Integration of letter–sound correspondences and phonological awareness skills of blending and segmenting: A pilot study examining the effects of instructional sequence on word reading for kindergarten children with low phonological awareness.
Oudeans, M. K. (2003). Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(4), 258–280.
-
examining41Students, gradeK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2023
- Practice Guide (findings for Integrated references to phoneme blending and segmentation—Oudeans (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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency |
Integrated references to phoneme blending and segmentation—Oudeans (2003) vs. Parallel, Non-Integrated (PN-I) Instructional Sequence |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
29.27 |
28.25 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency |
Integrated references to phoneme blending and segmentation—Oudeans (2003) vs. Parallel, Non-Integrated (PN-I) Instructional Sequence |
6 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
29.51 |
26.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency |
Integrated references to phoneme blending and segmentation—Oudeans (2003) vs. Parallel, Non-Integrated (PN-I) Instructional Sequence |
10 Days |
Full sample;
|
29.57 |
27.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency |
Integrated references to phoneme blending and segmentation—Oudeans (2003) vs. Parallel, Non-Integrated (PN-I) Instructional Sequence |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
46.04 |
38.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
DIBELS Onset Recognition-OnRF |
Integrated references to phoneme blending and segmentation—Oudeans (2003) vs. Parallel, Non-Integrated (PN-I) Instructional Sequence |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
25.73 |
22.35 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency |
Integrated references to phoneme blending and segmentation—Oudeans (2003) vs. Parallel, Non-Integrated (PN-I) Instructional Sequence |
10 Days |
Full sample;
|
44.70 |
38.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dynamic Indicators for Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS): Phoneme Segmentation Fluency |
Integrated references to phoneme blending and segmentation—Oudeans (2003) vs. Parallel, Non-Integrated (PN-I) Instructional Sequence |
6 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
48.76 |
42.15 |
No |
-- | ||
|
DIBELS Onset Recognition-OnRF |
Integrated references to phoneme blending and segmentation—Oudeans (2003) vs. Parallel, Non-Integrated (PN-I) Instructional Sequence |
6 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
25.27 |
22.95 |
No |
-- | ||
|
DIBELS Onset Recognition-OnRF |
Integrated references to phoneme blending and segmentation—Oudeans (2003) vs. Parallel, Non-Integrated (PN-I) Instructional Sequence |
10 Days |
Full sample;
|
31.05 |
28.90 |
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.
-
Other or unknown: 100% -
- 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
West
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
Both treatments consisted of 40 intervention lessons implemented for 10 weeks, 15 minutes per day, 4 days a week, to small groups of 3-4 children. The treatment groups were subsets of the normal classrooms.
Study sample
A requirement for study eligibility is that students are "nonreaders," as determined by reading 5 or fewer words on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised, administered in November of the Kindergarten year. There is no indication that this classification is equated with a disability. The study does pay special attention to children with "low phonological awareness" (65% of the eligible sample) but this is not an identified learning disability, and the study does not focus exclusively on those students.
Intervention Group
During each day of the intervention, both Conditions received: (1) 7.5 minutes of activities involving printed letters, where students were taught the name of and sounds most commonly associated with each letter. (2) 7.5 minutes of activities that did not involve printed letters, where students were taught to blend phonemes into words or segment words into phonemes. Difference between Treatment Conditions: In the Parallel Integrated (PI) sequence, teachers made explicit references to skills from part (2) during the part (1) activities. In the Parallel Non-Integrated (PN-I) sequence, teachers did not make these references. Additional information is provided below. - The add-on intervention was implemented for 10 weeks during a half-day kindergarten program. Children in each kindergarten participate in a broad array of subjects throughout the day, but specific information on other literacy activities is not provided. - There is no home component. - The teachers that implemented each condition had a wide range of experience. They were hired for this study and it was not clear whether or not they were the students' normal classroom teachers. - A specific list of materials is not provided, but cards with picture representations of words were used during the activities without printed letters. - Each instructional sequence is scripted and involves specific activities and examples. -Formative assessments of students were administered during weeks 2,4,6, and 8 of the study using the DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation and Nonsense Word Fluency subtests. - Implementation fidelity was measured by the investigator, using a checklist of critical lesson features and the scripted lesson to monitor lesson delivery. Full observations were made of 27% of the total number of lessons and partial observations were made of 61% of the total number of lessons. After observations, the investigator provided feedback, offered additional training or modeled activities if necessary.
Comparison Group
This study compares the PI and PN-I instructional sequences, both of which are described above. The only difference is that teachers in the PI sequence make explicit references to blending and segmenting phonemes during the portion of the lesson otherwise dedicated to printed letters.
Support for implementation
Teachers who implemented the treatments participated in three hours of training on the first 20 lessons before the beginning of the study, and an additional three hours of training prior to the last 20 lessons. The study author delivered the training, modeled activities and allowed teachers to practice. Teachers were encouraged to develop a conceptual understanding of critical features of lessons in both conditions, as they were each responsible for implementing both treatments. After fidelity observations, the investigator provided feedback, offered additional training or modeled activities if necessary.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Oudeans, M. K. (2000). Integration of letter–sound correspondences and phonological awareness skills of blending and segmenting: An examination of the effects of instructional sequence on word reading for kindergarten children with low phonological awareness. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 61(9), 163.
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.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).