http://www.educationnews.org/phonemic_awareness_what_does_it_.htm
The Internet’s Leading
Source of EducationNews
Daily News Bulletin Board Free
On-Line Subscription Home Contact Us
-- recognized
as a quality online resource for education reporters --
November 2002, Education Writers Association (over 900 members)
Give your child a "Red Flag
to gain a quick, informal measure of reading fluency on grade level
material...
...................................................................
{an adaptation of a refereed journal
article: Hempenstall, K. (1997). The role of phonemic
awareness in beginning reading: A review. Behaviour
Change, 14(4), 201-14}
other phonological pieces by Dr Kerry Hempenstall that you have published
on EducationNews.
Beyond phonemic awareness
The relationship between phonics and phonemic awareness
Some issues in phonics instruction: Implicit and explicit phonics
instruction
...................................................................
Phonemic Awareness: What Does it Mean? A
2003 update
Dr. Kerry Hempenstall,
Over the past two decades,
but particularly in the last 10 years, there has been a burgeoning consensus
about the critical importance of phonemic awareness to beginning reading
success, and about its role in specific reading disability or dyslexia
(Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994; National Reading
Panel, 2000; Share, 1995; Stanovich, 1986). Various
terms have been employed as synonyms, such as phonological awareness, acoustic
awareness, phonetic awareness, auditory analysis, sound categorisation,
phonemic segmentation, phonological sensitivity, and phonemic analysis. Some authors
such as Goswami and Bryant (1990) reserve the term
phonemic awareness to imply awareness of individual phonemes; whereas,
phonological awareness is a more global term that includes the earlier stages,
such as rhyme and syllable awareness.
There has been much
discussion about how best to define phonemic awareness. Ball and Blachman (1991) refer to the ability to recognise
that a spoken word consists of a sequence of individual sounds. Stanovich (1986) initially defined it as the
"conscious access to the phonemic level of the speech stream and some
ability to cognitively manipulate representations at this level" (p. 362). Later, he suggested (1992, 1993) that the terms
"conscious" and "awareness" themselves have no acceptable
definitions, and he subsequently recommended phonological sensitivity as a
generic term to encompass a continuum from shallow to deep sensitivity. This
term acknowledges the wide range of tasks used to assess levels of sensitivity.
Read (1991) too was concerned about the term awareness, but because it implies a dichotomy rather than a
continuum. He preferred the expression access
to phonological structure. As these alternatives have not gained currency,
phonemic awareness will continue to be used here, acknowledging that the definition
has limitations.
What is clear is that
phonemic awareness concerns the structure of words rather than their meaning.
To understand the construction of our written code, readers need to be able to
reflect upon the spelling-to-sound correspondences. To understand that the
written word is composed of graphemes that correspond to phonemes (the
alphabetic principle), beginning readers must first have some understanding
that words are composed of sounds (phonemic awareness) rather than their
conceiving of each word as a single indivisible sound stream. This awareness
appears not to be a discrete state, but rather a sequence of development
ranging from simple to complex, or as Stanovich
(1992, 1993b) would prefer - from shallow to deep.
Although
some authors suggest slight variations in the sequence (Ehri
et al., 2001), the stages of phonological development toward deep phonemic
awareness can be delineated as below.
Recognition
that sentences are made up of words.
Recognition that words can
rhyme - then production thereof
Recognition that words can
be broken down into syllables - then production thereof
Recognition that words can
be broken down into onsets and rimes - then production thereof
Recognition that words can
begin with the same sound - then production of such words
Recognition that words can
end with the same sound -then production of such words
Recognition that words can
have the same medial sound(s) -then production of such words
Recognition that words can
be broken down into individual phonemes - then production thereof
Recognition that sounds can
be deleted from words to make new words - then production thereof
Ability to blend sounds to
make words
Ability to segment words
into constituent sounds
Phonemic awareness is more
complex than auditory discrimination, which is the ability to perceive, for
example, that cat and mat are different speech productions, or
words. To be able to describe how they are similar but different, however,
implies some level of phonemic awareness. Auditory discrimination entails
hearing a difference; whereas, phonemic awareness entails a level of analysis
of the constituent sounds. Young children are not normally called upon to
consider words at a level other than their meaning, although experience with rhymes
may be the first indication for children that they can play with the structure
of words.
