Mia Johnson 1

What effect does speech impairment have on the development of phonemic awareness?

Mia JohnsonRE 5725

November 2005

Mia Johnson 2

What effect does speech impairment have on the development of phonemic awareness?

Interest and Summary

As a first grade classroom teacher, my goal is to provide students with appropriate

strategies to become successful readers. In a classroom consisting of 22 students at

different stages of reading development, it is obvious that various strategies must be

utilized. The dynamics of my classroom are vastly different than in my past years of

teaching. This year I have 7 students being served by our speech pathologist. 5 of those

students are also pulled out for services in reading through the Exceptional Children’s

Program. Of the 7 speech disabled students, 5 are being treated for articulation disorders

including /r/, /l/, /th/, and l blends. The remaining students are served for language

delays. My interest in speech impairment and its effect on phonemic awareness stems

from struggling to find effective strategies to teach these specific students.

During my initial search for research on this subject, I found many studies

showing the importance of phonemic awareness as a predictor of reading success. These

articles were beneficial in helping become more comfortable with terms and processes

involved in developing phonemic awareness in beginning readers. Although, there were

many studies demonstrating the importance of phonemic awareness, few studies

highlighted the students with speech impairments.

Utilizing the speech pathologist and exceptional children’s teachers, I was able to

look more specifically at the developmental processes of speech as a separate component

and compare those to the development of phonemic awareness.

Mia Johnson 3

Researched based literature stresses the importance of the partnership and

collaboration of the speech pathologist and regular education teacher. According to

Justice et, al, early literacy screenings are crucial to providing at-risk students intense

intervention in early literacy and speech programs to prevent reading failure. Early

intervention is promoted through Nittrouer’s study, proving that students that lack

language exposure before coming to school are more likely to struggle in reading tasks.

Once early identification is made and students are identified as speech impaired, the

nature of their impairment is fundamental.

Once the impairment is identified and a plan is put in place, intense intervention

in phonemic awareness is suggested by Gillion, following her research comparing

traditional and intense intervention on speech impaired students. Intervention by the

speech pathologist was proven to be the most beneficial, according to Hesketh in her

follow-up studies of the previously identified speech impaired.

Because phonemic awareness was credited throughout my readings as the main

predictor of reading success in young children, I was curious as to the research to prove

this statement. After reading Scholes’ article, The Case Against Phonemic Awareness,

where his hypothesis was proven through a study he conducted using university students,

I began to see phonemic awareness as a part to a whole. My realization continued as I

read Norris and Hoffman’s article on phonemic awareness developing holistically on a

continuum. Phonemic awareness can be taught explicitly and in some severe cases must

be presented in an intense program; however, much of the research I read indicated that

phonemic awareness embedded in a thorough phonics program would result in gains for

at risk speech impaired students. Buchheit’s longitudinal study of college level students,

Mia Johnson 4

identified and treated for articulation disorders, proved no long term affect on reading

success as adults. This study, along with others proves the importance of early

intervention in speech impaired students.

The intervention methods throughout my readings all indicate phonemic

awareness as an essential key component in that intervention. It is also evident that there

must be collaboration between the speech pathologist and regular education teacher.

Although collaboration is important, my role as the classroom teacher is to provide my

speech impaired students with many opportunities to develop phonemic awareness.

Students with speech impairments or articulation disorders are capable of mastering

phonemic awareness, although intense intervention through explicit training may be

necessary. Articulation disorders do not prevent students from developing phonemic

awareness; however, it may slow down the process. The impact of intervention in

addition to regular classroom reading education for speech impaired students is needed to

ensure reading success.

Mia Johnson 5

Gillon, Gail T. (2000) The Efficacy of Phonological Awareness Intervention for Children With Spoken Language Impairment. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, Vol. 31, 126-141.

According to Gillion, “phonological awareness is considered a crucial link

between spoken and written language” (2000, p. 126). Students with speech language

impairments have shown to “perform poorly on measures of phonological awareness”

(Gillion, 2000, p. 126). Although many studies have shown gains, post-intervention of

phonological awareness, few have involved students with speech language impairments.

This study was aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of phonological intervention on

students with speech impairments and to measure any transfer effects to word recognition

and reading comprehension.

The study looks at three forms of phonological intervention and the effects on

students with speech language impairments. The phonological intervention took place in

two 1-hour individual sessions for a total of 20 hours. Children were treated at the

University of Cantebury, by a speech pathologist or other qualified researcher with

intense phonological awareness strategies. The traditional intervention group received

two 1-hour individual therapy sessions for a total of 20 hours. The focus for this group

was on traditional speech interventions such as articulation of target sounds in isolation

and basic sound production. The third group of students received minimal interventions

with consultations once a month by a speech pathologist with the teacher or parent of the

child. Strategies were given to improve speech production. The researchers

hypothesized that speech language students exposed to phonological interventions would

make more gains in reading than those speech language students involved in traditional

and minimal intervention programs.

Mia Johnson 6

Ninety-one diversely economic students between ages of 5.6 and 7.6 were

involved in this study. Sixty-one students were identified as having speech language

impairments, 23 in the intense phonological group, 23 in the traditional group, and 15 in

the minimal intervention group. The remaining thirty students made up the control group

that received regular education. All students were given a pre-test which showed

substantial differences in reading ability and lack of phonological awareness in students

with speech language impairments in comparison to regular education students. After 4.5

months of interventions, a post test was administered measuring gains in phonological

awareness and reading ability.

The results of the post-test proved the researchers’ hypothesis correct. The

intense phonological intervention group made significant gains from pre-test to post-test

in phonological awareness, making more growth than the traditional intervention,

minimal intervention, and control groups. This group also made more growth than the

minimal intervention group in onset-rime measures and more growth than the traditional

intervention group on syllabic level measures. Gillion added that “children in the

phonological awareness intervention was greater than control groups for word

recognition skills, reading and comprehending connected text, and non word decoding

ability. There was no difference between the improvement of Groups 2 (traditional) and

3 (minimal) on any reading measures (135).” In addition to the improvements made by

the phonological awareness group in reading skills, gains were also noted in speech

production

Following the pre-test, interventions, and post-test, the data was investigated

using the profile of five children involved in the study. The five children profiled had the

Mia Johnson 7

lowest speech productions measures. This study showed that these students made gains

and that “phonological awareness intervention had positive effects on both the speech

production and phonological awareness abilities for all five children. Transfer effects to

reading performance were also evident in four of these children. (136)”

In conclusion, the findings in this study prove that phonological intervention is

key in making progress for students with speech impairments. All students receiving

some form of intervention will make gains, however significant gains were noted

throughout this study in word recognition, reading comprehension, and speech production

as a result of phonological awareness intervention. These gains were also noted to

transfer in a small sample group. It should be noted that more research in transfer effects

is needed to enhance the results of this study.

