Phonemic awareness refers to the conscious awareness and knowledge that words are composed of separate sounds or phonemes and the ability to manipulate sounds in words (Smith, Simmons, & Kame'enui, 1995). Research of more than two decades has affirmed the importance of phonemic awareness and its relation to reading acquisition. Thus, reviews of the literature (Hurford, Darrow, Edwards, Howerton, Mote, Schauf, & Coffey, 1993; Mann, 1993; National Reading Panel, 2000) indicated that the presence of phonemic awareness is a hallmark characteristic of good readers while its absence is a consistent characteristic of poor readers.
Findings from a large body of research converge to suggest that students who enter first grade with little phonemic awareness experience less success in reading than peers who enter school with a conscious awareness of the sound structure of words and the ability to manipulate sounds in words (Adams, 1990; Liberman & Shankweiler, 1985; Mann & Brady, 1988; Spector, 1995; Stanovich, 1985, 1986, 1988; Wagner, 1988; National Reading Panel, 2000). The most encouraging lines of research give strong evidence that significant gains in phonemic awareness can be achieved with teaching and that the gains in phonemic awareness directly affect the ease of reading acquisition. In addition, a review of the research indicates that phonemic awareness is relatively independent of overall intelligence, a finding of particular importance for diverse learners (Torgesen, 1985; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987; National Reading Panel, 2000).
Phonemic awareness has been heavily researched because of its direct relation with the ability to read unfamiliar words independently and with ease (Cornwall, 1992; Lenchner, Gerber, & Routh, 1990; Mann & Brady, 1988; Rack et al., 1992; Snowling, 1991; Stanovich, 1985, 1986; Torgesen, 1985; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987, 1987a; Wagner, 1988; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987; National Reading Panel, 2000). In addition, the ability to hear and consciously use sounds in language can be manifested in many processes fundamental to reading.
There has been growing support for a causal relation between phonemic awareness and reading acquisition. A number of reviews specifically concluded that converging evidence is sufficiently strong to establish a causal relationship (Mann & Brady, 1988; Wagner, 1988; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987; National Reading Panel, 2000). Phonemic awareness reliably predicted reading achievement across the age levels of participants from preschool through sixth grade (Cornwall, 1992; Hurford et al., 1993; Mann, 1993). Alone, the predictive evidence does not establish causal relations, however, powerful evidence for a causal relation results when predictive findings with high validity are combined with highly significant effects of beginning reading measures in intervention studies prior to formal reading instruction (Wagner, 1988; National Reading Panel, 2000).
The practical importance of this reciprocal relation between reading and phonemic awareness development has been argued extensively and passionately by several authors (e.g., Adams, 1990; Stanovich, 1985; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987a; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). The literature includes consistent recommendations for early identification of students at-risk for reading failure (e.g., low ability in phonemic awareness) and early explicit instruction in phonemic awareness prior to and in tandem with beginning reading instruction (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; Cunningham, 1990; O'Connor et al., 1993).
Phonemic Awareness and Instruction
Synthesis of studies of the effects of phonemic awareness interventions on phonemic awareness development, reading, and spelling acquisition of normally achieving students and diverse students indicate that phonemic awareness is teachable (National Reading Panel, 2000).
The effects of teaching phonemic awareness were among the most instructionally salient findings in a review of seven intervention studies (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1990; Cunningham, 1990; Lie, 1991; Lundberg et al., 1988; O'Connor et al., 1993; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). All seven studies reported positive effects on reading, spelling, or phonological awareness development. Six of the seven studies pointed to significant effects on various measures of phonological awareness, reading, or spelling. All studies looked at effects on reading; roughly 80% looked at effects of phonological awareness instruction on subsequent phonological awareness development, whereas roughly 60% looked at effects on spelling.
