An Evaluation of Two Approaches for Teaching Phonemic Awareness to Children in Head Start
Yeh, Stuart S. (2003). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, v18 n4 p513-529. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ778645
Phonological Awareness Training Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education for Children with Disabilities
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2012
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
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.
Findings
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Phonological Awareness 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.
Findings
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.
-
Urban
-
Race Asian 7% Black 41% White 11% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 41% Not Hispanic or Latino 59%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in four classrooms from two Head Start programs in the Boston, Massachusetts area
Study sample
The study included 44 low-income four- to five-year-old children. Forty-one percent were Hispanic, 41% were African-American, 7% were Asian, and 11% were Caucasian. Four classrooms were matched on student achievement levels and randomly assigned to the phonemic segmentation and the rhyming/alliteration groups.
Intervention Group
[SEPARATE INTERVENTION GROUPS: PHONEMIC SEGMENTATION VS. RHYMING/ALLITERATION] Phonemic segmentation: The children in this group participated in segmentation training concerning the segmentation, blending, and substitution of phonemes. The activities for this group were developed based on the Phono-Graphix program. To support children’s learning, teachers modeled the expected behaviors (e.g., by exaggerating pronunciation), encouraged participation, and reinforced correct responses until eventually children were able to match sounds and graphemes and sound out words on their own. Instruction was conducted in small groups of three to five children for 20–25 minutes a week over a nine-week period. Rhyming/Alliteration: The children in this group participated in rhyming and alliteration training that required them to rhyme and give words that have the same first consonant. They were also taught through bookmaking activities, during which they glued pictures into blank books and told stories to accompany the pictures. The activities for this group were developed from a commercially available phonemic awareness curriculum. Instruction was conducted in small groups of three to five children for 20–25 minutes a week over a nine-week period.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome domains assessed were children’s print knowledge, phonological processing, and early reading/writing. Print knowledge was assessed with a nonstandardized measure of letter-sound matching. Phonological awareness was assessed by four nonstandardized measures: phoneme blending, phoneme segmentation, phoneme deletion, and phoneme substitution. A combined phoneme awareness variable was also created based on the scores from the individual measures; however, this measure is not included in this review because the WWC includes the four individual measures of phonological processing. Children’s early reading/writing was measured with a nonstandardized test of oral reading. (See Appendices A2.1–A2.3 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
Support for implementation
Teachers received in-class modeling and coaching on the appropriate phonological instructional approach over a period of three weeks. During this three-week period, a group of children was taught by a consultant-trainer, then the teacher taught another group of children as the consultant provided coaching.
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).