Preschool Phonemic Awareness Instruction With and Without Prior Syllable Training
Janae J. Nuspl
Teresa A. Ukrainetz
University of Wyoming
ASHA Convention, Miami, FL, November 17, 2006
Purpose: This poster demonstrates the effects of preschool phonemic awareness instruction with and without
prior syllable instruction.
Rationale: Phonemic awareness is one of the central component of reading (National Reading Panel, NRP,
2000). It is acquired during the process of learning to decode and spell words. However, in nation-wide efforts
to start children reading earlier, additional direct, explicit instruction in phonemic awareness is now
recommended for all children (Ehri et al., 2001; Lyon, Alexander, & Yaffee, 1997; NRP, 2000). Furthermore,
there is great interest in providing phonological awareness intervention before kindergarten to alter the reading
trajectory for at-risk children (Torgesen, 1988). Phonological awareness intervention is clearly more effective
than lack of treatment (see NRP, 2000), but there are still many questions about the relative efficacy and
efficiency of instructional methods. This study examined: (a) the immediate effects of early horizontallyordered phoneme-level instruction and; (b) whether one common component of instructional programs, syllable
awareness, had positive or negative additional effects compared to phoneme-only instruction.
Methods
Participants:Fifteen preschool (10 boys, 5 girls) ranged from 4;0 to 5;7 years (mean = 4;7 years) at pre-testing.
The children were typically developing, with no history of significant hearing difficulties or neurological
deficits, and TELD scores >85.
Procedure:
P re-testing .The children were given: TELD, Clay Letter Survey, and Phonological Awareness Test (PAT)
(first phoneme identification, phoneme blending; phoneme segmentation, syllable blending, and syllable
segmentation subtests). Eight matched pairs of children were derived from the TELD and the letter survey and
were randomly assigned to the treatment conditions: Syllable + Phoneme (SP) or Phoneme-Only (PO).
Sy llable Treatm ent. The children in the SP condition received 2 weeks (2 hrs) of instruction to mastery at the
syllable level. Syllable awareness activities included: count syllables in names, move blocks to syllables, clap to
syllables, listen to syllables from words, and guess words from syllables. Every SP child met the mastery
criterion level for syllables (8/10).
P ho nem e Treatm ent. Both conditions completed 4 weeks (8 hrs) of phonemic awareness training. Three
subskills (first sound isolation, blending, segmentation) were addressed in all sessions. Every session began
with the name activity, rotating among first sound, blending, and segmenting. Then two to three other activities
occurred, addressing those three skills individually. Talk around a rhyming book addressed all subskills within
one activity. It was completed every second session. Instruction was therapeutic: an explicit skill focus,
systematic scaffolding, and repeated opportunities for learning (Ukrainetz, 2006). Differential scaffolding
support matched to task difficulty and child need.
P o st-testing . The change in PAT (first phoneme identification, phoneme blending, and phoneme segmentation
subtests) raw scores from pre- to post-test provided the primary outcome measures. Half-points were provided
for segmentation responses of at least 1 phoneme segmented correctly (e.g., liver = /l/-/I/-/ver/, plop = /pl/-/a//p/). The phonemic awareness composite on the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)
(norms start at 5;0) was used as an exploratory post-test measure. Videotapes of the first two and final two
phoneme instructional sessions were analyzed for phoneme/syllable confusions and treatment fidelity.
Reliability . Treatment fidelity and inter-rater point-point agreements were taken on 20% of each measure. There
was excellent treatment fidelity. Inter-rater results yielded >85%.
Examples of Phoneme-level Activities:
1. M atc hing F irstP ho nem es – Cards with 2-4 different first
phonemes are spread face down and the children take turns
choosing two cards. If the cards match in first sound, the child
keeps the pair, if not, they are returned to the table.
2. Blending P ho nem es Into W o rds – Food items are identified and
placed in an opaque bag. Then the children guess the word from
phonemes.
3. Seg m enting W o rds Into P ho nem es – Paper fish with paperclips
and 2-4 phoneme words are spread on table. A magnetic fishing
rod catches the fish. The child cuts it up by segmenting the word.
4.P ho nem es in Nam e Talk – Names for the clinician, child, and
friends are used for first sound, blending, or segmentation.
5.P ho nem es in Bo o k Talk – Rhyming books are read aloud and
enjoyed. During the reading, the rhyming words are identified for
first, blending, and segmenting phoneme questions.
Pre- and Post-Test Perform ance
Results
Will prior syllable
awareness instruction
improve phonemic
awareness? No. The mean
total phoneme gain,
components, and CTOPP
were not significantly
different between SP and
PO. Both conditions
improved largely and
significantly on syllable
awareness, but the SP
improved significantly
more (p < .05).
Score
15
Pre
10
5
Post
SP
Task
Total
Phoneme
Segmentatio
n
Blend
0
Initial
Will short-term, horizontally-organized phonemelevel training result in improved phonemic
awareness for preschoolers? Yes. The mean total
PAT phoneme score increased from 2.0 to 12.3,
significant on the main effect of a repeated measures
ANOVA, p < .0001, with a very large standardized
mean difference of 3.76. The three component gains
were all significant, p < .01. The mean standard score
on the post-test CTOPP was 96.5 (85-106).
PO
Task
Pre-test
Post-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Total Phoneme
0.714 (1.13)
11.43 (4.62)
3.125 (3.31)
14.69 (7.33)
Isolation
0.43 (1.13)
5.71 (3.59)
1.88 (2.41)
7.25 (2.25)
Blending
0.29 (0.49)
4.60 (2.38)
1.25 (2.05)
4.71 (1.98)
Segmentation
0.00
1.00 (1.75)
0.00
2.94 (11.60)
CTOPP
--
97.71 (3.90)
--
95.50 (6.72)
Syllable
8.14 (3.49)
15.43 (2.30) a
8.00 (2.62)
11.38 (2.20) a
Confusion
9.29 (2.93) b
0.38 (0.74) b
A score of >7/10 was good
understanding, 3-6 was emergent, and
<2 was no comprehension.
