The effects of rime- and phoneme-based teaching delivered by learning support assistants.
Savage, R., Carless, S., & Stuart, M. (2003). Journal of Research in Reading, 26(3), 211–233.
-
examining52Students, grade6
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Spelling |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
3.87 |
2.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Spelling |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Combined phoneme and rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
3.77 |
2.86 |
No |
-- | |
|
Spelling |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
SoundWorks vs. typical instruction;
|
3.30 |
2.86 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter Sound Knowledge |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
SoundWorks vs. typical instruction;
|
24.11 |
18.59 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Letter Sound Knowledge |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
22.42 |
18.59 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Letter Sound Knowledge |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Combined phoneme and rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
22.05 |
18.59 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
On-set rime blending |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
6.07 |
4.45 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Onset-rime segmentation |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
5.25 |
2.77 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Onset-rime segmentation |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Combined phoneme and rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
4.27 |
2.77 |
Yes |
|
|
|
On-set rime blending |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Combined phoneme and rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
5.03 |
4.45 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Phoneme blending |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
4.67 |
3.41 |
No |
-- | |
|
On-set rime blending |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
SoundWorks vs. typical instruction;
|
5.32 |
4.45 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rime matching |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
SoundWorks vs. typical instruction;
|
10.45 |
9.64 |
No |
-- | |
|
Onset-rime segmentation |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
SoundWorks vs. typical instruction;
|
3.42 |
2.77 |
No |
-- | |
|
Phoneme segmentation |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Combined phoneme and rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
4.01 |
3.96 |
No |
-- | |
|
Phoneme blending |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Combined phoneme and rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
3.51 |
3.41 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rime matching |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Combined phoneme and rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
9.65 |
9.64 |
No |
-- | |
|
Phoneme segmentation |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
SoundWorks vs. typical instruction;
|
4.03 |
3.96 |
No |
-- | |
|
Phoneme segmentation |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
4.07 |
3.96 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rime matching |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
9.27 |
9.64 |
No |
-- | |
|
Phoneme blending |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
SoundWorks vs. typical instruction;
|
2.85 |
3.41 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Non-word reading-High rime N |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Combined phoneme and rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
2.84 |
0.59 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Non-word reading-High rime N |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
SoundWorks vs. typical instruction;
|
2.24 |
0.59 |
No |
-- | |
|
Non-word reading-Low rime N |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Combined phoneme and rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
2.14 |
0.59 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Non-word reading-Low rime N |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
SoundWorks vs. typical instruction;
|
1.87 |
0.59 |
No |
-- | |
|
Reading |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Combined phoneme and rime instruction vs. typical instruction;
|
2.66 |
2.05 |
No |
-- | |
|
Reading |
Rime-based and phoneme-focused teaching—Savage et al. (2003) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
SoundWorks vs. typical instruction;
|
2.85 |
2.05 |
No |
-- |
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.
-
- 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
International
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in nine elementary schools located in England. Intervention sessions took place during the times set aside for "word-level work" within England's national curriculum.
Study sample
The 12 children in each school who perform the poorest on a reading screening test were included in the study.
Intervention Group
INTERVENTION CONDITIONS. This study examined the impacts of three different early reading interventions: (1) Soundworks, (2) RIME, and (3) Mixed (mixture of onset rime and phoneme programs). All interventions involved 20 minute sessions, four times per week for nine weeks, and intervention sessions replaced the "word-level work" sessions that are part of England's National Curriculum. All interventions had some common elements. These included: beginning each session with letter-sound learning activities using a multi-sensory approach, concentration on one vowel and nine consonents for segmentation and blending activities, and a recap of the previous session and introduction to new letters. Ten minutes were then spent on intervention-specific activities, with the last ten minutes of the session focused on phonological awareness games for the phonemes and rimes that were covered. SOUNDWORKS INTERVENTION. Soundworks is referred to by authors as the phoneme-focused intervention. It has five components. Program activities involve a board used to make words around the phoneme "a"; writing on cards with vowel markers or spaces for students to write a vowel repeatedly, then add consonants to create words; and "spelling from your head". During first phase of this intervention, children use wood blocks with consonants to experiment with making new words by changing letters in existing words. Writing activities are introduced after using blocks for a while. During first phase of writing, emphasis is on repeated writing of the vowel and creating permutations by substituting consonants at beginning and end. The process can be repeated with other vowels (an i-board; o-board, etc). With assistance from an adult, children then read words aloud and sound them out piece by piece. RIME PROGRAM. This program contained many elements found in the Beginning Phonological Awareness Training program. In the RIME program sessions, ten minutes were spent with a new rime unit (e.g., "-at") and alphabet letters covered previously. Children are asked to arrange the rime words themselves with plastic letters to match a picture prompt. If children had difficulty with that task, they are asked to work across the letters at the top of the sheet and find the correct onset rime to complete the word. The remaining 10 minutes of the intervention sessions were spent doing one of the following activities: 1) writing words, 2) doing simple word searches, 3) using onset-rime "word fans", 4) sorting words into groups based on their rimes, and 5) practicing with onset-rime sound frames. Learning Support Assistants had children complete one of these five tasks each day in a week. MIXED PHONEME AND RIME PROGRAM. This intervention was very similar to the rime program. In addition to leading children through activities involving rimes, in this intervention the Learning Support Assistants indicated phonemic elements of words as well (for example, "an" is made up of 'a' and 'n'). This program encouraged students to say phonemes and rimes when constructing words, and the phonological games included analysis and synthesis of phonemes as well as rimes.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition participated in word-level activities that are part of the second term of the National Literacy Strategy. These activities involve grouping children around tables by literacy level and having them work through activities intended to improve their understanding of initial, medial and final sounds in words, discriminate sounds, read and spell consonant clusters at the beginning and end of words, and develop sight vocabulary for 30 commonly encountered words. The National Literacy Strategy identifies discrimination, segmentation and blending of phonemes as targeted skills for phonological awareness during this term. Comparison students receive periodic support from their classroom teachers during these sessions, as teachers divide their time among all their students. Teachers were told to treat comparison children in same way as if no interventions were taking place.
Support for implementation
Intervention was implemented by Learning Support Assistants. These LSAs participated in a single training session conducted in a single morning. During the first part of the meeting, all LSAs were congregated together to learn about the generic aspects of the interventions. The LSAs were then split off into groups to learn about the particular intervention being conducted in their school. These sessions were led by the authors or a remedial reading teacher. The principles underlying their intervention were presented, and LSAs were given opportunity to explore the materials and ask questions about the interventions and try the activities informally. The last part of the session had LSAs all grouped together again to discuss more general aspects of the interventions--e.g., grouping, location, timing, etc.
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).