Prior to these finer
intra-word discriminations, children need to appreciate that spoken sentences
(a rather continuous stream of sound without clear pauses) are separable into
discrete words (Liberman & Liberman,
1990). Adams (1990) and Blachman (1984) warn that
word consciousness (the awareness that spoken language is composed of words)
should not be assumed even in children with several years schooling, although
they report evidence that it may be taught easily enough, even at a pre-school
level. That school age children can lack such fundamental knowledge may be
difficult for adults to accept, but it highlights the need in education to
assume little, and assess pre-requisite skills carefully. Their warning also
challenges the view, held by some Whole Language advocates (Goodman, 1979,
1986; Smith, 1975, 1992), that speaking and reading involve equivalent
"natural" processes for all children. The implications of the Whole
Language view are that the same environmental conditions that occur during the
development of speech are those best provided for children learning to read. Liberman and Liberman (1990)
among others (Gough & Hillinger, 1980; Hirsch,
2001; Liberman, 1997) have provided a forceful
rebuttal of this equivalence perspective.
Having discovered that
sentences are composed of words, the next logical unit of analysis is
intra-word, at the syllable level. However, syllables can be represented by any
number of letters from one to eight. The word understand has three syllables,
each of a different number of letters. Un has two, der has three, and stand
has five letters. This variability makes the syllable unit of limited value in analysing the reading task (Bradley, 1990), and the catch
is that one needs to have awareness at the level of the phoneme in order to
determine where best to decide the syllable junctions. So, syllable awareness
may have limited value as an early curriculum focus.
Rhyme and Alliteration
The recognition of rhyme
may be the entry point to phonemic awareness development for many children
(Bryant, 1990). To be aware that words can have a similar end-sound implies a
critical step in metalinguistic understanding - that
of ignoring the meaning of a word in order to attend to its internal structure.
This leads to a new classification system, one in which words can be classified
according to end-sound rather than meaning. Bryant (1990) points to the
considerable amount of evidence indicating that children as young as three or
four years can make judgments such as when words rhyme, and when they begin
with the same sound (alliteration). He argues that sensitivity to rhyme makes
both a direct and indirect contribution to reading. Directly, it helps students
appreciate that words that share common sounds usually also share common letter
sequences. The child's subsequent sensitivity to common letter sequences then
makes a significant contribution to reading strategy development. Indirectly,
the recognition of rhyme promotes the refining of word analysis from larger
intra-word segments (such as rhyme) to analysis at the level of the phoneme
(the critical requirement for reading).
Studies by Bryant, Bradley,
McLean, and Crossland (1989) showed a very strong
relationship between rhyming ability at age three years and performance at
reading and spelling three years later. A number of such studies have
reinforced the value of such early exposure to rhyming games (e.g., Kirtley, Bryant, Maclean, &
Bradley, 1989). That rhyming and phoneme awareness are related (through their
common characteristic of requiring listening for sound similarities and
differences) was supported by an interesting finding of a study by Lamb and
Gregory (1993). They showed that children who were capable of good
discrimination of musical pitch also scored highly on tests of phonemic
awareness. Since pitch change is an important source of information in the
speech signal (Liberman, Cooper, Shankweiler,
& Studdert-Kennedy, 1967), it may be that
sensitivity to small frequency changes, such as is involved in phoneme
recognition, is an important aspect of successful initial reading. Lamb and
Gregory (1993) raise the interesting possibility that musical training may
represent one of those pre-reading, home-based experiences that contribute to
the marked individual differences in phonemic awareness with which children
commence school.
