Evaluation of a Program to Teach Phonemic Awareness to Young Children.

Findings

Early reading/writing outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain

Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement     index	Evidence tier
Word Choice	Sound Foundations vs. None	Posttest	4 year olds; 126 students	8.14	6.25	No	--

Phonological processing outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain

Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement     index	Evidence tier
Phoneme initial trained	Sound Foundations vs. None	Posttest	4 year olds; 126 students	11.07	7.87	No	--
Phoneme initial untrained	Sound Foundations vs. None	Posttest	4 year olds; 126 students	10.12	7.49	No	--
Phoneme final trained	Sound Foundations vs. None	Posttest	4 year olds; 126 students	10.40	6.29	No	--
Phoneme final untrained	Sound Foundations vs. None	Posttest	4 year olds; 126 students	9.83	6.34	No	--

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Study Details

Setting

The study took place in four preschools in Australia.

Study sample

The study began with 128 children; two comparison group children left the study, leaving a sample of 126 children. The mean age of the children in the intervention condition was 55.4 months and the mean age of the children in the comparison condition was 55.0 months. Forty-five percent of the sample was female. The authors reported that the children were randomly assigned to the intervention and comparison conditions with the provision that the number of children from each preschool was equally distributed across groups.

Intervention Group

Children in the intervention condition were trained in groups of four to six for a 12-week period. The weekly training sessions were 25–30 minutes long. In the first 11 weeks children were taught five consonants (/s/, /m/, /t/, /l/, and /p/ in initial and final positions) and one vowel (/ae/ in initial position). Individual phonemes were taught in two consecutive weeks. The first week focused on the phoneme in initial positions and the second week focused on phonemes in final positions. In each session, worksheets with outline drawings, where children identified and colored the critical items, were introduced following the teaching of any particular phoneme. In the 12th week of the intervention, the researchers introduced card games, dominoes and "Snap," which focused on four phonemes (/s/, /t/, /l/, and /p/) in initial and final positions.

Comparison Group

Children in the comparison condition were trained in groups of four to six for a 12-week period. The weekly training sessions were 25–30 minutes long. This training focused on teaching children to find semantic categories in worksheets and posters after hearing a story. Children in this condition did not receive phoneme training.

Outcome descriptions

The primary outcome domains assessed were children’s phonological processing and early reading/writing. Phonological processing was assessed with four nonstandardized measures: phoneme initial trained, phoneme initial untrained, phoneme final trained, and phoneme final untrained. Early reading/writing was assessed with two nonstandardized measures: word choice and letter knowledge. The letter knowledge measure was not considered in this review because it was used to test the prediction that both phoneme identity and letter knowledge are necessary conditions for acquisition of the alphabetic principle. It was not used to test the effects of the intervention. (See Appendices A2.3–A2.4 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.) Below are the details of the measures used in the follow-up studies of this intervention. Although the results of the follow-up studies are not part of the WWC effectiveness ratings, they are reported in Appendices A5.1–6. Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley (1993) assessed the outcome domains of children’s print knowledge, phonological processing, and early reading/writing. Print knowledge was assessed with a nonstandardized measure of alphabet knowledge. Phonological processing was assessed with four nonstandardized measures: phoneme identity initial, phoneme identity final, phoneme elision initial, and phoneme elision final. Early reading/writing was assessed with two nonstandardized measures (pseudoword identification and spelling) and one standardized measure (the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised, Form G–word identification). Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley (1995) assessed the outcome domains of children’s oral language (grade 1), print knowledge (grade 1), phonological processing (grade 1), early reading/writing (grades 1 and 2), and math (grade 2). Oral language was assessed with a nonstandardized measure of listening comprehension. Print knowledge was assessed with a nonstandardized measure of alphabet knowledge, but it is not included in this report because there is not sufficient information to compute an effect size. Phonological processing was assessed with a nonstandardized test of phoneme identity, but it is not included in this report because there is not sufficient information to compute an effect size. Early reading/writing was assessed in grade 1 with three nonstandardized tests of word identification and reading (reading regular words, reading irregular words, and reading pseudowords) and three nonstandardized tests of spelling (spelling regular words, spelling irregular words, and spelling pseudowords). Early reading/writing was assessed in grade 2 with a series of nonstandardized tests assessing number names, pseudowords, regular words, irregular words, and reading comprehension. Math was measured with a nonstandardized test of number identification to determine children’s ability to recognize nonalphabetic symbols. The researchers also utilized tests of rapid naming and title recognition. The rapid naming test is not included in this report because it does not test the effects of the intervention, and the title recognition test is not included because it is not relevant to the WWC review. Byrne et al. (2000) assessed the outcome domain of children’s early reading/writing. This domain was assessed with five standardized measures (word attack and word identification subtests of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised, Castles’ list nonwords, Castles’ list regular words, and Castles’ list irregular words) and one nonstandardized measure (South Australian Test of Written Spelling). The researchers also used a test of title recognition, but it is not included in this report because it is not relevant to the WWC review.

Support for implementation

Implementation of both the intervention and comparison conditions was conducted by the second author. The WWC found no reasons to believe that the person implementing the intervention and comparison condition was not equally trained and motivated to implement each condition.

Additional Sources