encouragement by the teacher to persist in an activity that may be less attractive than play activities. The results are consistent with the quasi-experimental studies by Lundberg et al. (1988) and Schneider et al. (1997), as well as the meta-analysis by the National Reading Panel (2000), suggesting that instruction in phoneme segmentation and blending activities improves children’s phonemic awareness. The results are consistent with research suggesting that phonemic awareness activities are more effective when they are combined with letter–sound instruction (Bus & Ijzendoorn, 1999; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1993; Juel et al., 1986; McGuinness et al., 1995; Schneider et al., 2000; Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985). The results are also consistent with research suggesting that the effects of phonemic awareness instruction improve when combined with reading instruction (Hatcher et al., 1994; Iversen & Tunmer, 1993) and spelling activities (O’Connor & Jenkins, 1995; Uhry & Shepherd, 1993). A surprise is that the most significant effect of the Segmentation Treatment was on the measure of phoneme substitution—not segmentation, blending or deletion. Why would children do better on measures of phoneme substitution? While it was difficult to teach children to segment and blend individual phonemes, it was easier to teach children to substitute initial consonants and blend the resulting onsets and rimes, such as /c-at/, /p-at/, /m-at/ and /c-an/, /p-an/, /m-an/. Learning onset–rime relationships may be easier for young children, providing a window into the nature of letter–sound relationships and how letters and sounds combine into words. Of the studies reviewed by the National Reading Panel (National Reading Panel Subgroups, 2000) that focused on teaching phonemic awareness to English speaking children, the study with the largest effect size (d = 3.6) focused on the effect of onset–rime training in combination with letter–sound training (Fox & Routh, 1984). This suggests that a more developmentally appropriate way to teach phonemic awareness may be to focus on onset–rime relationships, rather than individual phonemes. At the same time, this hypothesis suggests where rhyming activities fit into early language development. Rhyming may introduce children to the concept of onset–rime relationships, bridging the way toward a more sophisticated understanding of the alphabetic principle. But if this hypothesis is correct, rhyming activities would be most effective if teachers explicitly draw children’s attention to the possibilities of creating words by substituting onsets and rimes. Given the research regarding the importance of teaching letter–sound relationships, it may be helpful to integrate instruction in oral onset–rime relationships with booklets that allow teachers
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
527
to show children visually what happens when the onset or the rime portion of a word is changed. The conclusion of this study is that rhyming and alliteration activities alone are not as effective as explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic segmentation and blending. However, it is not easy to teach children to blend individual phonemes into words. Further research is needed regarding appropriate ways to develop awareness of phonemes. A promising approach would investigate the effect of teaching young children to segment and blend onsets and rimes, in comparison with the effect of teaching children rhyming and alliteration alone.
Note 1. B. Woodbury, D. Bryant, D. Wolverton, B. Pan, A. Bryans, M. Plutro and others. Designing a quality enhancement study for Head Start. Meeting sponsored by ACYF/Commissioner’s Office of Research and Evaluation, held on October 15, 1999 in Bethesda, MD.
Acknowledgments The author wish to thank Catherine Snow and anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.
References ABCD Head Start. (1997). ABCD Head Start curriculum manual, Boston, MA. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Adams, M. J., Foorman, B. R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). Phonemic awareness in young children: A classroom curriculum. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co. Agostin, T. M., & Bain, S. K. (1997). Predicting early school success with developmental and social skills screeners. Psychology in the Schools, 34(3), 219–228. 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 Quarterly, 26, 49–66. Blachman, B. A., Ball, E. W., Black, R. S., & Tangel, D. M. (1994). Kindergarten teachers develop phoneme awareness in low-income, inner-city classrooms. Reading and Writing, 6, 1–18. Brigman, G., Lane, D., Switzer, D., Lane, D., & Lawrence, R. (1999). Teaching children school success skills. Journal of Educational Research, 92(6), 323–329. Bus, A. G., & Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 403–414. Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989). Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in the child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 313–321. Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 104–111. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cooney, R. R. (1998, March 5–7). Relations among aspects of parental control, children’s work-related social skills and academic achievement. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference on Human Development, Mobile, AL.
528
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
Entwisle, D. R., & Hayduk, L. A. (1988). Lasting effects of elementary school. Sociology of Education, 61, 147– 159. Foster, E. M. (2002). Trends in multiple and overlapping disadvantages among Head Start enrollees. Children and Youth Services Review, 24(12), 933–954. Foulks, B., & Morrow, R. D. (1989). Academic survival skills for the young child at risk for school failure. Journal of Educational Research, 82(3), 158–165. Fox, B., & Routh, D. (1984). Phonemic analysis and synthesis as word-attack skills: Revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1059–1064. Griffin, E. A. (1997, April 3–6). The role of children’s social skills in achievement at kindergarten entry and beyond. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC. Hatcher, P., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41–57. Huston, A., McLoyd, V. C., & Garcia, C. C. (1997). Poverty and behavior: The case for multiple methods and levels of analysis. Developmental Review, 17, 376–393. Iversen, S., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 112–126. 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., Griffith, P., & Gough, P. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243–255. Kozminsky, L., & Kozminsky, E. (1995). The effects of early phonological awareness training on reading success. Learning and Instruction, 5, 187–201. Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Anthony, J. L., & Barker, T. A. (1998). Development of phonological sensitivity in 2- to 5-year-old children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 294–311. Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Peterson, O. P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284. McGuinness, C., & McGuinness, G. (1998). Reading reflex. New York: Fireside. McGuinness, C., & McGuinness, G. (1999). Phono-Graphix Word Work. Orlando, FL: Read America, Inc. McGuinness, D., McGuinness, C., & Donohue, J. (1995). Phonological training and the alphabet principle: Evidence for reciprocal causality. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 830–852. McKinney, J. D., & Speece, D. L. (1986). Academic consequences and longitudinal stability of behavioral subtypes of learning disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(5), 365–372. McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53(2), 185– 204. National Reading Panel Subgroups. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Report of the subgroups. Report of the National Reading Panel Subgroups, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. O’Connor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1995). Improving the generalization of sound/symbol knowledge: Teaching spelling to kindergarten children with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 29(3), 255–275. Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Mediated effects of preschool intervention. Early Education and Development, 3, 139– 164. Reynolds, A. J. (1998). Resilience among Black urban youth: Prevalence, intervention effects, and mechanisms of influence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(1), 84–100. Robertson, C., & Salter, W. (1995). The Phonological Awareness Test. East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems. Rogosa, D. (1988). Myths about longitudinal research. In K. W. Schaie, R. T. Campbell, W. Meredith, & S. C. Rawlings (Eds.), Methodological issues in aging research (pp. 171–210). New York: Springer. Schneider, W., Kuspert, P., Roth, E., & Vise, M. (1997). Short- and long-term effects of training phonological awareness in kindergarten: Evidence from two German studies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66(3), 311–340. Schneider, W., Roth, E., & Ennemoser, M. (2000). Training phonological skills and letter knowledge in children at risk for dyslexia: A comparison of three kindergarten intervention programs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 284–295.