Education is about finding ways to enable all children to learn to the best of their

ability. Children with speech impairments can be at risk readers if phonological

interventions are not put into place, according to Catts and Kamhi (1999) and Vellutino et

al. (1996). Through this study, educators can see that advocating for students with

speech language impairments to receive intense phonological intervention is key for

those students to make comparable gains in reading ability and speech production to

regular education students.

Mia Johnson 8

Gerber, Adele, Klein, Evelyn. (2004). A Speech-Language Approach to Early Reading Success. Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 36, 6, 8-14

“Extensive research has produced compelling evidence of a strong relationship

between phonological awareness and the acquisition of reading skills” (Gerber and Klein,

2004, p. 8). Speech pathologists, Gerber and Klein, took that evidence along with teacher

feedback and composed a Speech-Language Approach to teaching beginning readers that

differs from traditional approaches. The approach is centered from the speech language-

hearing discipline, experience, and research on beginning reading.

Caseloads of children with articulation delays and disorders prompted “intensive

training in speech-sound perception that enabled (those) children to develop a heightened

awareness of the difference between their error production and the corresponding

standard sound (Gerber and Klein, 2004, p. 8).” Within the Speech Language Approach,

children are exposed to two stages of intense training. The first stage is training

phonemic awareness of consonant-sound perception. The second stage is matching letter

to sound using systematic phonics. These stages are followed closely throughout the

program and effectiveness is noted.

In stage one, students are introduced to individual consonant sounds. Students are

guided through an intensive multi-sensory and repetitive process to obtain mastery of

these sounds. The targeted consonant sounds in isolation provide beginning readers

opportunity for recognition of the sound-letter correspondence in words, according to

Gerber and Klein (2004, p. 9). Stage two consist of four steps that progress through

matching letter-sounds to identifying beginning letters with corresponding words. This

stage takes, students to the next level of mastery.

Mia Johnson 9

The Speech-Language Approach was adopted by a school district with goals to

reduce the number of students with reading difficulties. The program was incorporated

into an extended-day tutorial program for first and second grade students. Qualifying

students scored below basic level on initial reading assessments. These students were

divided into groups of 5, per one classroom teacher. They met in one-half hour sessions,

three times a week for a total of one and one-half hours from October to February for

intense instruction based on the Speech-Language Approach. Students were given a pre-

test, mid-year test, and post-test to track progress.

The data collected shows that progress was made in all areas for the first and

second grade groups. Of the 31 first grade students involved, 100% increased from

below basic level to proficient level in 7 of the 12 tested subgroups. 100% of the first

grade students went from below basic to basic level in the remaining 5 subgroups.

Similar results were shown in the second grade group with 100% of the 7 second grade

students moving from below basic to proficient on half of the subgroups and the

remainder of the subgroups showing gains from below basic to basic level.

Conclusively, this article demonstrates the effectiveness of a Speech-Language

Approach for at-risk readers in first and second grade. This program was proven

effective with reported gains in one area school district. Gerber and Klein support their

revised program by stating, “Failure in response to conventional phonics instruction is

frequently due to attempts to match the abstract form of a letter to a sound that is not

perceived.” They go one to say that “phonemic awareness development is critical to the

speech-language pathologist’s methods of treating articulation disorders. To heighten

discrimination between a defective and a standard production of a speech sound, the

Mia Johnson 10

phoneme is removed from the surrounding sounds in a word and presented in isolation.

(2004, p.9).”

Although gains were noted as a result of this program, only one school district

was involved. A control group was not used, therefore leaving speculation that the gains

could have been made regardless of the Speech-Language Approach. However, with

supported references and specific reasoning, the importance of intense training coming

from the speech language-hearing discipline was credited. This article reinforces the

importance of speech pathologists’ knowledge and involvement in phonemic awareness

development for at-risk readers.

Mia Johnson 11

Ramos-Sanchez, Jose Luis; Cuadrodo-Gordillo, Isabel. (2004) Influence of Spoken Language on the Initial Acquisition of Reading/Writing: Critical Analysis of Verbal Deficit Theory. Reading Pyschology. Vol. 25, 149-165.

“Language skills are related to reading and writing performance, since learning to

read and write is nothing but learning the spoken language in a written form (2004, p.

150).” Is reading difficulty caused by a deficit in language? The answer to this question

resulted in the research of the influence of spoken language on the ability to learn written

language. Ramos-Sanchez and Cuadrodo-Gordillo proceeded with their study of that

question upon establishing that students to be involved must be in the pre-reading stages

and show no reading difficulties.

This study was designed with two sets of comparison groups. One comparison

group was exposed to a speech language program and the other group received traditional

classroom instruction. Both groups within this comparison had a focus on language. The

second set of comparison groups was exposed to the same variables with a focus on

reading and writing performance. The results of each comparison group was then

evaluated to show the effects of spoken language on the development on learning written

language.

The study involved 48 students, 24 student for the control groups and 24 students

for the experimental groups. These students ranged in age from 5 years 4 months to 6

years 3 months and were served in schools surrounding middle-class urban areas. The

groups were equal in gender and parental educational levels. Each group of students was

given the same evaluation instruments before and after they received instruction.

The students were assessed in reading, writing, articulation, vocabulary, auditory

memory, and phonological awareness. Each of these evaluation instruments provided

Mia Johnson 12

necessary information regarding student reading readiness. Following the initial

evaluations the researchers met with classroom teachers to randomly select the control

groups.