In addition to those short-term effects, two studies reported positive long-term transfer effects on reading and spelling and long-term maintenance effects spanning 1 to 2 years on phonological tasks (Lie, 1991; Lundberg et al., 1988). Long-term maintenance means that the effects were evident when measured again long after the intervention stopped. Three studies reported differential effects of phonological awareness training (Lie, 1991; Lundberg et al., 1988; O'Connor et al., 1993). For example, Lundberg et al. (1988) noted larger effects of phonological awareness training on segmentation than on tasks requiring rhyming. Particularly pertinent were the greater effects for diverse learners (Lie, 1991) and the significant facilitation of reading acquisition for diverse learners and normally achieving children in studies that compared both types of learners (O'Connor et al., 1993; Vellutino and Scanlon, 1987).
The National Reading Panel (2000) concluded that teaching letter as well as phonemic awareness to beginning readers is essential. The Panel also indicated that teaching students to segment and blend benefit reading more than a multiskilled approach and that teaching students to manipulate phonemes with letters yields larger effects than teaching children without letters. Finally, the panel concluded that phonemic awareness helps many different children learn to read, including, preschoolers, kindergartners, first-graders who are just starting to learn to read, and older disabled readers. The findings are consistent among various SES groups.
Phonemic Awareness and Alphabetic Understanding
Phonemic awareness involves the ability to hear and manipulate sounds. Alphabetic awareness refers to a reader's knowledge of the letters of the alphabet coupled with the understanding that the alphabet represents the sounds of spoken language. Alphabetic understanding refers to understanding that letters represent sounds and that whole words embody a sound structure of individual sounds and patterns of groups of sounds. The alphabetic principle is the combination of alphabetic understanding and phonological awareness. The alphabetic principle enables the reader to translate independently a visual symbol into a sound.
Again, the National Reading Panel (2000) cites converging evidence that provides strong support that a combination of phonemic awareness and letter-sound correspondence training is necessary to understand the alphabetic principle (Adams, 1990; Ball & Blachman, 1991; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1990; Mann, 1993; Rack et al., 1992; Snowling, 1991; Spector, 1995; Stanovich, 1986; Vellutino, 1991; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987a; National Reading Panel, 2000).
The results of an intervention study with kindergartners clearly indicated that phonemic awareness and letter-sound correspondence significantly enhanced later reading and spelling performance more so than training in letter-sound correspondence alone (Ball & Blachman, 1991). Similarly, in teaching young preliterate children to acquire the alphabetic principle, Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley (1989) found that only those who learned phonemic segmentation and phoneme identification skills and graphic symbols for initial sounds were able to correctly choose between mow and sow after they had been taught mat and sat.
A third study examined the effects of a metacognitive component on phonemic awareness and letter-sound correspondence instruction with kindergarten and first grade children (Cunningham, 1990). The study compared two instructional approaches across kindergarten and first grade: (1) letter-sound correspondence and skill training in phonemic awareness, and (2) letter-sound correspondence, skill training, and instruction in strategic use of phonemic awareness skills in context of reading. Adding explicit instruction in strategic application of the skills to instruction in letter-sound correspondence and skill training in phonological awareness resulted in significant improvement in reading. Specifically, improvement was noted in letter-sound correspondence knowledge, word recognition, and reading comprehension. Cunningham (1990) concluded that the difference was explained by contextualized instruction that included (1) instruction in and demonstration of conspicuous strategies, (2) guided practice, and (3) strategic and purposeful review of previous lessons in addition to the combination of phonemic awareness and letter-sound correspondence instruction.
View Full Article
Excerpt from Direct Instruction Reading, by D.W. Carnine, J. Silbert, E.J. Kame'enui, S. G. Tarver, 2004 edition, p. 141-143.
© ______ 2004, Merrill, an imprint of Pearson Education Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. The reproduction, duplication, or distribution of this material by any means including but not limited to email and blogs is strictly prohibited without the explicit permission of the publisher.
10 Ways to Spice Up Your Barbecue
Happy Graduation
New Workbooks Are Here!
Add your own comment