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
529
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Tunmer, W. E., & Nesdale, A. R. (1985). Phonemic segmentation skill and beginning reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 417–427. Uhry, J., & Shepherd, M. (1993). Segmentation and spelling instruction as part of a first-grade reading program: Effects on several measures of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 218–233. Vandivere, S., Moore K. A., & Brown, B. (2000). Child well-being at the outset of welfare reform: An overview of the nation and 13 states (Series B, No. B-23). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Whitehurst, G. J. (1999). Measurement of emergent literacy and literacy outcomes (Unpublished report).
An evaluation of two approaches for teaching phonemic awareness to children in Head Start Stuart S. Yeh College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, 330 Wulling Hall, 86 Pleasant Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
Abstract Several research studies linking early phonemic awareness to the prevention of later reading difficulties strongly suggest that phoneme segmentation and blending, rather than rhyming and alliteration abilities, are the key aspects of phonemic awareness that are related to the prevention of difficulties. Yet there is a persistent belief among many educators that instruction in rhyming and alliteration are adequate to develop phonemic awareness and developmentally more appropriate than segmentation and blending activities. Using quasi-experimental methods, I evaluated two approaches for teaching phonemic awareness to 4- and 5-year-old children in four Head Start classrooms. The first approach focused on rhymes, alliteration, and story activities. The second approach focused on phoneme segmentation and blending in the context of sounding out actual words. Results showed that children taught using the second approach produced significantly greater gains in phonemic awareness and letter–sound knowledge, compared to children using the first approach. Both approaches were more effective when teachers had previously taught attention skills to their children. © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Phonological awareness is defined by Snow, Burns, & Griffin (1998) as the general ability to attend to the sounds of language—for example, that /cat/ and /hat/ begin with different sounds. There is now a substantial body of evidence indicating that phonological awareness is a critical skill in the acquisition of reading (Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Blachman, Ball, Black, & Tangel, 1994; Bus & Ijzendoorn, 1999; Iversen & Tunmer, 1993; Juel, 1988; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Lonigan, Burgess, Anthony, & Barker, 1998; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988; Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985). A measurement model suggests that a remarkable 50% of individual differences in reading outcomes at the end of second grade for former Head Start children can be accounted for by measures of phonological awareness obtained during participation in Head Start (Whitehurst, 1999). E-mail address: [email protected] (S.S. Yeh). 0885-2006/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2003.09.009
514
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
Phonemic awareness, an advanced stage of phonological awareness, is defined as the ability to recognize that a spoken word consists of a sequence of phonemes (e.g., that ‘cat’ involves blending of three phonemes, /k/, /a/, /t/; Snow et al., 1998). Phonemic awareness is a metalinguistic skill important to the successful acquisition of reading. In controlled studies, young children demonstrated improved reading ability in second grade after receiving phonemic awareness instruction in kindergarten (Lundberg et al., 1988; Schneider, Kuspert, Roth, & Vise, 1997). In a longitudinal study, Juel (1988) found that children who became poor readers entered first grade with little phonemic awareness. Children who were poor readers at the end of first grade had an 88% probability of remaining a poor reader at the end of fourth grade (Juel, 1988). Juel concluded, “More phonemic awareness training should occur in preschools and kindergarten, and, if needed, even in first grade” (p. 446). What aspects of phonemic awareness are most important? Several key research studies linking early phonemic awareness to the prevention of later reading difficulties strongly suggest that phoneme segmentation and blending, rather than rhyming and alliteration abilities, are the key aspects of phonemic awareness that are related to the prevention of difficulties. In a quasi-experimental study, Lundberg et al. (1988) measured the effect of instruction designed to teach phoneme segmentation and blending. The influence of rhyming ability in preventing reading difficulties was examined separately from the influence of segmentation and blending ability. They concluded that, “the effects on rhyming and on word and syllable awareness were comparatively modest, whereas the effect on ability to perform phonemic tasks was quite dramatic” (p. 282). Why? “Rhyming seems to require less conscious and deliberate manipulation of segments” (p. 282). As a result, “With their superior skill in phonemic segmentation, it seemed reasonable to expect the experimental children to have a clear advantage in learning to read and spell in school. This turned out to be the case” (p. 283). In a quasi-experimental study, Schneider et al. (1997) replicated Lundberg et al.’s (1988) results, again suggesting the importance of phoneme segmentation and blending, rather than rhyming and alliteration. Furthermore, the replication was achieved with younger children: “the idea that the success of the original Danish study is related to the relatively old age and advanced cognitive level of the Danish kindergarten children was not confirmed (see Kozminsky & Kozminsky, 1995 for similar findings)” (p. 334). Similarly, Juel (1988) measured phonemic awareness through tests of phoneme segmentation, blending, deletion, and substitution—not rhyming and alliteration—and showed that measures of awareness at the beginning of first grade strongly predict reading ability in fourth grade: “In my study, poor entering phonemic awareness appeared to contribute to a very slow start in learning spelling-sound correspondences . . . . In my research the poor decoder appeared doomed” (p. 444). These studies form much of the basis for the growing consensus regarding the importance of teaching phonemic awareness. They support the teaching of phoneme segmentation and blending, not rhyming and alliteration. Yet there is a persistent belief among many educators that instruction in rhyming and alliteration is adequate to develop phonemic awareness and is developmentally more appropriate than segmentation and blending activities. However, it appears that the effort required by the latter activities may pay greater dividends, as long as they are implemented in a way that is appropriate for young children. Why teach phonemic awareness in preschool, rather than kindergarten? A typical developmental sequence is that preschoolers learn to rhyme, break words into syllables, and distinguish
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
515
