The Effects of Syllable Instruction on Phonemic Awareness in Preschoolers [Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs. first phoneme tasks]
Ukrainetz, Teresa A.; Nuspl, Janae J.; Wilkerson, Kimberly; Beddes, Sarah Rose (2011). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, v26 n1 p50-60. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ906814
-
examining39Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - phoneme blending |
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample: (SP+MP) vs. (FP);
|
5.43 |
2.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - first phoneme isolating subtest |
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample: (SP+MP) vs. (FP);
|
9.03 |
7.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - phoneme segmenting subtest |
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample: (SP+MP) vs. (FP);
|
1.40 |
0.30 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - phoneme blending |
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs. Intervention |
0 Weeks |
(SP) vs. (FP);
|
5.70 |
2.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - partial phoneme segmenting |
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
(SP) vs. (FP);
|
8.30 |
3.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - first phoneme isolating subtest |
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
(MP) vs. (FP);
|
9.20 |
7.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - phoneme segmenting subtest |
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
(MP) vs. (FP);
|
1.90 |
0.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - phoneme blending |
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
(MP) vs. (FP);
|
5.10 |
2.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - phoneme segmenting subtest |
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
(SP) vs. (FP);
|
1.00 |
0.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - partial phoneme segmenting |
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Aggregated sample: (SP+MP) vs. (FP);
|
8.08 |
3.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - first phoneme isolating subtest |
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
(SP) vs. (FP);
|
8.90 |
7.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - partial phoneme segmenting |
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
(MP) vs. (FP);
|
7.80 |
3.10 |
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: 51%
Male: 49% -
- 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
Wyoming
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in two childcare centers in Laramie, Wyoming. The two centers served a middle-class neighborhood and that each had an enrollment of 100 infants, toddlers, and preschoolers.
Study sample
According to the study authors, no demographic data were collected. However, the research team observed that most of the participating children were White with English as a first language. The mean age of participants was five years one month and ranged from four years to five years eleven months.
Intervention Group
The intervention condition in this review is an aggregation of the author-reported syllable plus multiple phoneme tasks (SP) condition and the multiple phoneme tasks without syllables (MP) condition. Intervention sessions were twenty-five to thirty minutes, twice per week. Students in the syllable plus multiple phoneme tasks (SP) condition received two weeks of syllable tasks followed by four weeks of multiple phoneme tasks, whereas students in the multiple phoneme tasks without syllables (MP) condition received only four weeks of multiple phoneme tasks. Specifically, syllable plus multiple phoneme tasks (SP) condition students were taught syllable blending and segmenting for two weeks (four sessions) prior to receiving phoneme awareness instruction. Any child who scored less than five out of ten at midpoint on a criterion probe were given additional instruction. Children who scored seven out of ten or less at the final session of the initial four sessions did not proceed into the phoneme phase of instruction. For the four weeks of phoneme instruction for both syllable plus multiple phoneme tasks (SP) condition and multiple phoneme tasks without syllables (MP) condition students, instruction addressed phoneme isolating, blending, and segmenting.
Comparison Group
The first phoneme tasks only (FP) condition serves as the comparison condition which addressed only first phoneme tasks (e.g., generating, isolating, and matching). Sessions were twenty-five to thirty minutes twice per week for four weeks. At the two-week mark, students who met criterion (i.e., a score of ten out of ten on first phoneme isolating) graduated from treatment and waited two weeks for post-testing. Children in the Syllable plus Multiple Phoneme (SP) condition and Multiple Phoneme condition (MP) also participated in the first phoneme tasks.
Support for implementation
Three instructors provided instruction (the second, third, and fourth authors of the study) and the first author trained the other authors. Training included observing demonstrations, viewing videotapes, role-playing, and teaching pilot children from the university preschool. Instruction sessions were conducted in isolated areas of the childcare centers.
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).