The Spoken Language Program began once both sets of groups were established

and the materials and scheduling were set. The classrooms for each group were set up

with “similar materials: good lighting, sound and spatial conditions, workbooks available

for the pupils, motivational posters and pictures, a reading corner or books and magazines

with pictures, etc. (2004 p.156).” There were no added materials for the Spoken

Language Program.

The experimental groups were provided with specific systematic instruction for

30 minutes four days a week from November to May. The focus for instruction was on

phonological awareness for the first term and phonemic awareness the second and third

term. The control group was provided with instruction, activities, and regularly

scheduled lessons provided by the regular education teacher with no specific instruction

in the Spoken Language Program.

Following the implementation of the program, the evaluation instruments were

given to the same students, under the same conditions to measure gains. As a result of

this study, researchers found that there was “no influence on improvements of the

language skills of the group of pupils to whom it (Spoken Language Program) was

applied (Ramos-Sanchez and Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2004 p.158).” The researchers also

noted that “the principal conclusion that we draw from the analyses is that there exists no

causal relationship between initial reading/writing performance and the language

variables that have traditionally been regarded as important in facilitating the learning of

Mia Johnson 13

reading/writing (vocabulary, articulation, and auditory memory). The exception was

phonemic awareness which was found to have a strong causal relationship with writing

simple words (Ramos-Sanchez and Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2004 p.159).” These finding led

the researchers to conclude the most important predictors of reading success is phonemic

awareness and alphabet knowledge.

This study proved the relationship of spoken language and learning written

language was not correlated as a whole. However, when broken down into the

individually evaluated variables, phonemic awareness was the only variable that could be

held as a predictor of reading and writing success. Classroom teachers, must take this

information and teach phonemic awareness while exposing students to the other variables

as well. Although no gains were noted higher in the control groups in comparison to the

experimental groups, the variables were maintained in each group. Therefore, in order

for students to maintain and acquire language, reading and writing skills, they must be

exposed to other components that build on phonemic awareness.

Mia Johnson 14

Justice, Laura M.; Invernizzi, Marcia A.; Meier, Joanne D. (2002). Designing and Implementing an Early Literacy Screening Protocol: Suggestions for the Speech-Language Pathologist. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. Vol. 33, 2, 84-101.

The partnership of the speech pathologist and classroom teacher is crucial in the

development of early literacy success in students with speech impairments. Justice, et al.

looks at the predictors of early literacy success and makes the case for designing and

implementing screenings to prevent and be proactive when it comes to reading

difficulties in children. Throughout the article, rationale is provided in support of setting

protocol for early literacy screening.

“Early literacy knowledge is strongly and reciprocally influenced by children’s

oral language proficiency. Children with specific language impairment and children with

phonological disorders, are at increased risk for delayed attainment of requisite early

literacy skills (Justice, et al., 2004, p. 84).” When children enter kindergarten or first

grade they are involved in instruction that requires pre-requisite language skills to be in

place. The children that are not able to perform at the pace of the class in the reading

curriculum are more likely to have ongoing problems in literacy development. Early

literacy screening would assist in identifying these students so that interventions could be

provided.

Researched based literature has provided information on key variables that can be

used as early literacy predictors. Studies represented in that research “indicates that

measures of phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, letter-sound knowledge, and

other elements of early literacy-collected when children are between the ages of 3 and 5

or 6 years of age-serve as robust predictors of children’s later literacy achievement

Mia Johnson 15

(Justice, et al., 2002 p.85).” These variables should be part of the early literacy screening

protocol. Written language awareness, literacy motivation, and home literacy should also

be included as targets used to construct an instrument that provides general information

regarding a child’s early literacy skills.

School districts in the nation are experimenting with early literacy screening. An

area in Virginia, has screenings in place as a proactive model. Children entering

kindergarten are screened with a comprehensive early literacy skills test. Speech

pathologist and teachers were involved in the screening of 88% of kindergarten students.

The students that did not perform at standard on specific skills were identified and

provided intense early literacy instruction. Following those students for one year,

provided the researchers with the information that the intense instruction did enhance

their literacy skills for their kindergarten year. Although, this was just one study, many

school districts are moving towards early literacy screening.

The need for early literacy screening is vast, although there are some

contradicting views. Justice, et al. states, “problems that are specifically phonological in

nature do not necessarily place a child at risk for later literacy problems, however,

children exhibiting severe phonological impairment are at substantially greater risk for

literacy problems than children with more moderate impairments (2004, p. 86).” It is

also noted that several studies are contradicting in that some suggest students with

communicative impairments will not suffer literacy problems, while others show

evidence indicating that children with sound production problems may have difficulty

obtaining early literacy skills. Early literacy screening is needed, but it should be viewed

as only a “snapshot” of what a child is capable of learning in terms of literacy.

Mia Johnson 16

Before implementing an early literacy screening, several features should be

included to ensure the instrument is valid and reliable. Psychometric quality will

provide construct validity, comprehensiveness will make certain that all areas crucial to

literacy development are tested, and sensitivity should be included to differentiate the

children who are being tested.

Early literacy screening is a proactive way to provide students with the tools they

need to be successful readers from the beginning of their school career. Students entering

school should be screened and identified for any literacy difficulties, especially those

students who are at risk due to speech language impairments, home literacy background,

and literacy motivation. Proactive educators ensure that students are offered

interventions if needed to prevent frustrations and failures in reading. Early literacy

screenings are a crucial tool that would enhance the proactive process.

Mia Johnson 17

Scholes, Robert J.. (1998) The case against phonemic awareness. Journal Research in Reading. Vol. 21, 3, 177-188.

Strategies to teach reading have been on a paradigm over time. The whole-

language approach has been compared to the phonetic approach with varied results.

Researchers have dually noted the effectiveness of both approaches, however, in this

article a case was made against phonemic awareness.

To better understand the case against phonemic awareness, several definitions of

reading were given. Some researchers believe reading is “the ability to sound out strings

of letters (Scholes, 1998, p. 179).” While others believe that reading is “comprehending

written language (Scholes, 1998, p. 179).” This definition in correlation with the

definition of phonemic awareness, which is “ability to isolate and manipulate sounds,”

provides Scholes the foundation to form his hypothesis that phonemic awareness is not a

precursor to reading success.