first sounds, but do not independently learn to segment and blend phonemes until kindergarten or later. However, systematic instruction in segmentation and blending has greater impact in preschool versus kindergarten: effect sizes for preschoolers in acquiring phonemic awareness were very large, more than double the effect for kindergarten children (National Reading Panel Subgroups, 2000, Chapter 2 p. 24). Furthermore, preschoolers showed a much larger effect size for reading outcomes, demonstrating transfer of phonemic awareness training to reading, compared to children receiving such training in kindergarten (National Reading Panel Subgroups, 2000, pp. 2–24). Together, this evidence contradicts assertions that phonemic awareness instruction should be delayed until kindergarten, out of concern that it may be “developmentally inappropriate.” Children living in poverty, including those enrolled in Head Start, are at greater risk of becoming poor readers. Phonemic awareness instruction can be delivered through Head Start to the children who need it the most, at a critical point in the development of their language abilities. While important, phonemic awareness is not a sufficient prerequisite to growth in reading skill (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1993; Juel et al., 1986; McGuinness, McGuinness, & Donohue, 1995; Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985). Adams (1990) reviewed the evidence and concluded that phonemic awareness and letter–sound knowledge are the most powerful predictors of early single word reading skill. Phonemic awareness and letter–sound knowledge are needed in combination to promote the acquisition of reading skill (Bus & Ijzendoorn, 1999; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1993; Juel et al., 1986; McGuinness et al., 1995; Schneider, Roth, & Ennemoser, 2000; Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985). The effects of phonemic awareness instruction improved when combined with reading instruction (Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994; Iversen & Tunmer, 1993) and spelling activities (O’Connor & Jenkins, 1995; Uhry & Shepherd, 1993). A factor that is frequently ignored in reading research is the role of children’s attention skills. However, longitudinal research suggests that the level of children’s attention skills at early ages predicts academic performance in later years (Agostin & Bain, 1997; Griffin, 1997; McKinney & Speece, 1986). Foulks & Morrow (1989) found agreement among early childhood educators, including Head Start preschool teachers, that two skills are highly or critically important for successful adjustment of preschool children to kindergarten: (a) “Child listens carefully to teacher instructions and directions for assignments,” and (b) “Child complies with teacher demands” (p. 161). These findings are significant in view of the research linking early academic achievement with later academic success (Entwisle & Hayduk, 1988; Reynolds, 1992) and resilience, especially among Black urban youth (Reynolds, 1998). Cooney (1998) found a significant positive relationship between parents’ self-reported use of rules, limits and disciplinary practices directed at their children at home, and their children’s work-related social skills, as well as literacy outcomes. The relationship with literacy outcomes disappeared when the effects of work-related social skills were removed, suggesting that parental control only influences literacy outcomes through its effects on work-related social skills. Cooney’s (1998) findings suggest that, for many children, work-related social skills are instilled at home by parents through rules, limits and disciplinary practices. The findings suggest how preschool teachers might develop the work-related social skills that are related to academic achievement. A curriculum focusing on these critical learning and social skills was evaluated in 10 preschool classrooms, involving 145 4–5-year-old children (Brigman, Lane, Switzer, Lane, & Lawrence, 1999). The evaluation found that the intervention significantly
516
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
increased children’s attending skills, social behavior, and listening comprehension, compared to children not receiving the intervention (Brigman et al., 1999). Instruction or socialization regarding attention skills is likely to be even more critical for children in Head Start, who are likely to have multiple risk factors. Using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), Foster (2002) investigated the presence of four key disadvantages for Head Start-eligible families: poverty, welfare receipt, female head of household, and parental joblessness. He found that the level of disadvantage was high among enrolled families, particularly among African-American families. The presence of these economic disadvantages has been associated with problems in children’s cognitive and emotional development, as well as with problem behaviors (Huston, McLoyd, & Garcia, 1997; McLoyd, 1998; Vandivere, Moore, & Brown, 2000). For many children, Head Start provides their first introduction to structured group activities where they are asked to sit-down and pay attention to the teacher, so they may be expected to benefit from specific and sustained attention to behavior. This focus on appropriate behavior is an important element of Head Start. Cooney’s (1998) findings suggest that strategies for achieving a blend of child-centered and teacher-directed learning environments may be key to developing the readiness of many young children for academic success.
1. The current study The current study tested the hypothesis that there is a significant difference in the effectiveness of two research-based approaches for teaching phonemic awareness to 4–5-year-old children in Head Start: (a) activities emphasizing rhyming and alliteration, and (b) activities emphasizing phoneme segmentation, blending and substitution to sound out words. Teachers in both approaches used the same basic set of phonemes and letter–sound relationships. Both approaches involved shared, teacher-led, small group activities twice per week over a period of 9 weeks. The primary research question asked: Which approach is more effective in teaching four specific aspects of phonemic awareness—phoneme blending, phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, and phoneme substitution—as well as letter–sound knowledge and oral reading? These aspects were selected based on the research showing that they are related to second-grade reading outcomes (Lundberg et al., 1988; Schneider et al., 1997). A secondary research question asked: Are the effects of each approach influenced by prior training in attention skills? The two teaching approaches were selected because they represent two distinct perspectives on how phonemic awareness may be taught to young children. In one view, activities involving rhyming and alliteration, but not phoneme blending, segmentation, deletion and substitution, are appropriate for young children in Head Start. In the second view, the Lundberg et al. (1988), Schneider et al. (1997) and Juel (1988) studies suggest the importance of phoneme blending, segmentation, deletion, and substitution knowledge. Since the curriculum used by Lundberg et al. and Schneider et al. (see the translation by Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler, 1998) begins with rhyming and alliteration activities and transitions to phoneme manipulation, the current study may be conceptualized as a test of instruction that emphasizes the first half
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
517
of the curriculum, compared to instruction that emphasizes the last half. The study aims to disaggregate the combined effects of the two approaches.
