Michigan Reading Journal Michigan Reading Journal

Volume 33 Issue 1 Article 3

October 2000

Phonemic Awareness Measures: Identifying a Better Predictor of Phonemic Awareness Measures: Identifying a Better Predictor of

Reading Delay Reading Delay

Rebecca A. Golfus

Dona Johnson-Beach

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Golfus, Rebecca A. and Johnson-Beach, Dona (2000) "Phonemic Awareness Measures: Identifying a Better Predictor of Reading Delay," Michigan Reading Journal: Vol. 33 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj/vol33/iss1/3

From The Teachers & Writers Guide to Classic American Literature, edited by Christopher Edgar and Gary Lenhart, 2001, New York, NY: Teachers & Writers Collaborative. Copyright 2001 by Teachers & Writers Collaborative. Reprinted with permission.

This work is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Reading Journal by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact scholarworks@gvsu.edu.

REBECCA A. GOLFUS AND OONA JOHNSON-BEACH

Phonemic Awareness Measures: Identifying a Better Predictor of Reading Delay

Rebecca A. Golus is a fifth grade teacher in the Grosse Pointe Public School System. She has been teaching in the elementary grades eleven years and has a Master of Arts in Teaching from Saginaw Valley State University. She is cur­

rently a member of the Michigan Reading Association.

Dona Johnson-Beach is a school psychologist in the Grosse Pointe Public School System. Her varied background includes teaching students in regular and special education and remedial reading. She is currently a doctoral student in the fiekl of special education at ~yne State University.

4

Abstract This study investigated the effectiveness of three phonemic awareness measures to

detect delays in early reading acquisition. Subjects participated in three phonemic awareness tasks: blending, segmenting and phonemic deletion. Scores were then com­pared to oral reading accuracy rates to determine if one measure was a better predic­tor of reading delay. The Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation was found to have a moderate, positive relationship with delayed reading as measured by oral read­ing accuracy rates.

S tudents enter classrooms across the country with varying capabilities and skills. Within any classroom popula­tion there are students that are at-risk

for academic underachievement. Primary grade teachers spend a large portion of the school day focusing on reading readiness and literacy skills. These educators need tools at their fingertips that can provide information about which students should be targeted for remediation. Early intervention may help these students gain skills necessary for read­ing acquisition.

The study of phonological awareness dates back to the early research of Russian psy­chologists Zhurova (1963) and Elkonin (1973) where a connection was discovered between phonemic segmentation and later mastery of early reading skills. Subsequent research has continued to substantiate that language activities that promote phonemic awareness are associated with gains made in the areas of reading and spelling (Ball &

Blachman, 1991; Blachman & James, 1985). Furthermore, researchers have identified that deficiencies in phonological processing have been useful in explaining why many children easily grasp spoken language and the prob­lems some of these same children have in reading acquisition (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Catts, 1988, Liberman & Shankweiler, 1985; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987).

This topic of research investigates and explores why some children experience diffi­culty in the area of reading acquisition. Students lacking phonemic awareness are more likely to find learning to read and spell challenging. They see the alphabetic system as arbitrary, whereas, children who are able to learn the English alphabetic system realize that words can be broken into syllables and phonemes. They recognize that phonemes are a unit in the speech stream represented by a letter of the alphabet. These students will have a better likelihood of reading and spelling success (Adams, 1990; Ball &

MICHIGAN READING JOURNAL

Blachman, 1991; Ehri, 1991). Children who find reading difficult also

have problems in analysis of the phonologi­cal structure of speech. Support exists that training children in phonemic segmentation can help them with the task of learning to read (Williams, 1984). Children who under­stand the relationship between print and speech can find more success in learning to read (Spector, 1995). The breakdown of the components of a word and how it relates to the spoken sound is an essential key factor in the acquisition of reading. There are many children who naturally, through discovery, make sense of and gain a keen understanding of the alphabetic principles (Bissex, 1980; Sulzby, 1985; Yaden, Smolken, & Conlon, 1989). The difficulty some beginning readers find is due to the complex nature of the English alphabetic writing system. Students who have a learning disability may be less sensitive to the sounds within words and may not be able to detect these differences on their own.