There was a similar distribution of
participant performance across
conditions for first phoneme isolation
and phoneme blending, with 5 or more
achieving at least emergent
understanding in both conditions.
Differences were more apparent for
phoneme segmentation: only 1 SP
participant achieved emergent
understanding of phoneme
segmentation, while 4 PO participants
showed emergent or better
understanding.
10
No. Correct
Yes, one difference, but in favor of PO.
a) Isolation
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Participants
b) Blending
10
No. Correct
Does individual performance show
SP-PO differences?
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Participant
c) Segmentation
No. Correct
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Participants
Will preschool children who received the additional syllable-level training evidence confusion when
introduced to the phoneme phase? No. The mean syllable confusion in the first two phoneme instructional
sessions for SP was over 9 occurrences, while it was under 1 occurrence for PO. This was significantly
different on an unpaired t-test, p<.0001, with a very large effect size of d = 3.04.
Discussion
Phoneme-Level Awareness Instruction. Typically developing preschoolers were provided a short period of
instruction on phonemic awareness, including the difficult task of segmentation. These young children had not
received other formal literacy instruction. At the study outset, 12/15 participants were unable to even isolate a
first phoneme and the kindergarten-level CTOPP was judged too difficult to administer. Post-testing showed
sizeable and significant gains in phonemic awareness skills and average-range CTOPP performance. Many
were successful at first sounds and blending, and showed gains in understanding segmenting with partially
correct responses. In addition, if syllable awareness is important, children never taught syllable awareness
gained this skill incidentally. These results add to research showing that preschoolers can learn phonemic
awareness within a horizontal goal structure, given developmentally-sensitive support (Ukrainetz et al., 2000).
The Effects of Prior Syllable Instruction. One condition involved prior syllable blending and segmenting
instruction. This instruction resulted in no additional benefit for the critical level of phonemic awareness.
There were no significant differences in phoneme isolation, blending, or segmentation between the syllableplus-phoneme and phoneme-only groups, even though the syllable group received two weeks more of speech
sound manipulation activities. Furthermore, the prior syllable instruction had some deleterious effects on
phoneme segmentation.
Syllable/Phoneme Confusion. Confusion – and frustration – occurred for the SP children despite instructional
features designed to assist in the transition. During the syllable instruction, the children were taught that the
learning target was “syllables” and were told that these were the “big chunks of sounds in words.” In the
phoneme phase, the children were explicitly told they were moving from the big chunks of sounds to little
sounds in words. In addition, the training words in the first two phoneme sessions, other than for the name
activity, were single-syllable words, making syllable beating difficult. Despite all this, children made errors,
disputed the move to small sounds, or became silent and non-participatory.
Instructor: Ok, now that we know the first sounds of our names, should we count all the sounds?
Child 1: Yeah.
= Child 2 quietly watches the instructor and Child 1.
Instructor: Let’s see who has the longest name, okay? We’re going to do hands up like this.
= Instructor puts a closed fist in the air.
Child 1: How ‘bout Jeff or Susan{her parents}?
Instructor: Ok, we’ll do that in a little bit. Let’s start with our own names, okay. We’re going to start with
Janae. Okay, ready, hands up like this.
= Children put their elbows on the tables and hands in a fist to get ready.
Instructor: </dz/-/a/-/n/-/ai/>.
= Instructor raises one finger up for each sound. Participants speak chorally.
Child 1: </dza/-/nae/>
Child 2: </dza/-/nae/-/nae/-/nae/> {Repeats the final syllable when she realizes the instructor is still counting
sounds}
Instructor: Remember we’re doing the little sounds.
= Instructor continues to hold four fingers up for the children to see.
Instructor: How many sounds?
Child 1: Four {answers faintly, unsure of her answer}. I thought you hadded two {raises her voice
accusingly}.
Instructor: That was two syllables, but we’re doing the little sounds. This is the little sounds. So I had four
little sounds, /dz/-/a/-/n/-/ae/. Janae, four sounds.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that preschool children can be taught directly at the phoneme level without prior
syllable awareness instruction. Multiple phoneme subskills can be taught within a single session. Typically
developing preschoolers can show success at first sounds and blending, and do partially correct segmenting.
Incidental syllable awareness occurs too. Syllable awareness instruction has no positive effects on phoneme
isolation and blending, and some negative effects on phoneme segmentation. This instruction included quality
features of treatment. The next step is to examine whether a longer duration of treatment would produce similar
results for children with language impairment and to examine maintained effects and effects on reading and
spelling.
References
Ehri, L.C., et al. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National
Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Researc h Q uarterly , 36, 250-287.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teac hing c hildren to read:An evidenc e-based assessm ento f the sc ientific researc h
literature o n reading and its im p lic atio ns fo r reading instruc tio n. Retrieved Nov. 30, 2003, from
[http:www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/findings.htm]
Torgesen, J. K. (1998, Spring/Summer). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to prevent reading
failure in young children. Am eric an Educ ato r, 1-8.
Ukrainetz, T.A., Cooney, M.H., Dyer, S.K., Kysar, A.J., & Harris, T.J. (2000). An investigation into teaching phonemic
awareness through shared reading ad writing Early Childho o d Researc h Q uarterly , 15, 331-355.
Ukrainetz, T.A. (2006). Co ntextualized skillinterventio n:Sc affo lding P reK-12 ac adem ic ac hievem ent.Eau Claire, WI:
Thinking Publications.