2. Methods 2.1. Participants Forty-four children participated in the study, aged 4 years, 7 months to 5 years, 6 months (M = 5 years, 1 month), in four classrooms from two Head Start centers in the Boston area. All children aged 4–5 years old in the four classrooms participated (there were no refusals—some children were younger than 4 years and were excluded). Forty-one percent of the children were Hispanic, 41% were African-American, 7% Asian, and 11% were Caucasian. All of the children were from low-income families, consistent with Head Start eligibility criteria. All of the children were nonreaders with low levels of phonemic awareness as measured at pre-test. Centers were selected for inclusion in the study based on willingness to participate. Classrooms were selected where teachers were willing to be randomly assigned to treatments. Matched pairs of classrooms were created based on student achievement levels, according to review of teacher-administered assessments and teacher judgments and confirmed by pre-test results. Prior to the research study, the Head Start curriculum programs included shared story-reading but not phonemic awareness or sound/symbol relationships. 2.2. Measures The research by Juel (1988), Juel et al. (1986), Lundberg et al. (1988), Schneider et al. (1997) and the National Reading Panel’s (2000) meta-analysis established the validity of, and provided the basis for, using measures of phoneme segmentation, blending, deletion, and substitution, as predictors of later reading ability. The Phonological Awareness Test (Robertson & Salter, 1995) is designed to measure these aspects of phonemic awareness with children ages five and older. However, the researcher judged many of the items, involving more than five phonemes or low-frequency phonemes, to be too difficult for children in Head Start. Therefore, similar measures were adapted from an assessment with more appropriate items designed for children aged four and above, although validity and reliability data are not available (McGuinness & McGuinness, 1998). 2.2.1. Phoneme blending On this 14-word subtest, children heard, and were asked to blend, spoken phonemes, for example, /p/ /i/ /g/ into ‘pig.’ Each child’s score was the total number of words correctly blended. 2.2.2. Phoneme segmentation On this 12-word subtest, children heard and were asked to segment words into phonemes. For example, “What is the first sound in the word ‘dog’? What is the second sound? What is the last sound?” Each child’s score was the total number of correct phonemes (each phoneme
518
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
within each word was scored). No credit was given for letter names (children were prompted by saying, “That’s the name of the letter—what’s the sound?”). 2.2.3. Phoneme deletion On this 10-word subtest, children heard a word and were asked to delete a phoneme. For example, “Say ‘sip.’ Now say it without the /s/.” Each child’s score was the total number of words where the phoneme was correctly deleted. 2.2.4. Phoneme substitution On this 14-item subtest, children were asked, for example, “What sound is needed to change ‘cat’ into ‘mat’?” Each child’s score was the total number correct. 2.2.5. Letter–sound matching Children were shown letters, one at a time, and asked, “What sound does this make?” This subtest included 25 letters, excluding the letter ‘q.’ In cases where a letter represents more than one sound, children were prompted as follows: “What other sound does this make?” Each child’s score was the total number correct, including alternative sounds (maximum score 35). 2.2.6. Oral reading On this researcher-designed, 46-word test, children were asked to read simple sentences containing mostly consonant–vowel–consonant words, such as “Fat cat sat on mat.” Each child’s score was the total number of words correctly decoded. 2.2.7. Teacher interviews To assess the fidelity of treatment implementation and children’s prior training in attention skills, teachers were interviewed before, during, and after the intervention phase of the research study regarding their teaching and classroom management practices and philosophy. Teachers were asked to describe and explain their instructional practices, as well as their beliefs about the appropriateness of teaching attention skills and strategies for teaching attention. These descriptions were matched against the intended treatments, as specified by the training consultants. 2.2.8. Teacher observations All teachers and students participating in the study were observed every day of instruction for one hour (instruction was staggered across days and time periods to facilitate research observations), plus random noninstructional days, to assess fidelity of treatment implementation as well as teaching and classroom management practices, which were recorded descriptively. Lessons were videotaped for review. Fidelity was defined as the degree to which the teacher included students in the research sample in the specified instructional activities, and implemented specified small group instructional activities 20–25 minutes twice per week. 2.2.9. Student observations During the 9-week period of instruction, the researcher observed each group of four children as they received group instruction for 20–25 minutes twice per week. Observations focused
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
519
on children’s emotional and cognitive responses to the phonemic awareness activities. The researcher took field notes, recording observations of student responses that provided evidence regarding the developmental appropriateness of each instructional approach. 2.3. Design The research design used mixed-methods, involving a non-equivalent (pre- and post-test) control group design integrated with case studies of teaching, learning, and classroom management practices in each classroom. The two treatments were crossed with two Head Start centers so that the treatments would not be confounded with centers and the characteristics unique to particular centers. 2.4. Instruction 2.4.1. Rhyming Group Children in this group were exposed to instruction in rhyming and alliteration activities. Specific rhyming and alliteration activities were selected from a commercially-available curriculum (Adams et al., 1998) for teaching phonemic awareness. Teachers followed a pre-planned set of curriculum activities. For example, children in the Rhyming/Alliteration groups were asked to rhyme, “A cat wearing a (hat),” or “tell me a word that sounds like man.” Children in this group were also asked to provide words with the same initial consonant, e.g., in response to pictures of a fox, a foot, some feathers, and a fish, or in response to: “I went for a walk and I saw a /p/ as in ,” where the desired response involved a word beginning with /p/. The phonemic activities were taught in conjunction with bookmaking, a popular literacy activity in Head Start designed to teach letter–sound relationships in a way that is consistent with emergent literacy perspectives. Children pasted pictures into blank booklets, then dictated stories to accompany the pictures. After completing a book, each child ‘read’ it to the teacher. 2.4.2. Segmentation Group The instruction provided to children in the Segmentation Group focused on phoneme segmentation, blending and substitution in the context of spelling three-letter words using phonemes, manipulating the spelling of those words to create new words, and reading short sentences based on those words, using pre-planned curriculum activities adapted from the Phono-GraphixTM program (McGuinness & McGuinness, 1999), a commercially-available program that emphasizes phonemic spelling and oral reading of real words using letter manipulatives. The Segmentation approach emphasized phonemic activities in the context of spelling and reading actual words, with the aim of supplementing the existing curriculum, which emphasized story-reading. The Segmentation approach did not attempt to provide a comprehensive curriculum that would replace the Head Start literacy curriculum; instead, it aimed to provide focused attention in an area that is frequently not addressed. Instruction was scaffolded, with teachers supplying, modeling, and exaggerating phonemes, eliciting and reinforcing correct responses, and gradually withdrawing support as children learned to match sounds and graphemes and sound out short words. For example, one teacher scaffolded a child’s learning, first to articulate /p/, and then to match /p/ and the symbol p:
520
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
Teacher: “What’s the first sound in pat? The first sound is /p/” [The teacher held her hand in front of her mouth as she said /p/, then held the child’s hand up to her mouth and repeated the sound, demonstrating how the articulation of /p/ creates a puff of air.] “Now, you do it. Say, /p/” [Again, the teacher held her hand in front of her mouth to demonstrate the articulation of /p/]. Child: /p/ [The child held his hand in front of his mouth and felt the puff of air released by the articulation of /p/]. Teacher: [The teacher held up a card with the letter p] “This is the picture for /p/. What picture is this?” Child: /p/. Teacher: [The teacher hid the card for half a second, presented the card again, and asked once more] “What picture is this?” Child: /p/.