Significance of the Study Studies have shown that there is a strong

link to a perception of phonological aware­ness and reading acquisition (Ball & Blachman, 1991; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Lundberg, Frost, & Peterson, 1988). Stanovich (1986, 1994) has indicated that phonological awareness is an even stronger predictor of achievement in reading than nonverbal intelligence, listening comprehen­sion, or even vocabulary. Phonological awareness has been shown to correlate more highly with the acquisition of reading skills than specific intelligence tests or assessments in the areas of reading readiness. In addition, research has demonstrated that phonological awareness may not only be a strong predic­tor but also a necessary prerequisite for mas­tery in reading acquisition (Bradley & Bryant, 1983, 1985). A study by Juel and Leavell (1988) concluded that beginning first grade students who do not possess phono­logical skills are not able to grasp spelling­sound relationships from print or profit from instruction in phonics.

REBECCA A. GOLUS AND OONA JOHNSON-BEACH

Phonological awareness can be measured using a variety of different tasks. Some activ­ities focus on phonological analysis, which refers to specific identification of individual phonemes. Examples of this type of task include having a child specify which word in a group would begin with the same sound as the sample word. A more challenging task of this type would include deleting a specific phoneme from a word (i.e., delete /1/ for the word 'blum'). Phonological syn­thesis looks at the ability to blend individual sounds to then make an identifiable word. For example, a student would be asked to combine the sounds /bl, /a/,

Phonological awareness has been shown to correlate more highly with the acqui­sition of reading skills than specific intelligence tests or assessments in the areas of reading readiness.

/ti to make "bat" (Torgesen, Morgan, & David, 1992). Other phonological awareness tasks include rhyming activities where stu­dents are to indicate whether particular words rhyme.

Research has proven that the most suc­cessful phonemic awareness training pro­grams are ones that provide instruction for beginning readers in both phoneme segmen­tation (analysis) and phoneme blending (syn­thesis) (Blachman, 1987; Wallach & Wallach, 1977; Williams, 1979, 1980). Training in both segmentation and blending in conjunction with instruction in letter­sound relationships can have a positive effect on reading achievement (Blachman 1987; Ball & Blachman, 19 91).

Teachers often have a common misconcep­tion that if they increase phonics instruction, then their students' phonemic awareness will also increase (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991; Juel, 1991). Phonics programs are beneficial for students to allow for exposure to letter-sound regularities. They do not, however, provide the in depth instruction necessary in sound blending and phoneme segmentation that students need if they are to become truly phonetically aware. When students learn letter-sound relationships,

VOLUME 33,_ Nol • SUMMER 2000 5

PHONEMIC AWARENESS MEASURES

they are learning more in the rote memo­rization of facts, whereas phonemic aware­ness implies the ability to analyze and syn­thesize the sound structure of words (Spector, 1995). Educators need to increase their understanding of and include phonemic awareness instruction in the classroom.

Statement of the Problem Due to the importance of students' acqui-

Educators need to increase their understanding of and include phonemic aware­ness instruction in the classroom.

sition of phono­logical awareness and its causal rela­tionship to read­ing development, educators need to identify at-risk students early in their educational programming.

This need to recognize at-risk students leads to an interest in examining different meas­ures of phonemic awareness to determine which are better predictors of delayed read­ing. This can lead to specific training to help these students achieve gains in reading devel­opment and spelling skills.

It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in predicting delayed reading based on the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation (1995), Rosner Test of Auditory Analysis (1971), or the Rosswell-Chall Test of Auditory Blending (1959) instruments used to assess phonemic awareness.

Methodology

Research Design A nonexperimental, correlational research

design was used in this study. The study con­sisted of one group who was tested in first grade using three measures: The Test of Auditory Analysis Skills (TAAS), the Yopp­Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation (TPS), and the Rosswell-Chall Test of Auditory Blending (TAB). Three times during their first grade year (fall, winter, spring) these students completed the Independent Reading Inventory (IRI) by their classroom teacher. Scores on the reading test were used as the dependent variable, while scores on

the TAAS, TPS, and TAB were used as the independent variables, to determine if read­ing scores were able to be predicted from TAAS, TPS, and TAB.

Participants Students enrolled in first grade classes in a

mid to upper middle class suburban commu­nity were asked to participate in this study. These students were first-time first grade students who were between 6 and 7 years of age and attended an all day first grade class. All students in the selected classes were allowed to participate pending their parents' approval.

Instrumentation Four instruments were used in this study.

These instruments, Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation (TPS), Test of Auditory Analysis Skills (TAAS), Test of Auditory Blending (TAB), and the Informal Reading Inventory (IRI) each measured a clif­f erent factor in student's reading skills and ability.

Data Collection The students were tested by the

researchers on the TPS, TAB and the TAAS in the fall of 1997. The age and sex of the student were obtained from the school records. The results of the IRI test scores for reading were obtained by the researchers from records at the end of the 1997-1998 school year. The IRI was administered by the classroom teacher as part of routine yearly assessment in reading. During the adminis­tration of the phonemic measures, the researcher utilized a uniform testing format procedure to question the participants. Students were required to respond by pro­viding a verbal response. The students' scores on the four measures were matched and any unmatched sets eliminated from the study.