Just how valuable may be an
instructional emphasis on rhyme has been questioned in several studies (Wood, 2000).
Whereas Bryant (1990) asserted that rhyme makes a direct contribution to
reading, others see rhyme subsumed under phonemic awareness, so that rhyme
awareness is only a phonological step on the way towards phoneme awareness – a
later state that certainly does influence reading development. Perhaps the
ultimate role for rhyme will be as a predictor of progress towards reading
success, as it has been shown to be a strong early predictor of reading ability
in longitudinal studies (Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Bryant et al., 1989). This
is not to suggest that rhyming activities are to be avoided, as they are
enjoyable literacy activities. Engaging in rhyming activities with stories may
also have strong motivational influences on children’s attitudes to books and
reading.
Onsets & Rimes
Treiman
(1991) has suggested a further stage in the development of phoneme awareness -
the intra-syllabic units of onset and rime. The onset of a syllable is its
initial consonant(s), and the rime is its vowel and any subsequent consonants
in the syllable. Thus, in the syllables sip-slip,
the onsets are s and sl,
and the common rime is ip.
Treiman's research has argued for a stage between
syllable awareness and phoneme awareness in which children are much more
sensitive to the onset-rime distinction than the phoneme distinction. It has
been asserted that this research holds promise for programs of educational
intervention in reading disability because of the greater regularity of
onset-rimes over individual letters (Felton, 1993). Thus, rime phonograms such
as ing, ight, ain have much more regularity than the letters that
form them. Knowing that strain and drain rhyme, may allow for reading main and brain by analogy.
This apparently generative
strategy has led some researchers (Bowey, Cain, &
Ryan, 1992; Hulme & Snowling,
1992) to suggest that an emphasis on onset-rime may be an especially valuable
approach to teaching students with dyslexia, as they tend to have relatively
weak phonological skills. Further, Bowey and Francis
(1991) consider onset and rime the most effective focus for phonological
activities intended to promote beginning reading and spelling for all children.
They note that since most onsets in English are single consonants, an early
emphasis on the intra-syllabic onset/rime distinction in the study of word
structure is likely to hasten the development of awareness at the more
difficult phoneme level. Treiman (1991) has argued
that the onset/rime division is a natural one. Bradley (1990) agrees, and
considers that it is because rhymes correspond to rimes that most children
develop such facility with them at a relatively early age. The awareness of
these larger sublexical skills are viewed by Bruck (1992), Goswami and Bryant
(1990), and by Tunmer and Hoover (1993) as
prerequisites to initial reading acquisition, their difficulty level lying
between that of syllable awareness and phoneme awareness (Bowey
et al., 1992; Bowey & Francis, 1991; Bruck & Treiman, 1990; Kirtley et al., 1989). Spector
(1995) perceives onset/rime as a potentially useful stage in the development of
oral segmentation skills. She recommends the strategy of breaking such words
into onset/rime as an intermediate step towards phonemic segmentation for
children who have difficulty in segmenting complex syllables.
Thus, there may be a
typical developmental sequence of phonological awareness. It begins with
awareness of words as a unit of analysis; then proceeds to the awareness that
words can share certain ending properties that we call rhyme, to an awareness
that words can be decomposed into syllables, then (possibly though not
definitely) more finely into sub-syllabic units called onsets and rimes, to
beginning, final, and medial properties, and then (and most importantly for
reading) into awareness of individual phonemes, the smallest unit of sound
analysis. A further developmental sequence involves the movement from a recognition of such properties to a capacity to produce
examples of them. Thus, at one level one can nominate which pairs of words rhyme
when presented orally; at a higher level one can produce examples. It should be
noted that the description of the process as developmental does not imply
spontaneous development – for many students it needs to be taught (Lindamood, 1994).
