Prereading Skills and Achievement under Three Approaches to Teaching Word Recognition.
Gettinger, Maribeth (1986). Journal of Research and Development in Education, v19 n2 p1-9. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ330714
-
examining72Students, gradePK
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2006
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Training words |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Other skills training |
Posttest |
4-5 year olds;
|
23.67 |
18.48 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Short vowel in transfer words |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Other skills training |
Posttest |
4-5 year olds;
|
16.77 |
12.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Transfer words |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Other skills training |
Posttest |
4-5 year olds;
|
15.51 |
11.73 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Discrimination |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Other skills training |
Posttest |
4-5 year olds;
|
67.95 |
60.87 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Trials-to-criterion |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Other skills training |
Posttest |
4-5 year olds;
|
1.27 |
1.63 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sound blending |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Other skills training |
Posttest |
4-5 year olds;
|
20.12 |
7.53 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Consonant sounds |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Other skills training |
Posttest |
4-5 year olds;
|
11.31 |
3.53 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Sound memory |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Other skills training |
Posttest |
4-5 year olds;
|
28.93 |
23.66 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Consonant names |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Other skills training |
Posttest |
4-5 year olds;
|
14.03 |
9.75 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 44%
Male: 56% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest
-
Race Black 22% White 66% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12% Not Hispanic or Latino 88%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in preschools in two Midwestern communities.
Study sample
The study began with 122 four- and five-year-old children who were pretested on four measures. Based on pretest scores, 26 children were eliminated because they scored with greater than 75% accuracy on at least one of the pretest measures. The remaining children were blocked on pretest scores, gender, and age and randomly assigned to either the intervention or comparison conditions. The matching procedure resulted in a loss of 24 children, resulting in a final sample of 72 children. Sixty-six percent of the children were white, 22% were black, and 12% were Hispanic or other backgrounds. Forty-four percent of the children were female, and a range of socioeconomic status levels were represented (11% upper middle, 38% middle, 31% lower middle, and 20% lower).
Intervention Group
The children in the intervention group participated in phonological awareness and letter knowledge (PAT + LK) skills training. PAT + LK skills training was delivered to children in instructional subgroups, to which they had been randomly assigned, during three 30-minute lessons a week over three consecutive weeks. During each skills training session children were taught to recognize, name, produce the sound for, and blend (initial and final positions) two consonants each day, so that by the end of the intervention all children had been taught 18 consonants. Each lesson followed a similar structure and ended with a cumulative review of all syllables learned. Next, children participated in nine additional 30-minute reading instruction lessons over three consecutive weeks (i.e., three lessons a week for three weeks) to learn how to read using either a sight word approach, a linguistic approach, or a phonetic approach. The reading instruction lessons were designed to assess the effect of PAT + LK skills training on early reading/writing outcomes. The WWC does not report the results of the separate reading instruction conditions in this report because they are not Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training interventions. However, the WWC does report the results for the early reading/writing outcomes combined across reading instruction conditions because effects on those measures can be attributed to the initial skills training.
Comparison Group
The children in the comparison group participated in training in skills other than those related to phonological awareness and letter knowledge. The other skills training was delivered to children in instructional subgroups, to which they had been randomly assigned, during three 30-minute lessons a week over three consecutive weeks. During the other skills training, children participated in activities such as practice in color and number naming and picture identification. Next, children participated in nine additional 30-minute reading instruction lessons over three consecutive weeks (i.e., three lessons a week for three weeks) to learn how to read using either a sight word approach, a linguistic approach, or a phonetic approach. The WWC does not report the results of the separate reading instruction conditions in this report because they are not Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training interventions. However, the WWC does report the results for the early reading/writing outcomes combined across reading instruction conditions because effects on those measures can be attributed to the initial skills training.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome domains assessed were print knowledge and phonological processing (measured immediately after the skills training), and early reading/writing (measured after completion of the skills training but during reading instruction training). Print knowledge was assessed with one nonstandardized measure—consonant names. Phonological processing was assessed with three nonstandardized measures—consonant sounds, sound memory, and sound blending. Early reading/writing was assessed by five nonstandardized measures—training words, transfer words, short vowel in transfer words, trials-to-criterion, and discrimination. (See Appendices A2.2–A2.4 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
Support for implementation
The intervention and comparison conditions were implemented by 11 preschool teachers or aides who had at least two years experience with preschool-age children and who received two hours of training involving the reading of prepared scripts and simulated activities for the lessons. All teachers were familiar with the children in the groups they taught.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).