Using small group instruction, the teacher repeated this approach with each child, giving the rest of the children the opportunity to observe. Over the next several weeks, children were taught six letter–sound correspondences for m, a, t, p, o, and c, building the three-letter words ‘mat,’ ‘mop,’ and ‘cat.’ For example, the teacher asked the children, “what’s the first sound in the word ‘mat?’ ” She supplied the sound: /m/. She asked, “What’s the picture for that sound?” and drew an ‘m.’ She repeated this process until the word was spelled out, then sounded it out with the children: /m/ /a/ /t/. She repeated this cycle with the words ‘mop’ and ‘cat.’ Instruction quickly graduated to phoneme substitution activities. For example, after prompting the children to spell and sound out ‘cat,’ the teacher asked: “What sound do we need to change ‘cat’ into ‘mat’? What sound do we need to change ‘mat’ into ‘pat’?” Having sounded out ‘cat,’ it was relatively easy for children to sound out ‘mat’ and ‘pat.’ The Segmentation approach exposed Head Start children to challenging activities that they ordinarily would not be expected to achieve independently. While some educators1 are concerned that this type of activity may not reflect current conceptions of developmentally appropriate practice, the purpose of the study was to explore specific strategies for scaffolding instruction, helping children to achieve beyond their expected level of development, and doing so in the context of meaningful literacy contexts, i.e., learning to read actual words. Developmental appropriateness was defined for each child individually and activities were modified and scaffolded to match the level of support needed for each child’s developmental level. 2.4.3. Attention Skills Instruction The researcher conducted 50 minute interviews with each teacher regarding her instructional and classroom management practices prior to the research intervention. Each teacher was asked to “describe any literacy-related instruction between the beginning of the Head Start year and the beginning of the research study,” and “describe how you manage your classroom, the rules you teach to your children, and how you teach them, from the beginning of the Head Start year.” One teacher in the Rhyming Group and one teacher in the Segmentation Group reported
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
521
that they provided systematic instruction in attention skills to their children, starting at the beginning of the Head Start year (prior to, and independent of, the instructional treatments). Since one teacher in each group did not provide Attention Skills Instruction, this instruction was crossed with the research intervention. Teachers who taught persistence and attention skills reported that they did so out of a belief that these skills were important for learning. They devoted the beginning of the school year to classroom rules and routines designed to teach children to keep their hands and feet to themselves, to pay attention to the teacher, and participate in learning activities. While all four preschool teachers discussed behavioral rules, the teachers who taught attention skills reported that they emphasized consistent application of those rules, in comparison with the teachers who did not teach attention skills. The teachers reported that this was difficult at first but, after the first month, the children learned to follow the routines. By the time the research study began, the teachers in these classes reported that they had relatively little difficulty getting their children to sit attentively for 15–30 minutes of focused group learning activities. This was confirmed by the researcher through biweekly classroom observations during the 3-week period prior to the research intervention. The teachers were asked whether the children were well-behaved when they were enrolled. The teachers reported, “no,” that numerous children had been disruptive and lacked attention skills when they were first enrolled into the classroom. These children were aggressive and did not obey rules or participate in circle activities. The teachers reported that, despite these challenges, they were able to teach the children the attention skills needed to participate in learning activities. The teachers reported that the children did not possess attention skills at the time of enrollment into the class. The teachers who did not emphasize attention skills reported that they did not believe that it was developmentally appropriate to ask children to persist in pre-literacy activities. Furthermore, they were “not supposed to” emphasize attention skills. Instead, the Head Start Curriculum guidelines for each center recommended that teachers always stop activities before children lose attention (ABCD Head Start, 1997). 2.5. Procedure At pre-test, two classes were matched on phoneme segmentation (M = 1.15 and 2.50) and letter–sound knowledge (M = 2.23 and 2.75). The children in each of the other two matched classes averaged zero on both measures. Each relatively “moderate” achieving class was paired with a “low” achieving class. Since each moderate achieving class had received Attention Skills Instruction, this arrangement served to cross attention instruction with treatment. Classroom pairs were then randomly assigned to two treatments. Children were individually pre-tested regarding measures of phoneme blending, segmentation, deletion, substitution, as well as knowledge of letter–sound relationships, oral reading ability, and motivation to read. At pre-test, children generally performed at low levels (Table 1). Children were instructed in small groups of 3–5 children for 20–25 minutes twice per week, with a second teacher supervising the rest of the children. For the first 3 weeks, teachers received in-class modeling and coaching regarding the assigned instructional approach. Each day of instruction, a consultant-trainer taught one group of
522
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
Table 1 Means and standard deviations for raw outcome measures and the combined, transformed measure of phonemic awareness, by Treatment Group Measure
Phoneme blending Phoneme segmentation Phoneme deletion Phoneme substitution Combined phoneme awareness Letter–sound knowledge Oral reading ∗
Segmentation Group (n = 23)
Rhyming Group (n = 21)
M (SD)
M (SD)
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
0.21 (0.51) 0.63 (1.97) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) −0.53 (0.62) 1.21 (3.45) 0.00 (0.00)
2.52 (3.10) 9.91∗ (11.93) 1.04 (2.79) 4.00 (5.67) 0.73 (3.68) 7.04∗ (7.41) 1.87 (2.77)
1.67 (2.78) 0.95 (4.36) 0.05 (0.22) 0.00 (0.00) 0.60 (2.63) 1.05 (3.15) 0.00 (0.00)
3.24 (3.71) 3.67 (8.95) 0.43 (0.87) 0.00 (0.00) −0.80 (2.00) 2.00 (4.64) 0.24 (0.77)
p < .002.