The issue of putting ages
to stages is problematic partly because of the great variation in the
experience of children. Some children play with word structure for several
years before school, some have had no experience. The degree of emphasis
placed on phonemic awareness in preschool and school adds additional variation,
whilst the quality and explicitness of the instruction also make significant
contributions (National Reading Panel, 2000. There appears also to be genetic
predisposition toward ease or difficulty of acquisition among children (Olson,
Wise, Conners, Rack, & Fulker,
1989; Rack, Hulme, & Snowling,
1993).
Thus, these stages may be
better considered as markers on the road to skilled reading, rather than as a
natural developmental sequence, and as susceptible to environmental
manipulation, such as early experiences and instruction. Similarly, the rate
with which students progress through the stages may vary, and some stages may
even appear to be skipped.
If the stages represent a
typical sequence, then approaches to teaching might benefit from taking it into
account. There may be some theoretical justification for an interest in
onset-rime, but it requires support from intervention research before becoming
a suitable component of the curriculum. So, is an emphasis on teaching students
to recognise onset-rime distinctions (rather than at
the phoneme level) more productive in initial (and, perhaps, remedial) reading
instruction than is teaching directly at the phoneme level. A computer program
developed by Wise, Olson and Treiman (1990) focussed on onset-rimes in teaching beginning reading
skills to normally-developing readers and children with dyslexia. In this and
the Olson and Wise (1992) studies, the authors noted an advantage for the
children taught in this manner over an approach that segmented words after the
vowel. The effect however was ephemeral, and least pronounced in the more
disabled students. Ehri and Robbins (1992) findings
were similar in that the poorer readers did not use sub-syllabic units larger
than the grapheme. This led them to suggest that the onset-rime distinction is
really the province of the more skilled reader, and hence not a candidate for
instruction prior to that at the phoneme level.
Goswami's
research (Goswami & Bryant, 1990) had suggested
that, for young children, words that share rimes are more readily decoded by
analogy than are words that share onsets or vowels. Bruck
and Treiman (1992) provided some support for that
view, but as in the Wise et al. study, the measured advantage was lost within a
day. In fact, a day later the rime group demonstrated poorer performance than
the group taught onsets, and poorer than the group for which vowel analogy was emphasised.
A number of researchers now
have questioned whether an onset-rime emphasis has any useful role to play in
beginning reading instruction. Nation and Hulme
(1997) express concern that such tasks are not predictive of reading and
spelling success. McMillan (2002) argues that it is alphabet knowledge rather
than rhyming ability that underpins any causal link to reading ability.
Further, Nation, Allen, and Hulme (2001) have
questioned the benefit of emphasising analogy as a
worthwhile early strategy for reading unfamiliar words. The intent of analogy
reading is to allow children to decode an unfamiliar printed word by observing
that its spelling is similar to that of a known word. In their study, however,
children were not able to see such orthographic similarities at all, leading to
a conclusion that the analogy technique is only able to be employed by those
readers who already have attained more advanced phonemic awareness (Wood,
2000).
Thus, the results of
research suggest caution regarding calls for introducing an initial emphasis on
onset-rime distinctions for beginning readers. It would be judicious to ensure
that beginners (and disabled readers) have, or develop, a grounding in
grapheme-phoneme relationships, either before (or simultaneous with), such
onset-rime emphasis (Munro, 1995). It is still unclear whether the generally
accepted developmental sequence necessarily provides the optimum guidance for
instruction. This question should be answered empirically, and a number of
researchers have attempted more fine-grained analysis to assist in providing
clearer instructional direction. Wise and Olson (1995) reported a study
indicating that adequate phonemic awareness skill was necessary if children
were to benefit from onset-rime instruction. When readers with dyslexia were
provided with phonemic awareness training through Auditory Discrimination in
Depth (Lindamood & Lindamood,
1969) simultaneously with onset-rime computer-based training, reading results
were markedly improved by this addition of instruction at the level of the
phoneme. The ADD program emphasises phonemic
awareness through a variety of oral/aural tasks, and by teaching students
awareness of kinaesthetic cues (mouth, tongue, lip
position, breath usage).
Nation and Hulme (1997) and Hulme et al.