Data Analysis The data collected for the study was

entered into a computer file for analysis using SPSS 7.5, Windows. The analysis included descriptive statistics to provide a profile of the students based on their age and

6 MICHIGAN READING JOURNAL

sex. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to determine if phonological awareness and auditory perceptual skills could be used to predict reading achievement scores. All decisions on the statistical signifi­cance of the findings were made using an alpha level of .05.

Results The majority of the students (n=27,

67.5%) in the fall were classified as having developing reading levels, with 13 (32.5%) classified as emergent. When tested during the winter, 2 (5.3%) students were classified as emergent and 10 (26.3%) were considered developing. Twenty-four (63.2%) were cate­gorized as transitional and 2 (5 .3%) had reading levels that were considered bridging. None of the students were categorized as emergent during the spring testing, with 6 (12.8%) students testing at the developing level. The reading levels of 24 (51.1 %) stu­dents were transitional and 17 (36.2%) were classified as bridging. Data was missing on 9 students during the fall testing, 11 students during the winter testing, and 2 students for the spring testing.

During the course of the school year, scores were obtained on the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation, Roswell-Chall Auditory Blending Test, Test of Auditory Analysis Skills, and three informal tests of comprehension and oral reading accuracy. The results of these tests were summarized using descriptive statistics.

The mean score for students on the Yopp­Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation was 15 .17 (sd=5 .65), with a median score of 17.00. Actual scores on this test could range froml.00 to 22.00. Possible scores could range to 22 with higher scores indicating students were more phonetically aware.

Students had a mean score of 26. 74 (sd = 1.14) on the Rosswell-Chall Auditory Blending Test. The median score on this test was 29.00, with actual scores ranging from 14.00 to 30.00. Possible scores on this test could range to 30 with higher scores reflect­ing better developed auditory blending skills.

Actual scores on the TAAS ranged from 1

REBECCA A. G0LUS AND OONA JoHNS0N-BEACH

to 12, with a median of 8. The mean score for students on this test was 7.09 (sd=3.23). Possible scores could range to 13, with high­er scores indicating a more highly developed ability to sort, order, and synthesize sound.

Scores on comprehension accuracy com­pleted during the fall had an average score of 59.69 (sd= 14.89), with a median of 61.50. Actual scores ranged from 15.40 to 92.30. During the winter, the mean score on com­prehension accuracy was 72.80 (sd= 12.41), with a median of 73.30. Actual scores on this test ranged from 46.70 to 93.30. The range of actual scores for comprehension accuracy during the spring was from 40.00 to 100.00, with a median of 90.00. The mean score was 86.34 (sd= 13.96). The scores are given in percentage of correct responses, with possi­ble scores ranging from 0.00% to 100.00% accuracy. Higher scores showed more accu­rate comprehension.

The scores on the TAAS, Yopp-Singer, and Roswell-Chall were used as the independent variables in a stepwise multiple linear regres­sion analysis. The dependent variables in this analysis were the spring oral reading accura­cy rates. Scores on the Yopp-Singer entered the stepwise multiple linear regression equa­tion, explaining 24% of the variance in oral reading accuracy rates measured during the fourth quarter of the first grade. The F ratio of 12.41 obtained for this analysis was statis­tically significant at an alpha level of .01. The results of this analysis indicated that the Yopp-Singer scores could be used to deter­mine oral reading accuracy rates. The other two measures of phonemic awareness were not significant predictors of oral reading accuracy. Delayed reading as determined by oral reading accuracy rates could be predict­ed from the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation.

Discussion In this present study, the researchers were

interested in exploring the possible relation­ship between measures of phonological awareness and its predictive value in detec­tion of reading delay. A moderate, positive relationship was found between the Yopp-

VOLUME 33, No 1 • SUMMER 2000 7

PHONEMIC AWARENESS MEASURES

Singer and the oral reading accuracy rate measured during the fourth quarter of the first grade. Neither the Roswell-Chall nor the Rosner Test of Auditory Analysis Skills were significant predictors of reading delay as measured by oral reading accuracy rates. This study concluded that the Yopp-Singer was the best predictor of delayed reading skills as

This study concluded that the Yopp-Singer was the best predictor of delayed reading skills as measured by reading accuracy.

measured by read-mg accuracy.