The question formulated from this ongoing debate, is which concept causes the

other. Meaning is phonemic awareness the cause of reading success or does reading and

alphabetic knowledge result in a good understanding of phonemic awareness. The third

position, could indicate that reading and phonemic awareness are independent of one

another. Scholes, conducted a small study to prove his hypothesis and case against

phonemic awareness.

A small-scale study was utilized in a letter/sound deletion test often used to assess

phonemic awareness in beginning readers. The group tested consisted of 70 literate,

university students. The students were asked to delete specific sounds and record the

new word in written form. 90% of the students were successful in tasks consisting of one

Mia Johnson 18

to one spelling-sound correspondence. However, in contrast to that success rate, only

12% of the college-level students were able to delete and reproduce a new word when

there was no correspondence in the spelling of the word and the deleted sound.

The results of this study indicate that phonemic awareness can be associated with

the acquisition of alphabetic knowledge in regards to spelling and not the aural part of

spoken language. The deletion in task two, shows that students wrote the new word

based on the deletion in the spelling of the word, but made an incorrect pronunciation of

the word. Although it appears that phonemic awareness is more critical to written

language than reading, it can be argued that the English language does not lend itself to

phonemic awareness being a precursor to that skill.

Some argue that since speech precedes written language, phonemic awareness

plays an important role in spelling and writing. Scholes argues, that “spelling ought to

reflect speech; that is there should be correspondences between letters and sound (1998,

p. 184).” He continues to prove his hypothesis stating that written language is consistent

with many spelling rules, while the spoken English language can vary in dialect. He

states that “writing utilize(s) a number of ways of signaling and function that have no

counterparts in speech (1998 p. 187).”

Scholes is adamant in speaking against phonemic awareness as a contributor to

reading success. He shares examples of adult students that are non-readers gaining

reading skills without specific phonics instruction. He argues that phonemic awareness

was not explicitly taught, although the illiterate adults became readers through immersion

in spoken language and alphabetic knowledge.

Mia Johnson 19

The conclusion of Scholes’ small-scale study demonstrates many positions of how

phonemic awareness is developed and its importance on reading and writing success.

The first position, stating that phonemic awareness is a precursor to reading was

disproved by Scholes study in students that did not receive explicit phonics instruction

still gaining skills to become readers. The second position, immersion and mastery of

alphabetic principle, is backed up as Scholes shows that adult learners were able to

become literate without begin exposed to phonemic awareness. The third position, shows

that phonemic awareness and reading are unrelated as the native non-alphabetic script

languages can be learned without specific phonemic instruction.

Scholes proved his case against phonemic awareness. The importance of

phonemic awareness, however, was demonstrated throughout the article as it was

mentioned as part of developing reading and writing skills. Although Scholes does not

agree that phonemic awareness is the precursor to reading and writing success, the

evidence provided shows that phonemic awareness is a contributing factor. Phonemic

awareness cannot be taught as an inclusive phonics program. Other components must be

integrated including alphabetic knowledge, spelling rules, immersion in spoken language

and literature to have an effective reading program.

Mia Johnson 20

Nittrouer, Susan. (1996). The Relation between Speech Perception and Phonemic Awareness: Evidence From Low-SES Children and Children with Chronic OM. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. Vol. 39, 1059-1070.

“Through months and years of listening and speaking in one’s native language, a

child gradually learns how to weight acoustic information so that phonetic structure can

be derived (Nittrouer, 1996, p.1060).” Studies support this statement; however, more

research was needed to find out if the amount of exposure to one’s native language

effected the development of phonemic awareness. To answer this question subjects with

varied linguistic experiences were administered a series of intervention strategies and

tests.

Researchers hypothesized that children with varied linguistic experiences would

show variations in phonemic awareness. Therefore, children with speech impairments

due to hearing difficulties which result in less linguistic experience would have less

phonemic awareness control. Children without speech or hearing impairments, but less

linguistic exposure would also have less phonemic awareness control than those students

with no impairments and average linguistic experience.

Specific groups with varied linguistic experiences were composed. Children from

a middle socioeconomic class with no impairments and children from a middle

socioeconomic class with a strong history of otitis media composed two groups. Chronic

otitis media in a low socioeconomic class of children and children of the same

socioeconomic class with no impairments composed the final two groups. These groups

were carefully selected with regards to medical backgrounds and household income.

Three of the four groups consisted of twelve children meeting specific

qualifications. The middle socioeconomic group with no impairments comprised the

Mia Johnson 21

control group with twelve subjects. The middle socioeconomic group with chronic otitis

media and the low socioeconomic group with no impairments consisted of twelve

subjects. The final group was consisted of only five qualifying children of low

socioeconomic group with chronic otitis media.

These students were given three pre-screenings measuring vocabulary, speech

ability, and reading skills. Following the initial screenings, the subjects were

administered two phonemic awareness tests consisting of phoneme deletion and initial

segment manipulation. Each of the tests was given in a sound controlled chamber to

eliminate other stimuli.

The results of this study proved that on the phonemic awareness tasks, children in

both low socioeconomic groups performed poorly in comparison to the middle

socioeconomic groups. When segregated into impairment groups, the groups with

chronic otitis media scored lower than their counterpart socioeconomic group. However,

the low socioeconomic groups performed similarly in the tasks.

It is evident through this study that the native language exposure is important to

the acquisition of phonemic awareness. “Two studies have shown that kindergartners

from low-SES homes have poorer phonemic awareness than those from mid-SES homes.

Another study showed that low-SES children fell progressively further behind mid-SES

children on phonemic awareness tasks and reading ability as they went though school

(Nittrouer 1996, p. 1062).” Nittrouer goes on to suggest that “there is a threshold on

how much linguistic experience is necessary for the normal development of speech and

language (1996, p. 1060).”

Mia Johnson 22

Although this study is not conclusive in stating the actual cause of the decreased

development of phonemic awareness, it can be deduced that lack of exposure to one’s

native language and interaction with sounds causes the deficit. “Low-SES parents are less

likely to respond to their children’s utterances than are mid-SES parents (Nittrouser, 1996

p. 1062).” The findings of this study highlight the importance of conversation and initial

language development for young children. Children with hearing or speech impairments

must be immersed in language to develop a foundation of phonemic awareness.