(2002) also argue that it is likely to be more profitable to emphasise phoneme awareness even from the beginning reading
stages. As is often the case, when several options are available and the
evidence is not adequate to clearly support one or the other, the emphasis is
most judiciously placed on the alternative that is most closely related to the
reading process. Thus, studies up to this stage have raised more questions than
answers about the instructional usefulness of onset-rime as a means of gently
approaching the difficult phoneme concept.
Phoneme Awareness
Awareness at the level of
the phoneme has particular significance for the acquisition of reading because
of its role in the development of the alphabetic principle - that the written
word is simply a means of codifying the sound properties of the spoken word. In
order to decode the written word, the child needs to appreciate the logic of
the writing system and, as a prerequisite, the logic of oral word production.
There are two requirements
of beginning reading for which phonemic awareness becomes immediately relevant:
phonemic analysis (segmentation) and phonemic synthesis (blending). For most
children, the ability to produce the finer discrimination of phonemes begins in
about Year I of their schooling (Ball, 1993). Individual phonemes are more difficult
to specify because their acoustic values vary with the phonemes that precede
and follow them in a word (a phenomenon called co-articulation); whereas,
syllables have relatively constant values in a word and hence should be more
readily recognised. The fact that consonants are
"folded" into vowels can be understood by noting the different tongue
positions for the beginning /d/ sound when it is followed by /oo/ and by /i/.
In most children the
ability to synthesise (blend) sounds into words
occurs earlier than analytic (segmentation) skills (Bryen
& Gerber, 1987; Caravolas & Bruck, 1993; Solomons, 1992; Torgesen et al., 1992; Yopp,
1992). Thus, it is easier to respond with the word cat when presented with the sounds c - at or c-a-t, than it
is to supply c-a-t when asked to tell
what sounds you hear in cat.
Tasks used to assess
beginning (or shallow) phonemic awareness tend to emphasise
sensitivity to rhyme and alliteration; for example, finding a word that begins
or ends with the same sound as the stimulus word. A more complex task would
involve the manipulation, or separation of sounds in a word, for example, What is the first sound you hear in cat? What word is left if you remove the /t/ from
"stand"? (Torgesen et
al., 1994). Other tasks used for assessment may include counting the
sounds in words, adding, deleting or manipulating sounds, and categorising sounds at the beginning, middle, or end of
words.
There are now numerous normed
and unnnormed tests available. Some are available
from publishers, such as the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing
(CTOPP) (Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte,
1999) whilst some are free from the Net, such as Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) (
As indicated above, deeper
levels of awareness (i.e., at the phoneme level) tend to develop during first
grade upon exposure to reading instruction. Some have argued then that phonemic
awareness may be a consequence of learning to read rather than a causal factor
in its development (Morais et al., 1987; Morais, 1991). There is increasing consensus that the data
are best explained by considering the relationship between phonemic awareness
and reading development as a reciprocal one (Stanovich,
1992). A threshold phonemic awareness level may be necessary (though not
sufficient) for beginning reading development, but as reading develops -
increasingly the student becomes more sensitive and better able to manipulate
sounds at the phoneme level.
The acquisition of phonemic
awareness is not guaranteed simply through maturation; in fact, about a third of
students require varying degrees of assistance to promote its development (
The National Reading Panel
Report (2000) indicated that large effect sizes were possible when instruction
was directed systematically and explicitly at one or two types of phonemic
awareness activities provided to small groups, and involved associating
phonemes with letters (such as segmenting and blending). As to who might
require more intensive and extended assistance, Torgesen
(1998) recommends an identification procedure involving administration of a
test of knowledge of letter names or sounds and a measure of phonemic
awareness. Students who do not do well on these tests are likely to struggle
with reading unless additional support is provided. The Panels view was that
this focus was so important that all students should have the opportunity to
benefit from phonemic awareness activities in their first year of school. Those studies that provided
activities for less than a half hour per day to a total of about 20 hours were
effective and efficient.
