Teaching phonological awareness and metacognitive strategies to children with reading difficulties: A comparison of two instructional methods.
Wright, J., & Jacobs, B. (2003). Educational Psychology, 23(1), 17–24. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ670569
-
examining46Students
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Metalinguistic concepts and metacognitive strategies—Wright and Jacobs (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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Schonell Spelling Test |
Metalinguistic concepts and metacognitive strategies—Wright and Jacobs (2003) vs. Phonological Awareness Training |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.35 |
7.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Schonell Spelling Test |
Metalinguistic concepts and metacognitive strategies—Wright and Jacobs (2003) vs. Phonological Awareness Training |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
7.54 |
7.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Schonell Spelling Test |
Metalinguistic concepts and metacognitive strategies—Wright and Jacobs (2003) vs. Phonological Awareness Training |
12 Months |
Full sample;
|
7.75 |
7.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Schonell & Schonell Graded Word Reading Test (Reading Age) |
Metalinguistic concepts and metacognitive strategies—Wright and Jacobs (2003) vs. Phonological Awareness Training |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.81 |
7.70 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Schonell & Schonell Graded Word Reading Test (Reading Age) |
Metalinguistic concepts and metacognitive strategies—Wright and Jacobs (2003) vs. Phonological Awareness Training |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
8.12 |
7.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Schonell & Schonell Graded Word Reading Test (Reading Age) |
Metalinguistic concepts and metacognitive strategies—Wright and Jacobs (2003) vs. Phonological Awareness Training |
12 Months |
Full sample;
|
9.28 |
8.70 |
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.
-
Female: 46%
Male: 54% -
Suburban, Urban
-
- 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
Instruction took place in classrooms and literacy resource areas in schools, and was conducted with groups of 4-5 children.
Study sample
Students were aged between 7 years 4 months and 10 years old, with a mean age of approximately 9 years. Fifty four percent of students were male.
Intervention Group
[Note: T2 is "the intervention" here] The intervention supplements direct instruction in phonological awareness (see comparison condition) with training in metalinguistic concepts and metacognitive skills. All components were implemented by the authors and participating teachers for two 30-minute sessions a week and a total of 40 sessions. Instruction was conducted using reciprocal teaching methods, where children assumed roles as group leaders during instruction. The metalinguistic component consisted of a 20 step instructional sequence focusing on various concepts (e.g. syllables, silent letters, suffixes). It involved fictionalized explanations of how, when, where and why certain phonological rules are used, in conjunction with constructing and writing relevant word structures (e.g. the silent "e" at the end of a word is silent because it cannot reach the vowel with its arms). The metacognitive component taught children to develop a plan to approach reading and spelling words, to make explicit the procedures and logical steps involved. There was a 12 step plan for making and writing words (e.g. say the word, make the chunk, say the word slowly 3 times), and a 10 step plan for difficult words (e.g. look at the word, break it down, look for a chunk) was introduced later in the intervention. As proficiency improved, the number of steps in each plan were reduced.
Comparison Group
[Note: T1 is the "comparison condition" here] The comparison condition involved direct instruction in phonological awareness. It used a 12 step direct instruction program that focused on dividing words into "chunks", or rime units (e.g. adult writes chunk, adult and children read chunk, children construct chunk using plastic letters). It used alphabetic plastic letters and a flip chart as part of the instruction. Reviews of previous learning were conducted at the start of each session.
Support for implementation
The intervention was implemented by the authors and 3 participant teachers.
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).