Mia Johnson 23

Adams, Marilyn J.. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. Bradford Books; London, England.

For children, learning to listen, speak, read, and write are all crucial to their

development. Each of those components in communication must be mastered in steps.

According to Marilyn Adams (1990), “ in speaking and listening, our attention is focused

on the task of comprehending, the task of making sense out of the collective, ordered

stream of words” (p.51). She continues by saying, “for the purposes of reading or

writing, however, children must pay attention to these units (phonemes and syllables)”

(p.51). Children do not attend to both purposes at one time.

Language development begins at birth as a child becomes aware of utterances and

phrases. This awareness increases to recognizing that words make up those phrases and

those words are made up of syllables. The understanding of phonemes, used in decoding

skills is the last to develop. Because this developmental progression goes from larger

units to smaller units, it is clear that parents and educators should expose young students

to print and language in their early years.

An awareness of phonemes is needed to read, write, and speak fluently. “Faced

with an alphabetic script, children’s levels of phonemic awareness on entering school

may be the single most powerful determinant of their success or failure in learning to

read” (Adams, 1990, p. 54). Phonemic awareness is not consciously developed.

Children who are absorbed in spoken language and print before entering school are more

likely to have control of phonemic awareness before learning to read.

Onsets and rimes are part of the development of phonemic awareness. Studies

show that “children are better at identifying the spelling of whole rimes than of individual

Mia Johnson 24

vowel sounds” (Adams, 1990, p. 56). When words are spoken, the individual units

cannot be broken down. It is not until reading and writing occurs that children are able to

see individual phonemes. This shows that children look to chunk or categorize words

when decoding them. They do this with rimes and are able to focus on the onset to easily

read or produce the word.

Phonemic awareness is an important component in learning to read. Although

phonemic awareness can be taught as an explicit skill, it is not recommended. In this

chapter, Adams shares that the awareness of phonemic development depends on an

association of letters and sounds being taught simultaneously. She goes on to say that

phonemic awareness does not happen at one time; it continues to develop through

adolescences.

There is no timeline for the development of phonemic awareness. Therefore,

some children are retained for the lack of mastery of phonemic awareness. Adams

suggests that this is not an appropriate effect because not all children come to school with

the same exposure to spoken and written language. Phonemic awareness develops slowly

and can develop alongside other skills such as word recognition as the child progresses

through school.

For those children that struggle to develop phonemic awareness, Adams says that

“explicit training of phonemic awareness is invaluable” (1990, p. 56). However,

programs that incorporate linguistic awareness games and activities can be used to

enhance that development. Students should not be given phonemic awareness tests to

determine retention; however, they must be given the opportunity develop that skill

through print and language exposure.

Mia Johnson 25

Primary classroom teachers have the charge of providing students a print rich

environment and exposing them to language in order to enhance the development of

phonemic awareness. Letters and sounds must be taught in correlation with one another.

Classroom teachers must also realize that not all children come to school with the same

linguistic experiences; therefore various levels of phonemic awareness will be evident in

a small group of children. Phonemic awareness is a crucial determinant of reading

success that develops at a different rate for all students.

Mia Johnson 26

Hesketh, Anne. (2004). Early literacy achievement of children with history of speech problems. International Journal of Langauge and Communication disorders. Vol. 30, 1, 453-468.

“A speech disorder may exist as a ‘pure’ condition in some children, but is

frequently accompanied by a broader language impairment, which is itself associated

with literacy problems” (Hesketh, 2004, p. 454). The question arises as to the effect of

speech disorders on the development of literacy. There are opposing views on the answer

to this question.

A study by Larivee and Catts found that there may be a correlation between

children with speech problems and their ability in early reading achievement. On the

other hand, Bishop and Adams’ study states that “that purely speech-disordered children

are not at risk for later literacy or academic problems” (Hesketh, 2004, p. 455). Due to

the conflicting view, speech therapist must accurately establish the effects of speech

disorders on reading success so as to use their intervention time effectively.

A study consisting of 61, 3.6-5.0 aged, children was used to gain an early profile

of children with speech disorders. The children were diagnosed with moderate to severe

speech disorders and received 10 speech/language therapy sessions emphasizing

production practice and metaphonological awareness. The children were tracked through

the therapy sessions and then revisited for the current study.

The current study took place when the children were 6.6 – 7.7 years of age. The

children were tested with the Phonological Assessment Battery (Hesketh, 2004, p. 457).

Individual skills such as alliteration, rhyme; non-word reading, digit-naming speed, and

fluency were tested within this assessment. Data was collected from the tests and

compared to the results of the initial test.

Mia Johnson 27

The results of this study showed that all subjects “made progress in speech,

including some of the most severely affected on original identification” (Hesketh, 2004,

p. 458).” Researchers hypothesized that the different therapy sessions: metaphonological

and production practice would appear in the results of the current study. These finding

were not found to be true. Specifically looking at rhyme matching and onset

segmentation, there was little difference in the gain in either group.

Of the 35 children tracked throughout both studies only 2 children fell below

average on the final assessment. When looking at the results of the earlier study,

researchers found that using that information as a predictor of early reading success

would be false. Results of the current study show that all children made progress.

However, the researchers still conclude that phonemic awareness is the best predictor of

early reading success.

As a result of these two correlated studies, Hesketh encourages more research to

be completed. There are many studies that show predictors of early reading success in

students with speech language disorders. There are also many studies that show those

predictors to only hold true to the most severe cases. More research is needed ensure that

speech language disorders are diagnosed early. Speech language pathologist must begin

intervention early to ensure optimistic outcomes of interventions. Although the

intervention must take place early, the severity of the speech disorder is not a predictor on

the success of the intervention.

Students with speech language disorders in primary classrooms must receive

regular education opportunities, however, it is crucial that they also receive intense

intervention focused on their needs. The students would be best served if disorders were

Mia Johnson 28

detected in preschool years where individual plans could be put in place. Educators of

these students must work together to provide the needed services so that reading success

is attainable.