The issue of when to
introduce phonemic awareness activities/instruction has also been investigated.
Byrne, Fielding-Barnsley, and
Ashley (2000) report that it is not only the attainment of phonemic awareness
that is important in learning to read, but also its speed of acquisition.
In a longitudinal study, they noted that poor readers in grade 5 were those
who, though they eventually achieved reasonable levels of phonemic awareness,
were slow to grasp it. Perhaps
there is a window of opportunity when phonological processes can become the
driving force behind initial reading development. If reading development
is not phonologically informed then students may adopt less viable strategies,
such as guessing and memorisation of shapes. If that
occurs, phonemic awareness may subsequently develop, but will not necessarily
be employed by the student whose strategies have become entrenched. Perhaps
this is the reason why it
can take four times as much intervention to improve a child’s reading skills if
help is delayed until grade 4 than if it is begun in the first year of school
(Hall & Moats, 1999).
The role of fluency in
promoting reading comprehension was brought to the attention of many because of
its status in the report of the National Reading Panel (2000). Less well known
is an increasing interest in promoting fluency across a range of curriculum
areas (Binder, Haughton, & Bateman, 2002; Lindsley,
1996). Binder et al. suggest that while mastery is important, real expertise in
phonemic awareness skills is not present until students can effortlessly and
quickly perform the tasks. Thus,
they suggest students should aim to be able to blend sounds to form words at a
minimum of 10 per minute, segment words into sounds by moving colored blocks to
indicate the sounds at a rate of at least 40 per minute, and construct new
words through substituting one phoneme for another at a minimum rate of 15 per
minute. This suggestion certainly offers another dimension for teachers
wishing to ensure all their students develop a strong phonological basis for
literacy.
Of course, a classroom
emphasis on phonological processes assumes that teachers already have the
necessary deep understanding of phonemic awareness required to teach it
effectively. This assumption may not be warranted, as research has indicated
that many teachers do not themselves have a solid foundation in their own
phonemic awareness, and few have received the level of training that produces
the supra-skill level important in awakening children’s fine-grained
sensitivity to the sound structure of words (Lindamood,
1994; Mather, Bos, & Babur, 2001; Moats, 1994). For example, in one study (Mather et al.) only 2% of teachers-in-training and 19% of
working teachers knew that the word box
is constructed from four speech sounds. It is not easy for adults to ignore entrenched spelling
patterns when confronted with phonemic tasks (Labov,
2003). Students whose teacher themselves have phonological deficiencies
display lower levels of reading skills as a consequence (Lindamood,
1994). In many teacher-training facilities, pre-service instruction in these
areas is not among the priorities in developing a teacher education curriculum
on literacy. Hence, many teachers are likely to need retraining if the results
of phonemic awareness research into beginning reading are to be put into
practice successfully.
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning
about print.
Adams,
M. J., Foorman, B. R., Lundberg,
Al
Otaiba, S. & Fuchs, D. (2002).
Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy
intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial
and Special Education, 23, 300-316.
Ball, E. W. (1993).
Phonological awareness: What's important and to whom? Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 141-159.
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,
25, 49-66.
Binder,
C., Haughton, E., & Bateman, B. (2002).
Fluency: Achieving true mastery in the learning process. Retrieved 1/3/2003 from
http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/sped/projects/ose/papers/
Blachman,
B. A. (1984). Language analysis skills and early reading
acquisition. In G. P. Wallach, & K. G.
Butler (Eds.), Language learning
disabilities in school age children (pp. 271-287).
Bowey,
J. A., & Francis, J. (1991). Phonological
analysis as a function of age and exposure to reading instruction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12,
91-121.
Bowey,
J. A., Cain, M. T., & Ryan, S. M. (1992). A
reading-level design study of phonological skills underlying fourth-grade
children's word reading difficulties. Child Development, 63, 999-1011.