The researchers' results indicated that poor scores on the Yopp­Singer were strongly related to poor oral reading

rates. This result may indicate weaknesses in the students' grasp of phonemes and its rela­tionship to the written word. Students who experience difficulties in sound identification may have trouble with reading decoding skills. Further implications of poor decoding skills could lead to weaknesses in reading comprehension, as well as spelling as they progress through school.

The study further demonstrated that stu­dents learn to read at individualized rates. Implementing a comprehensive reading pro­gram and monitoring students' progress throughout the course of the year is crucial. The Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation can be a useful tool in identi­fying students at risk for reading delay. It is necessary to recognize at-risk students in a timely manner with a strategic intervention plan. This plan, which includes phonemic awareness training, can be beneficial and help students in the acquisition of reading skills and lead to a life-long appreciation of reading.

References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read:

Thinking about print and learning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.

Bissex, G. L. (1980). Gnys at wrk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Blachman, B. (1983). Are we assessing the lin­guistic factors critical in early reading? Annuals of Dyslexia, 33, 91-109.

Blachman, B., & James, S. (1985). Metalinguistic abilities and reading achieve­ment in first-grade children. In J. Niles & R. Lalik (Eds.), Issues in literacy: A research per­spective. Thirty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 280-286). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.

Blachman, B. A. (1987). An alternative class­room reading program for learning disabled and other low-achieving children. In W. Ellis (Ed.), Intimacy with language: A forgotten basic in teacher education, (pp. 49-55). Baltimore, MD: Orton Dyslexia Society.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to Read: A causal con­nection, Nature, 30, 419-421.

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Byrne, B. & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8 3, 4 51-4 5 5.

Catts, H. (1988). Defining dyslexia as a develop­mental language disorder. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Orton Dyslexia Society, Tampa, FL.

Ehri, L. C. (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading (Vol. 2, pp. 383-471). White Plains, NY: Longman.

8 MICHIGAN READING JOURNAL

Elkonin, D. B. (1963). The psychology of mas­tering the elements of reading. In B. Simon & J. Simon (Eds.), Educational Psychology in the USSR (165-170). London: Rouledge & Kegan Paul.

Juel, C. (1991). Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading (Vol. 2, pp. 759-788). White Plains, NY: Longman)

Juel, C., Griffith, P., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: a longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243-255.

Juel, C. & Leavell, J. A. (1988). Retention and nonretention of at-risk readers in first grade and their subsequent reading achievement. Journal of Reading Disabilities. 21, 571-580.

Liberman, I. Y. & Shankweiler, D. (1985). Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 8-17.

Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, 0. P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulat­ing phonemic awareness in preschool chil­dren. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 23 7 -256.

Rosner, J. & Simon, D. P. (1971). The Auditory Analysis Test: An Initial Report. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 40-48.

Roswell-Chall Auditory Blending Test. (1959). New York: Essay Press.

Spector, J. E. (1995). PHonemic awareness training; application of principles of direct instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 11, 3 7-51.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy, Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.

Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Romance and reason. The Reading Teacher, 47, 280-291.

Sulzby, E. (1985). Children's emergent reading of favorite storybooks. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 458-481.

REBECCA A. GOLUS AND DONA JOHNSON-BEACH

Torgesen, J. K., Morgan, S., & Davis, C. (1992). The effects of two types of phono­logical awareness training on word learning in kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 364-370.

Wagner, R., & Torgesen, J. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192-212.

Wallach, M., & Wallach, L., (1977). Teaching all children to read. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Williams, J. (1979). The ABC's of reading. A program for the learning disabled. In L. B. Resnick & P.A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 3, pp. 179-195), Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.

Williams, J. P. (1980). Teaching decoding with an emphasis on phoneme analysis and phoneme blending. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 1-15.

Williams, J. (1984). Phonemic analysis and how it relates to reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17 , 240-245.

Yalden, D. B., Smolken, L. B., & Conlon, A. (1989). Preschoolers' questions about pic­tures, print convention, and story text dur­ing reading aloud at home. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 188-214.

Yopp, H. K. (1992). Longitudinal study of the relationships between phonemic awareness and reading and spelling achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA., USA.

Yopp, H. K. (1995). A test for assessing phone­mic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 29, 20-29.

Zhurova, L. E. (1963). The development of analysis of words into their sounds by pre­school children. Soviet Psychology and Psychiatry, 72, 17-27.

VOLUME 33, Nol • SUMMER 2000 9

2001: A Learning Odyssey

45th Michigan Reading Association Conference March 10"13, 2001

Amway Grand • Grand Rapids, Ml

10 MICHIGAN READING JOURNAL