children, then provided coaching for the teacher as she taught a second group of children. After the initial 3 weeks, teachers continued the same schedule of instruction without assistance from the consultants, until the end of the school year. Instruction totaled 9 weeks. Teachers were observed twice per week on instructional days to ensure treatment fidelity. In addition, random observations on noninstructional days were conducted to assess classroom management and other literacy activities conducted by the teachers that might influence the study’s findings. Children were individually post-tested using the same measures administered at pre-test. 2.6. Data sources and analysis Over a period of 9 weeks, bi-weekly classroom observational data and interview data were collected and analyzed to assess treatment implementation. Each classroom observation lasted 60 minutes, followed by a 15-minute debriefing with the teacher. The researcher recorded field notes with detailed information about the dialogue among, and actions of, the teacher, instructional consultant (when present), and children. Children were defined as “attentive” during each instructional period if the researcher judged that they responded appropriately to their teacher’s instructions during the entire period. Otherwise, children were defined as “not attentive.” These judgments were triangulated through the debriefings with teachers conducted after every instructional period. Teachers were asked to review their perceptions of each child’s level of interest, attentiveness and academic progress. Twice weekly, the researcher ranked the pairs of classrooms in each treatment according to the number of children who were observed to be attentive. Each record was analyzed for examples and evidence regarding the children’s level of engagement, learning outcomes, teacher efficacy and other factors influencing those outcomes. These examples were analyzed for disconfirming, as well as confirming evidence. Teachers were asked to clarify their instructional and classroom management strategies and philosophy, their interpretation of their centers’ instructional and administrative policies, and to describe their children’s behavior prior to the initiation of the research study. The researcher reviewed the instructional and administrative policies of each Head Start center participating in the study and interviewed each center director regarding those policies in order to understand
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
523
whether explicit instruction in attention skills was encouraged or discouraged. Directors were also interviewed regarding their observations of each Head Start classroom and teacher (directors conducted formal observations of each classroom on a periodic basis in accord with the governing agency’s administrative procedures). Quantitative data included pre- and post-intervention measures of phoneme blending, segmentation, deletion and substitution, as well as letter–sound knowledge and oral reading. Pre-test scores were subtracted from post-test scores to create gain scores. Gain scores were analyzed for statistical significance. Gain score analysis was selected over alternative analytical techniques including analysis of covariance and repeated measures analysis of variance because it is arguably the best way to estimate actual gains without introducing statistical biases (Rogosa, 1988) and it addresses differences at pre-test. Covariance analysis was rejected since the assumption of homogeneity of covariance was not satisfied. The measures of phonemic segmentation, blending, deletion and substitution were standardized by subtracting the appropriate mean and dividing by the appropriate standard deviation. The standardized measures were added to create a single measure of phonemic awareness for each student. These transformations reduced the probability of Type I errors and addressed departures from normality. Where possible, initial MANOVAs were performed using the total measure of phonemic awareness, followed by analyses of the disaggregated measures. Children were used as the unit of analysis. While using classroom as the unit of analysis may be preferred by some researchers, it was not practical in this study. However, since the possibility of systematic classroom effects was anticipated, analyses of variance were conducted that accounted for classroom effects by including both Treatment Group and Classrooms nested within Treatment Group as factors, estimating the effect of treatment while controlling for the effect of classrooms.
3. Results At pre-test, there were no significant differences between Treatment Groups on phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, phoneme substitution, letter–sound knowledge, and oral reading ability. There was a significant difference between Treatment Groups on phoneme blending [t(43) = −2.37, p < .027]. Table 1 presents the raw (untransformed) pre- and post-test means for each outcome measure, as well as the combined, transformed measure of phonemic awareness, by Treatment Group. The first analysis addressed whether the Segmentation treatment is more effective than the Rhyming treatment, controlling for Classrooms (i.e., teacher) and using the combined measure of phonemic awareness. MANOVA could not be used to analyze the effects of Treatment Group and Classroom because there were certain cells with no variance and MANOVA cannot be calculated in that situation. Using a Bonferroni-adjusted .017 alpha level (adjusted for three significance tests), univariate ANOVAs with Treatment Group and Classroom as factors showed that gains by the Segmentation Group were significantly greater than the gains by the Rhyming Group regarding phonemic awareness [F(1, 40) = 7.33, p < .01, d = 0.92] and letter–sound knowledge [F(1, 40) = 9.55, p < .01, d = 1.13]. On average, children in the Segmentation Group showed significantly greater gains in phonemic awareness and letter–sound relationships
524
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
than children in the Rhyming Group. By including classrooms as well as Treatment Group as factors, these analyses of variance show that the effect of treatment is significant with regard to phonemic awareness and letter–sound knowledge even when systematic classroom (or teacher) effects are controlled. A secondary analysis sought to pinpoint the specific measure of phonemic awareness that was most strongly related to differences in Treatment Group. Lack of variance in one of the cells precluded the inclusion of the Classroom factor. To control for correlations among the dependent variables and Type I error, a one-way MANOVA was first conducted to determine the effect of Treatment Group on six dependent variables: gains in phoneme blending, phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, phoneme substitution, letter–sound knowledge, and oral reading ability. MANOVA results indicate that Treatment Group [Pillai’s Trace = .291, F(6, 37) = 2.53, p < .038, η2 = .291] significantly affects the combined dependent variable of gains in phoneme blending, phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, phoneme substitution, letter–sound knowledge, and oral reading ability. Univariate ANOVAs were conducted as follow-up tests. Using a Bonferroni-adjusted .008 alpha level, ANOVA results indicate that gains in phoneme substitution differ significantly by Treatment Group [F(1, 42) = 10.45, p < .002, η2 = .199] and gains in letter–sound knowledge differ significantly by Treatment Group [F(1, 42) = 11.195, p < .002, η2 = .210]. This result suggests that phoneme substitution is the aspect of phoneme awareness that is most strongly related to differences in Treatment Group. 3.1. Attention skills An analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis that attention skills were associated with learning outcomes, controlling for treatment and using the combined measure of phonemic awareness to reduce Type I error. Classroom could not be included as a factor due to lack of variance in one of the cells. Classrooms were grouped according to whether teachers explicitly taught students attention skills prior to instruction in phonemic awareness. A two-way MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of Treatment Group, training in attention skills, and the interaction between Treatment Group and training in attention skills, on three dependent variables: phonemic awareness, letter–sound knowledge, and oral reading ability. MANOVA results indicate that Treatment Group [Pillai’s Trace = .231, F(3, 38) = 3.80, p < .018, η2 = .231] and Attention Skills Instruction [Pillai’s Trace = .211, F(3, 38) = 3.38, p < .028, η2 = .211], but not the interaction, significantly affect the combined dependent variable of gains in phonemic awareness, letter–sound knowledge, and oral reading ability. In other words, children who received Attention Skills Instruction performed better on the combined measure of phonemic awareness, letter–sound knowledge and oral reading ability, but the added effect was roughly the same whether children were in the Segmentation or Rhyming Group. Univariate ANOVAs were conducted as follow-up tests. Using a Bonferroni-adjusted .017 alpha level, ANOVA results indicate that gains in phonemic awareness differ significantly by Treatment Group [F(1, 40) = 7.33, p < .010, η2 = .155] and Attention Skills Instruction [F(1, 40) = 10.49, p < .002, η2 = .208]. Gains in letter–sound knowledge differ significantly by Treatment Group [F(1, 40) = 7.14, p < .011, η2 = .151].