Bradley, L. (1990). Rhyming
connections in learning to read and spell. In P. D. Pumphrey,
& C. D. Elliot (Eds.), Children's
difficulties in reading, spelling and writing: Challenges and responses
(pp. 83-100).
Bruck,
M., & Treiman, R. (1990).
Phonological awareness and spelling in normal children and dyslexics: The case
of initial consonant clusters. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 156-178.
Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological development and reading. In P. D. Pumfrey, & C. D. Elliot (Eds.), Children's difficulties in reading, spelling and writing: Challenges
and responses (pp. 63-82).
Bryant,
P. E., Bradley, L., Maclean, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Nursery rhymes,
phonological skills and reading. Journal
of Child Language, 16, 407-428
Bryen,
D. N., & Gerber, A. (1987). Metalinguistic
abilities and reading: A focus on phonological awareness.
Byrne,
B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993).
Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A
one-year follow-up. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 104-111.
Byrne,
B., Fielding-Barnsley, R, & Ashley, L. (2000).
Effects of preschool phoneme identity training after six years: Outcome level
distinguished from rate of response. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 92, 659-667.
Caravolas,
M., & Bruck, M. (1993).
The effect of oral and written language input on children's phonological
awareness: A cross-linguistic study. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 55, 1-30.
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., Shanahan, T. (2001).
Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the
National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287.
Felton, R. H. (1993). Effects of instruction on the decoding skills of children with phonological-processing
problems. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 26(4), 583-589.
Foorman,
B. R., Chen, D-T., Carlson, C., Moats, L., Francis, D. J., & Fletcher, J.
M. (2003). The necessity of the
alphabetic principle to phonemic awareness instruction.
Gough,
P. B., & Hillinger, M. L. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 179-196.
Hall,
S. H., & Moats, L. C. (1999). Straight talk about reading: How parents can
make a difference during the early years.
Hatcher,
P., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. (1994). Ameliorating reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading
and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41-57.
Hirsch E. D. (2001, Spring). Romancing the child. Education Matters, 34-39. Retrieved
11/3/2003 from www.educationnext.org/2001sp/34.html
Hulme,
C., Hatcher, P. J., Nation, K., Brown, A., Adams, J., & Stuart, G. (2002).
Phoneme awareness is a better predictor of early reading skill than onset–rime
awareness. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 82, 2–28.
Kame’enui,
E. J. (2002). An analysis of reading
assessment instruments for K-3.
Kirtley,
C., Bryant, P. E., Maclean, M. J., & Bradley, L.
L. (1989). Rhyme, rime and the onset of
reading. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 48, 224-245.
Labov,
L. (2003). When ordinary children fail to read. Reading Research Quarterly,
38, 128-131.
Lamb,
S. J., & Gregory, A. H. (1993). The
relationship between music and reading in beginning readers. Educational Psychology, 13, 19-27.
Liberman,
A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431-461.
Liberman,
A.M. (1997). How theories of speech affect research in reading and writing. In B. A. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and
dyslexia.
Liberman,
Lindamood,
C., & Lindamood, P. C. (1969). Auditory Discrimination in
Depth.
Lindamood,
P. C. (1994). Issues in researching the link between
phonological awareness, learning disabilities, and spelling. In G. R.
Lyon, (Ed.), Frames of reference for the
assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp.
351-374). Baltimore, PH: Brookes Publishing Co.
Lindsley,
O. R. (1996). Is fluency free-operant response-response chaining? The Behavior Analyst, 19(2), 211-224.
Lyon, G. R. (2001). Measuring success: Using assessments and
accountability to raise student achievement. Subcommittee on Education
Reform Committee on Education and the Workforce U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. Retrieved 6/6/2003 from http://www.nrrf.org/lyon_statement3-01.htm
Macmillan, B. M. (2002).
Rhyme and reading: A critical review of the research methodology. Journal of Research in
Mather,
N., Bos, C., & Babur,
N. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice teachers
about early literacy instruction. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 34,
472-482.
Moats,
L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education:
Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102.