Mia Johnson 29

Torgesen, Joseph K.; Wagner, Richard K.; Rashotte, Carol A.; Rose, Elaine; Lindamood, Patricia; Conway, Tim; Garvan, Cyndi. (2005). Preventing Reading Failure in Young Children with Phonological Processing Disabilities: Group and Individual Responses to Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology. In Press.

Instructional conditions can play a crucial role in reading development as well as

prevention of reading disabilities of at-risk young students. “Perhaps the most important

single conclusion about reading disabilities is that they are more commonly caused by

weaknesses in the ability to process the phonological features of language” (Togesen et,

al. p. 2). The instructional presentation of phonemic awareness strategies administered

to children identified as at-risk readers before reading instruction begins could be the

most effective form of reading disability prevention. In this study, Torgesen and

colleagues pose a goal to answer that question. The study focuses on a way “to examine

the effectiveness of several instructional procedure for a specific subset of children who

are at-risk for reading difficulties; those who enter school delayed in the development of

phonological skill” (Togesen et, al. p. 2).

Three instructional procedures were contrasted in order to identify the most

effective for developing phonological skills in at-risk students. Two of the three

approaches were constructed based on the research that states, “children with

phonological processing weaknesses must receive direct instruction in phonemic

decoding strategies” (Torgesen et, al. p. 3). The first mentioned approach, phonemic

awareness approach, focused on providing students with the maximum, direct instruction

of phonemic decoding skills. The second instructional strategy, embedded phonics

group, emphasized phonemic reading skills with context clues, mixing word and text

Mia Johnson 30

level instruction. The final approach consisted of one on one tutoring that mimicked the

instructional strategies of the students’ regular classroom teachers.

Participants in the study were prescreened using the Letter Naming, Phoneme

Elision task, and Verbal Intelligence tests to qualify for the study. Of the 413

kindergarten aged students, 180 qualified scoring the lowest on Letter Naming and

Phoneme Elision tasks as well as obtaining a score below 75 on the Verbal Intelligence

test. The qualifying group consisted of equal gender and diverse race. These students

were randomly placed in one of the three groups: phonological awareness group,

embedded phonics group, and the regular classroom support group. A control group with

no treatment was also added. These students were given a series of pre-test including:

phonological awareness, verbal short-term memory, rapid automatic naming ability, rapid

object and letter naming. They were also administered general verbal and non-verbal

ability measures. A home literacy questionnaire was sent to parents along with an

inventory sent to classroom teachers. This data was scored, analyzed, and filed for

reference throughout the study.

During the two and one-half year study, participants were exposed to “four, 20

minutes sessions of one-to-one instruction per week beginning in the second semester of

kindergarten” (Togesen et, al. p. 5). The instruction was administered by certified

teachers trained as tutors and aides, rotating every two tutoring sessions. Students

involved in phonological awareness group “received Auditory Discrimination in Depth

Program as developed and outlined by Patricia and Charles Lindamood” (Togesen et, al.

p. 7). The embedded phonics program focused on recognizing small groups of words

through games, drill, letter-sound activities, as well as sentence reading and writing. The

Mia Johnson 31

final group was exposed to instruction that was similar to the classroom instruction of

their regular teacher. The instruction was consistent and maintained for four consecutive

semesters, ending when the students were in second grade.

Throughout the study, 5 tests were given to all groups. The final tests were

compared with the pre-tests and ongoing tests. The data was analyzed closely and broken

down into several measures that showed no significant difference in those groups

provided with some type of phonological instruction. However, it did show that the

regular education tutoring showed less growth in phonological development. The

researchers’ overall statement of data was that “given the right instructional conditions, it

is quite possible to help even children with core phonological weaknesses acquire the

critical foundational skill in phonemic analysis and decoding that have been so strongly

associate with good reading outcomes in elementary school” (Torgesen et, al. p. 22).

The study was beneficial, but according to the researchers, it did have some

weaknesses. The data can be upheld as reliable, however, one must realize the

background information obtained by the participants varied as some were retained and

did not receive the same grade level instruction throughout the study. It was also noted

that the inconsistency of the tutors should be taken into consideration. The tutors,

although certified teachers, had no experience in the programs in which they were trained

to administer. These factors must be considered when looking at the reliability of this

study.

Students must be given explicit, intense phonics instruction to help reduce reading

failure. This instruction should be coupled with alphabetic principles as well as whole

word and text exposure. Educators must know their students ability and background

Mia Johnson 32

knowledge in order to provide them with the direct instruction appropriate to their

development.

Mia Johnson 33

Buchheit, Christine L.. (2003). Follow-Up of College Students with a History of Development Speech Disorders. School of Health Sciences of Duquesne University.

“The prevalence rate for phonological disorders among 3-11 year old children is

estimated to be about 7.5%; of these affected cases, 5% are considered articulation

impaired, with the remaining 2.5% diagnosed with a more severe phonological disorder”

(Buchheit, 2003, p. 1). The question emerges as to what effect these disorders have upon

growth in school and adulthood success. Many studies have been conducted to analyze

the growth in school, whereas this study takes a longitudinal look at the long term effects

on adulthood success rates of students with speech and articulation errors.

Long term studies that have been executed include a study that followed a group

of adolescent students in two specific subgroups. The articulation impaired subgroup

showed to have less adulthood impact than did the language impaired subgroup. A

second study proved that students diagnosed with “moderate to severe speech delay tend

to experience long-term and adverse consequences in speech, language, and academic

performance, specifically in adolescence and early adulthood” (Buchheit, 2003, p. 2).

“King, Jones, and Lasky performed the only study to date that has obtained follow-up

information about children with articulation verses phonological impairments” (Buchheit,

2003, p. 4). Results from that study showed that students with articulation disorders had

less overall problems, in contrast to the students with phonological impairments who

have a high rate of communication problems as adults. These studies are important the

current research, but must be examined with caution due to the reliability and validity of

the collection of the follow-up data.

Mia Johnson 34

The current study examines 32 college students. One half of the group was

diagnosed with articulation disorders as a child. The second half of the students had no

history of speech or language disorders. The subjects were interviewed and were

administered two prescreening inventories. They were given a hearing and oral-motor

evaluation. All subjects were successful in these measures. Each subject then

participated in several tests that were administered by the same assessment investigator.