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
525
3.2. Qualitative results Were the treatments well-implemented? Based on classroom observations, the researcher judged the fidelity of treatment implementation to be good, with the teachers regularly implementing the specified instructional activities twice per week, according to the consultants’ directions. Were children in the high performing classrooms more attentive? In each Treatment Group, one classroom of children had been taught attention skills while a second class had not. In classes where children had not been taught attention skills, the researcher observed that children disrupted instructional activities and interfered with the learning of the rest of the children. During bi-weekly classroom observations over a period of 9 weeks, the researcher ranked each pair of classrooms in each treatment according to the number of children judged to be attentive. The researcher’s judgments of the numbers of attentive and nonattentive children in each classroom were verified by each teacher’s independent assessment of her children. In every ranking (n = 18), students in the classroom receiving Attention Skills Instruction ranked higher than the corresponding classroom that did not receive attention skills. This conclusion was triangulated through interviews with each center director, who independently assessed the attentiveness of the children through periodic classroom observations, in accord with Head Start agency procedures. This conclusion is consistent with the quantitative results and suggests that Attention Skills Instruction may improve children’s ability to profit from phonemic awareness instruction and may help to explain variation in the effectiveness of the Segmentation and the Rhyming approaches across classrooms.
4. Discussion The results of this study must be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size. However, they suggest that phoneme segmentation and blending activities in the context of sounding out three-letter words were more effective than rhyming and alliteration activities in teaching phonemic awareness to 4–5-year-old children in Head Start. The effect sizes for phonemic awareness (SD = 0.92) and letter–sound knowledge (SD = 1.13) were greater than 0.80—Cohen’s (1988) definition of a large effect. Translated into percentiles, d = 0.80 indicates that the treatment has moved the average child to the 79th percentile. A remarkable indicator of progress is the researcher’s observation that four children were able to read an unfamiliar 25-word story aloud by the fourth week of instruction. The children were approached individually by the teacher, so they did not benefit from hearing previous readings. They insisted on reading the story repeatedly until their teacher pulled them outside to play with the other children. This suggests that similar children may be developmentally ready to learn letter–sound associations. Both approaches were more effective when teachers had previously taught attention skills to their children. The results of this study suggest that children who appear to be unready may not have been taught the requisite attention skills. During interviews, the teachers who taught those skills articulated specific routines that they used to gradually increase the persistence of their children in learning activities. These teachers exerted more effort to encourage children to
526
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
persist and were less easily distracted by other children. The teachers and their assistant teachers worked together in a coordinated way, using routines to settle the children and engage them in learning activities, suggesting that they were more skillful regarding classroom management. In comparison, the teachers who had difficulty settling their children and engaging them in group learning activities did not have effective classroom routines. It may be necessary to make sure that children are taught the prerequisite attention skills, rather than waiting for further cognitive development, to create the conditions where young children may profit from phonemic awareness instruction. The review of Head Start administrative policies suggests that explicit instruction in attention skills may be discouraged. For example, the Head Start Curriculum Manual for each center stated that instructional activities should always be stopped “before the children begin to tire or become inattentive” (ABCD Head Start, 1997). The difficulty is that training in attention skills often requires encouragement by the teacher to persist in an activity that may be less attractive than play activities. The results are consistent with the quasi-experimental studies by Lundberg et al. (1988) and Schneider et al. (1997), as well as the meta-analysis by the National Reading Panel (2000), suggesting that instruction in phoneme segmentation and blending activities improves children’s phonemic awareness. The results are consistent with research suggesting that phonemic awareness activities are more effective when they are combined with letter–sound instruction (Bus & Ijzendoorn, 1999; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989, 1993; Juel et al., 1986; McGuinness et al., 1995; Schneider et al., 2000; Tunmer & Nesdale, 1985). The results are also consistent with research suggesting that the effects of phonemic awareness instruction improve when combined with reading instruction (Hatcher et al., 1994; Iversen & Tunmer, 1993) and spelling activities (O’Connor & Jenkins, 1995; Uhry & Shepherd, 1993). A surprise is that the most significant effect of the Segmentation Treatment was on the measure of phoneme substitution—not segmentation, blending or deletion. Why would children do better on measures of phoneme substitution? While it was difficult to teach children to segment and blend individual phonemes, it was easier to teach children to substitute initial consonants and blend the resulting onsets and rimes, such as /c-at/, /p-at/, /m-at/ and /c-an/, /p-an/, /m-an/. Learning onset–rime relationships may be easier for young children, providing a window into the nature of letter–sound relationships and how letters and sounds combine into words. Of the studies reviewed by the National Reading Panel (National Reading Panel Subgroups, 2000) that focused on teaching phonemic awareness to English speaking children, the study with the largest effect size (d = 3.6) focused on the effect of onset–rime training in combination with letter–sound training (Fox & Routh, 1984). This suggests that a more developmentally appropriate way to teach phonemic awareness may be to focus on onset–rime relationships, rather than individual phonemes. At the same time, this hypothesis suggests where rhyming activities fit into early language development. Rhyming may introduce children to the concept of onset–rime relationships, bridging the way toward a more sophisticated understanding of the alphabetic principle. But if this hypothesis is correct, rhyming activities would be most effective if teachers explicitly draw children’s attention to the possibilities of creating words by substituting onsets and rimes. Given the research regarding the importance of teaching letter–sound relationships, it may be helpful to integrate instruction in oral onset–rime relationships with booklets that allow teachers
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
527
to show children visually what happens when the onset or the rime portion of a word is changed. The conclusion of this study is that rhyming and alliteration activities alone are not as effective as explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic segmentation and blending. However, it is not easy to teach children to blend individual phonemes into words. Further research is needed regarding appropriate ways to develop awareness of phonemes. A promising approach would investigate the effect of teaching young children to segment and blend onsets and rimes, in comparison with the effect of teaching children rhyming and alliteration alone.