Morais,
J. (1991). Phonological awareness: A bridge between language & literacy. In
D. Sawyer, & B. Fox (Eds.), Phonological
awareness in reading: The evolution of current perspectives. (pp. 31 - 71).
Morais,
J., Alegria, J., & Content, A. (1987).
The relationship between segmental analysis and alphabetic literacy: An
interactive view. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 7, 1-24.
Munro, J. (1995). Explaining developmental dyslexia Orthographic processing
difficulties. Australian Journal
of Remedial Education, 27(1), 5-15.
Nation,
K., & Hulme, C. (1997).
Phonemic segmentation, not onset-rime segmentation predicts early reading and
spelling skills. Reading
Research Quarterly, 32, 154-167.
Nation,
K., Allen, R., & Hulme, C. (2001).
The limitations of orthographic analogy in early reading development:
Performance on the clue-word task depends on phonological priming and
elementary decoding skill, not the use of orthographic analogy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80,
75-94.
National
Olson,
R. K., & Wise, B. W. (1992).
Olson,
R., Wise, B., Conners, F., Rack, J. P., & Fulker, D. (1989). Specific deficits in
component reading and language skills: Genetic and environmental influences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22,
339-348.
Rack,
J. P., Hulme, C., & Snowling,
M. (1993). Learning to read: A
theoretical synthesis. Advances in
Child Development & Behaviour, 24, 99-132.
Read, C. (1991). Access to syllable structure in language and learning. In S.
A. Brady, & D. P. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A
tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman (pp. 119-124). NJ
Share,
D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine
qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition,
55, 151-218.
Smith,
F. (1975). Comprehension
and learning: A conceptual framework for teachers.
Smith,
F. (1992). Learning to read: The
never-ending debate. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 432-441.
Solomons,
B. (1992). Phonemic awareness training:
An early intervention program. NSW,
Stanovich,
K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.
Stanovich,
K. E. (1992). Speculation on the causes and consequences of
individual differences in early reading acquisition. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 307-342).
Stanovich,
K. E. (1993). The language code: Issues in word recognition. In S. R. Yussen, & M. C. Smith (Eds.), Reading across the life span (pp. 111-135).
Torgesen,
J. K., & Bryant, B. (1994a). Test of Phonological Awareness.
Torgesen,
J. K. (1998). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to
prevent reading failure in young children. American
Educator, Spring/Summer. Retrieved 12/2/03 from: http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/reading/torgeson_catchthem.html
Torgesen,
J. K., Morgan, S. T., & Davis, C. (1992). Effects of two types of phonological awareness training on word
learning in kindergarten children. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 84, 364-370.
Treiman,
R. (1991). The role of intrasyllabic
units in learning to read and spell. In P. Gough, L. Ehri,
& R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 65-106).
Wagner,
R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte,
C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing.
Wise,
B. W., & Olson, R. K. (1995). Computer-based
phonological awareness and reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 99-122.
Wise,
B. W., Olson, R. K., & Treiman, R. (1990). Subsyllabic units as aids in beginning readers
word learning Onset-rime versus post-vowel segmentation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 1-19.
Wood, C. (2000). Rhyme
awareness, orthographic analogy use, phonemic awareness and reading: An
examination of relationships Educational
Psychology, 20(1), 5-15.
Wren,
S., &
Wright,
J., & Jacobs, B. (2003). Teaching
phonological awareness and metacognitive strategies
to children with reading difficulties: A comparison of the two instructional
methods. Educational Psychology,
23(1), 17-45.
Yopp,
H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young
children. The
Dr Kerry Hempenstall
Department of Psychology
and Intellectual Disability Studies,
Royal Melbourne Institute
of Technology (RMIT),
Plenty Rd., Bundoora,
Ph (61) 9925 7522 Fax (63)
9925 7303
Web Page -http://www.rmit.edu.au/departments/ps/staffpgs/hempens.htm
e-mail
kerry.hempenstall@rmit.edu.au