The testing instruments used were: Fisher-Logemann Sentence Test of Articulation,

Conventional and Pseudo-Word Spelling Tests, Test of Achievement (Woodcock and

Johnson), Syllabification Task, Nonsense Word Reception, Expository Writing Task, and

subject interviews and surveys.

After all the tasks were complete, the scores were analyzed and compared based

on gender and speech language history. The gender comparison showed no significant

difference in any of the task. The two speech language history groups were then

compared on each individual task. The analysis of results showed “subjects performed

comparably on traditional and non-traditional measures that were selected to tax the

expressive and representational phonologic system” (Buchheit, 2003, p. 18). The subject

interviews and surveys were then examined to compare aspiration of goals, special

service needs and extra-curricular involvement of the two groups. All areas showed

comparable results in grade point average, credit hours taken, and extra-curricular

activities. Several students did utilize special services in college with writing, science,

and statistics support. These findings were not significant as noted by the researcher.

The results of this study conclude that students with residual articulation errors

are not adversely affected as adult learners. In comparison to a control group of peers,

Mia Johnson 35

college students with a history of articulation disorders and treatment therapy at a young

age performed at similar levels on tasks assessing phonologic systems. The subjects are

also comparable in social and emotional content. The overall “results are encouraging for

parents and speech-language pathologists who work with this population, since the

finding s suggest that , once the misarticulations are resolved, affected individuals are not

likely, as a group, to later display functionally important negative consequences in early

adulthood” (Buchheit, 2003, p. 26).

Continued longitudinal research is needed in the area of articulation and language

impaired students and their adulthood success and motivation. However, the importance

of early treatment of articulation errors in children is evident in the results of this study.

Treatment must occur in order for the students to overcome and resolve the errors in

order to be a successful student and life-long learner.

Mia Johnson 36

Hoffman, Paul R.; Norris, Janet A. (2002) Phonemic awareness: a complex developmental process. Topics in Language Disorders, Vol. 22, 2, 1-34.

According to Hoffman and Norris, it is recognized that phonemic awareness is

important to the processes of learning to read and spell, the exact nature of phonemic

awareness and its origins are poorly understood (Hoffman et, al. 2002, p.1). This article

looks at the Situational-Discourse Semantic model with a constellation model of teaching

phonemic awareness and its individual levels. The models are used to show the

developmental processes of phonemic awareness and how they emerge in children.

Rhyming words, identifying initial sounds and number of sounds in words are just

a few concepts used to measure phonemic awareness. Norris and Hoffman state,

“phonemic awareness is the ability to come consciously aware of the individual

phonemes or sounds within words” (2002, p. 2). The concepts used to identify phonemic

awareness in children are presented in various models to examine the developmental

steps beneficial to reading success.

Within the development of phonemic awareness three models best explain the

processes, according to Norris and Hoffman. The first model suggests that phonemic

awareness consist of various abilities that are interrelated, beginning in early years. The

second model explains that phonemic awareness “is shown to emerge developmentally

along a continuum, from early infancy through 7+ year” (Norris and Hoffman, 2002, p.

3). Children begin with listening to nursery rhymes and move onto reciting them and

then reading them. Each step along the continuum leads to understanding of the next

step. The final model shows why the continuum in the second model occurs with a focus

cognitive processing.

Mia Johnson 37

Within the three models, “phonemic awareness is a complex developmental

ability that children acquire only gradually when provided experiences and opportunities

to learn about the form of oral and written language” (Norris and Hoffman, 2002, p. 4).

Children must be provided with a print-rich environment, repeated exposure to nursery

rhymes and language, as well as adult reading models. These language experiences

expose children to many sources of phonemic awareness.

A continuum from holistic experiences to meta-linguistic knowledge sets the

framework of the Situational-Discourse Semantic Model. It illustrates that when children

are only a few months old, they attend to stimuli such as rhymes and pictures. As

children are exposed to repeated sounds and language they sort those sounds into

phonemic categories. Along the continuum in this model, children make the move from

listening to being an active participant through gesturing, visually tracking, and

vocalizing in response to language stimulus. As students cognitively process the

stimulus, they become aware of differentiating phonemic awareness from phrases to

words to letters to sounds. This moves the students forward in on the continuum.

Norris and Hoffman constructed a constellation model that is used to show how

the levels on the continuum can interact with one another. This is a multi-sensory

approach that occurs simultaneously as the students interact with language. They begin to

participate in whole events paying attention to acoustic features and meanings of words.

They continue to dissect words and transform meaning using deletions and additions of

parts and sounds. This encourages students to become more aware of the position of

phonemes in words, where they occur within syllables, and how to manipulate the

meaning.

Mia Johnson 38

“Some researchers believe that phonemic awareness is a skill that underlies and is

a prerequisite to reading, others believe a reciprocal relationship exists between learning

and the emergence of phonemic awareness” (Norris and Hoffman, 2002, p. 17). The

reciprocal approach mirrors the constellation method. The article highlights the

importance of exposure to print and language from an early age. It is suggested that left

to right directionality, print conventions, and concept of word will develop as children are

continually exposed to language, environmental print, and good reading models.

The Situational-Discourse Semantic continuum with relation to the constellation

model developed by Norris and Hoffman provide a clear example in which phonemic

develops in children. Conclusively it is stated, “that children who demonstrate good

phonemic awareness are those who have progressed through the sequences of

development… they are children who have mastered many of the levels of the

Situational-Discourse Semantic continuum” (Norris and Hoffman, 2002, p. 27).

According to Norris and Hoffman’s article, “it is not surprising that children who do well

on tests of phonemic awareness, particularly those measuring skills at the upper end of

the Situational-Discourse Semantic continuum, are better readers” (2002, p. 27).

The importance of phonemic awareness and its link to reading success is noted

throughout the article. However, the main focus is on the processes in which children

take to master that skill. Print-rich environment and exposure to oral and written

language at an early age are the key points to foster development in phonemic awareness.

It is apparent in the article that phonemic awareness does not develop in a step by step

progression, yet more holistically within a constellation network. Educators and care

Mia Johnson 39

takers must provide an array of opportunities to meet the multi-sensory needs of all

children at different phases of the continuum.