Note 1. B. Woodbury, D. Bryant, D. Wolverton, B. Pan, A. Bryans, M. Plutro and others. Designing a quality enhancement study for Head Start. Meeting sponsored by ACYF/Commissioner’s Office of Research and Evaluation, held on October 15, 1999 in Bethesda, MD.
Acknowledgments The author wish to thank Catherine Snow and anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.
References ABCD Head Start. (1997). ABCD Head Start curriculum manual, Boston, MA. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Adams, M. J., Foorman, B. R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). Phonemic awareness in young children: A classroom curriculum. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co. Agostin, T. M., & Bain, S. K. (1997). Predicting early school success with developmental and social skills screeners. Psychology in the Schools, 34(3), 219–228. 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 Quarterly, 26, 49–66. Blachman, B. A., Ball, E. W., Black, R. S., & Tangel, D. M. (1994). Kindergarten teachers develop phoneme awareness in low-income, inner-city classrooms. Reading and Writing, 6, 1–18. Brigman, G., Lane, D., Switzer, D., Lane, D., & Lawrence, R. (1999). Teaching children school success skills. Journal of Educational Research, 92(6), 323–329. Bus, A. G., & Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 403–414. Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989). Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in the child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 313–321. Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 104–111. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cooney, R. R. (1998, March 5–7). Relations among aspects of parental control, children’s work-related social skills and academic achievement. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference on Human Development, Mobile, AL.
528
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
Entwisle, D. R., & Hayduk, L. A. (1988). Lasting effects of elementary school. Sociology of Education, 61, 147– 159. Foster, E. M. (2002). Trends in multiple and overlapping disadvantages among Head Start enrollees. Children and Youth Services Review, 24(12), 933–954. Foulks, B., & Morrow, R. D. (1989). Academic survival skills for the young child at risk for school failure. Journal of Educational Research, 82(3), 158–165. Fox, B., & Routh, D. (1984). Phonemic analysis and synthesis as word-attack skills: Revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1059–1064. Griffin, E. A. (1997, April 3–6). The role of children’s social skills in achievement at kindergarten entry and beyond. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, DC. Hatcher, P., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41–57. Huston, A., McLoyd, V. C., & Garcia, C. C. (1997). Poverty and behavior: The case for multiple methods and levels of analysis. Developmental Review, 17, 376–393. Iversen, S., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 112–126. 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., Griffith, P., & Gough, P. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243–255. Kozminsky, L., & Kozminsky, E. (1995). The effects of early phonological awareness training on reading success. Learning and Instruction, 5, 187–201. Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Anthony, J. L., & Barker, T. A. (1998). Development of phonological sensitivity in 2- to 5-year-old children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 294–311. Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Peterson, O. P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284. McGuinness, C., & McGuinness, G. (1998). Reading reflex. New York: Fireside. McGuinness, C., & McGuinness, G. (1999). Phono-Graphix Word Work. Orlando, FL: Read America, Inc. McGuinness, D., McGuinness, C., & Donohue, J. (1995). Phonological training and the alphabet principle: Evidence for reciprocal causality. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 830–852. McKinney, J. D., & Speece, D. L. (1986). Academic consequences and longitudinal stability of behavioral subtypes of learning disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(5), 365–372. McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53(2), 185– 204. National Reading Panel Subgroups. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Report of the subgroups. Report of the National Reading Panel Subgroups, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. O’Connor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1995). Improving the generalization of sound/symbol knowledge: Teaching spelling to kindergarten children with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 29(3), 255–275. Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Mediated effects of preschool intervention. Early Education and Development, 3, 139– 164. Reynolds, A. J. (1998). Resilience among Black urban youth: Prevalence, intervention effects, and mechanisms of influence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(1), 84–100. Robertson, C., & Salter, W. (1995). The Phonological Awareness Test. East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems. Rogosa, D. (1988). Myths about longitudinal research. In K. W. Schaie, R. T. Campbell, W. Meredith, & S. C. Rawlings (Eds.), Methodological issues in aging research (pp. 171–210). New York: Springer. Schneider, W., Kuspert, P., Roth, E., & Vise, M. (1997). Short- and long-term effects of training phonological awareness in kindergarten: Evidence from two German studies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66(3), 311–340. Schneider, W., Roth, E., & Ennemoser, M. (2000). Training phonological skills and letter knowledge in children at risk for dyslexia: A comparison of three kindergarten intervention programs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 284–295.
S.S. Yeh / Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18 (2003) 513–529
529
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Tunmer, W. E., & Nesdale, A. R. (1985). Phonemic segmentation skill and beginning reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 417–427. Uhry, J., & Shepherd, M. (1993). Segmentation and spelling instruction as part of a first-grade reading program: Effects on several measures of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 218–233. Vandivere, S., Moore K. A., & Brown, B. (2000). Child well-being at the outset of welfare reform: An overview of the nation and 13 states (Series B, No. B-23). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Whitehurst, G. J. (1999). Measurement of emergent literacy and literacy outcomes (Unpublished report).