Phonological Awareness, Reading and Spelling

1. Phonological Awareness, Reading and Spelling Sharon Walpole University of Delaware

2. Essential Questions • Do you have adequate understanding of the role of phonological awareness in word recognition and spelling? • Does your reading program include adequate attention to instruction in phonological awareness? • Does your reading program include a sensible plan for phonological awareness assessment? • Does your reading program include adequate attention to intervention in phonological awareness?

5. Source: The Literacy Dictionary (IRA)

6. Levels of Phonological Awareness

7. As you think about instruction you are seeing in your schools, what strengths and weaknesses can you see? To what extent is instruction honoring the developmental levels?

8. How is it that skilled readers recognize words? How is it that novice readers acquire word recognition skills?

9. Skillful Reading: Q and A (Adams)

10. The Reading System (Adams) Reading Writing Speech Context Processor Meaning Processor Orthographic Processor Phonological Processor

11. phocks

12. phocks This false spelling illustrates a case in which the orthographic processor cannot help the reader locate a meaningful match in memory. The phonological processor, however, can make the match.

13. Simple View of Reading Reading Comprehension = Decoding x Listening Comprehension (a poor reader is either a poor decoder, a weak comprehender, or both)

14. Key Research Conclusions • Phonemic awareness is critical to learning to decode. • Success in learning to decode during first grade is critical. • Struggling readers need to be motivated to read and need attention to development of listening comprehension.

15. Other Evidence (lots of it)Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte (1994) Phonological processing skills before reading instruction begins predict later reading achievement. Training in phonological awareness and letter-sounds enhances growth in word reading. Older good and poor readers have different phonological processing skills. When we measure different phonological skills, we find them correlated. Phonological awareness in kindergarten is causally related to decoding in first grade.

16. What implications do these ideas have for your reading program?

17. Phonemes: 25 consonant (Gillon)

18. 16 Vowel Phonemes (Gillon)

19. Phoneme Counting

20. Activities sort. There are six phonological awareness activities listed, with three examples of each (easy, moderate, difficult). First, group the samples with the name. Then put them in order by difficulty.

21. Phonological Awareness Activities

22. Phonological Awareness Activities

23. National Reading Panel Report General question: What do we know about phonemic awareness instruction with sufficient confidence to recommend for classroom use?

24. Findings PA training improves phonemic awareness. PA training improves decoding. PA training improves spelling. PA training improves comprehension. PA training works for pre-K, K, 1 and older disabled readers. PA training works with high- and low-SES children. PA training does not improve spelling for reading-disabled students.

25. PA training works in English and in other languages. Many different activities can be used in the trainings; a focus on one or two skills appears more effective than more. Blending and segmenting are most powerful. Using letters in training is better than not using them. Overlearning letter names, letter shapes, and sounds should be emphasized along with PA training.

26. Between 5 and 18 hours yielded the strongest effects. Longer programs were less effective (but the panel cautioned against making “rules” about time). Regular classroom teachers can effectively implement the training. Small groups were more effective than whole class or tutoring. PA training does not improve spelling for reading-disabled students.

27. So what are we doing with what we know? • Choose and use instructional programs and approaches that develop phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge in kindergarten and first grade. Research program reviews. http://reading.uoregon.edu/curricula/or_rfc_review_2.php Consider program demands against local resources: people, time, money.

28. So what are we doing with what we know? • Choose and use assessments to monitor progress of all children in phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge. Consider curriculum-embedded assessments, used to inform instruction and pacing, and outside assessments, used to provide normative information.

29. So what are we doing with what we know? • Choose and use assessments to screen kindergarteners and first graders for risk in phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge. http://idea.uoregon.edu/assessment/index.html

30. So what are we doing with what we know? • Choose and use intervention programs for those children who are at-risk in the area of phonological awareness or alphabet knowledge. Research program reviews. http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/SIreport.php http://www.fcrr.org/pmrn/tier3/tier3interventions.htm Consider program demands against local resources: people, time, money.

31. Adams, M. J. (1994). Modeling the connections between word recognition and reading. In In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau, (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (54h ed.) (pp. 838-863). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Blachman, B.A., Tangel, D.M., Ball, E.W., Black, R., & McGraw, C. (1999). Developing phonological awareness and word recognition skills: a two-year intervention with low-income, inner-city children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 239-273. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P.E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421. Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp. 151-216). London: Academic Press. Ehri, L.C., & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 14, 135-163. Gillon, G. T., (2004). Phonological awareness: From research to practice. New York: Guilford Press. Juel,C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

32. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Ruddell, R.B., & Unrau, N.J. (2004). Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau, (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.) (pp. 1329-1362). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Share, D.L. (1998). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 95-129 Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276-286.