Mia Johnson 40

Castiglioni-Spalten, Maria; Ehir, Linnea C.. (2003). Phonemic Awareness Instruction: Contribution of Articulatory Segmentation to Novice Beginners’ Reading and Spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading. Vol. 7, 1, p. 25-52.

According to Castiglioni and Ehri, “phonemic awareness is centrally involved in

learning to read an alphabetic script, beginning readers need to learn how to distinguish

phonemes in spoken words and how they are linked to graphemes in the spellings of

words” (2003, p. 26). When children are taught the difficult task of segmenting words

into phonemes using gestures and pictorial markers, it is hypothesized that the reading

process will be more beneficial than other methods.

Castiglioni-Spalten and Ehir note that phonemic awareness instruction is an

important aspect in learning to read. A study was conducted “to isolate and examine the

effectiveness of teaching phonemic segmentation with articulatory pictures to novice

beginning readers” (Castiglioni-Spalten and Ehir, 2003, p. 26). Three groups were

formed, each receiving a different method of phonemic awareness instruction. One group

received the mouth treatment. This instruction was put together, “borrowing from the

Lindamood and Lindamood approach and also Elkonin’s procedure,” teaching mouth

pictures and gestures to segment words (Castiglioni-Spalten and Ehir, 2003, p. 26). The

ear method was taught to another group, allowing students to use blocks to segment

words. The final group received no specific instruction on phoneme segmentation.

After a pre-screening process, 45 students were accepted for the study: 29 females

and 16 males. The average age of the participants was 5 years 9 months. The subjects

were given a pre-test session, instruction in their assigned group and post test as part of

this study.

Mia Johnson 41

Once the pre-tests were analyzed, three groups were randomly selected so

instruction could begin. Students in the mouth group were taught using a specific

method. The instructor demonstrated and taught mouth positions (gesturing) when

specific sounds were produces. Following mastery of mouth positions, students were

given pictures corresponding to mouth positions and sounds. They were taught to

segment words by placing illustrations with letters in correct sequences, while using a

mirror to form the sounds with their mouths, gesturing. Students were involved in this

training for 3-6 weeks, 20-30 minute sessions per day.

The ear method group was instructed using blocks with pictures, illustrating one

ear. The students were taught to segment words by tapping the blocks according to sound

and number of different sounds they heard during instruction. No articulatory pictures

were used in this condition. Once students obtained need training, direct instruction on

this method ended.

The final group received no explicit instruction. They remained in the regular

education classes during training sessions and were not exposed to phonemic awareness

or reading instruction during the this time.

Following the scripted instruction for the two experimental groups, two post-tests

were administered. One was given one day after instruction commenced and the other a

week later. The post-tests were given by assessors that were not aware of the explicit

training provided to the students. The data was analyzed and the researchers concluded

that the mouth and ear conditions were successful in teaching phoneme segmentation.

With further investigation, the results showed no significant difference in the mastery of

segmentation between the two experimental groups. However, it was noted that although

Mia Johnson 42

both groups showed comparable transfer in spelling, more mouth conditioned students

proved successful in transferring segmentation in reading. Throughout the study, time of

instruction and behavior management was examined closely. Consistency was

maintained between the two groups.

Phoneme segmentation is an important aspect of phonemic awareness and

developing reading skills. However, the method to teach phoneme segmentation is not

notably significant in this study, disproving the researchers’ hypothesis. Researchers

explained that, “ear training procedure may have taught some articulatory awareness. Ear

students were required to articulate the separate sounds in words” (Castiglioni-Spalten

and Ehir, 2003, p. 44). Reading teachers are aware of various methods of instruction and

should utilize the methods that are best suited for their students. Although the study was

inconclusive as to the reason one method did not outperform another, it is clear that

phoneme segmentation coupled with articulation instruction proves to be beneficial to

reading development in beginning novice readers.

Mia Johnson 43

Bibliography

Adams, Marilyn J.. (1990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. Bradford Books; London, England.

Buchheit, Christine L.. (2003). Follow-Up of College Students with a History of Development Speech Disorders. School of Health Sciences of Duquesne University.

Castiglioni-Spalten, Maria; Ehir, Linnea C.. (2003). Phonemic Awareness Instruction: Contribution of Articulatory Segmentation to Novice Beginners’ Reading and Spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading. Vol. 7, 1, p. 25-52.

Gerber, Adele, Klein, Evelyn. (2004). A Speech-Language Approach to Early Reading Success. Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 36, 6, 8-14

Gillon, Gail T. (2000) The Efficacy of Phonological Awareness Intervention for Children With Spoken Language Impairment. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, Vol. 31, 126-141.

Hesketh, Anne. (2004). Early literacy achievement of children with history of speech problems. International Journal of Langauge and Communication disorders. Vol. 30, 1, 453-468.

Hoffman, Paul R.; Norris, Janet A. (2002) Phonemic awareness: a complex developmental process. Topics in Language Disorders, Vol. 22, 2, 1-34.

Justice, Laura M.; Invernizzi, Marcia A.; Meier, Joanne D. (2002). Designing and Implementing an Early Literacy Screening Protocol: Suggestions for the Speech-Language Pathologist. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. Vol. 33, 2, 84-101.

Nittrouer, Susan. (1996). The Relation between Speech Perception and Phonemic Awareness: Evidence From Low-SES Children and Children with Chronic OM. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. Vol. 39, 1059-1070.

Ramos-Sanchez, Jose Luis; Cuadrodo-Gordillo, Isabel. (2004) Influence of Spoken Language on the Initial Acquisition of Reading/Writing: Critical Analysis of Verbal Deficit Theory. Reading Pyschology. Vol. 25, 149-165.

Scholes, Robert J.. (1998) The case against phonemic awareness. Journal Research in Reading. Vol. 21, 3, 177-188.

Mia Johnson 44

Torgesen, Joseph K.; Wagner, Richard K.; Rashotte, Carol A.; Rose, Elaine; Lindamood, Patricia; Conway, Tim; Garvan, Cyndi. (2005). Preventing Reading Failure in Young Children with Phonological Processing Disabilities: Group and Individual Responses to Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology. In Press.